united states v. ramos-gonzalez, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/55

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 1610, 13- 1263

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

CRUZ ROBERTO RAMOS- GONZLEZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udgesand Gel p , * Di st r i ct J udge.

Li nda Backi el f or appel l ant .Di na vi l a- J i mnez, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel sonPr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at eDi vi si on, and J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 6, 2015

*Of t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/55

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Cr uz Rober t o Ramos-

Gonzl ez ( "Ramos") was t r i ed a second t i me on a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

char ge af t er t hi s cour t concl uded t hat hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o

conf r ont at i on had been vi ol at ed at hi s f i r st t r i al . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 664 F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Ramos was

agai n convi ct ed of possessi ng more t han 500 gr ams of cocai ne wi t h

t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e t he nar cot i c. He now r ai ses numer ous

chal l enges t o t hat second convi ct i on and t he resul t i ng 327- mont h

sent ence. Al t hough we f i nd no r ever si bl e t r i al er r or , we concl ude

t hat a r emand f or r esent enci ng i s necessary. I n desi gnat i ng Ramos

as a car eer of f ender under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, t he di st r i ct

cour t r el i ed on a pr edi cat e of f ense t hat does not - - on t he r ecor d

bef ore us - - qual i f y f or t hat pur pose. Hence, Ramos must be

r esent enced wi t hout t he car eer of f ender enhancement .

I.

A. Factual Background

The f act s of t he cr i me, as t he j ur y coul d have f ound

t hem, ar e as f ol l ows. On J ul y 4, 2002, t wo Puer t o Ri co pol i ce

of f i cer s on t r af f i c dut y at t empt ed t o st op a red pi ckup t r uck owned

by Ramos because t he vehi cl e' s wi ndows were t i nt ed darker t han

per mi t t ed by l aw. The dr i ver i gnor ed t he pol i ce car ' s si r en and

f l ashi ng l i ght s and sped away, wi t h t he of f i cer s, J avi er Reyes-

Fl or es ( "Reyes" ) , and Wanda Vl ez- Moj i ca ( "Vl ez) , i n pur sui t . The

t r uck soon cr ashed, and t he dr i ver exi t ed t he vehi cl e. Af t er

-2-


3/55

br i ef l y l ooki ng at Reyes and r ai si ng hi s ar ms, t he dr i ver t ur ned

and f l ed. Al t hough Reyes pur sued hi m over a f ence, t he dr i ver

successf ul l y avoi ded capt ur e.

Meanwhi l e, back at t he now- abandoned t r uck, Vl ez had

f ound t wo pl ast i c- wr apped bl ocks, subsequent l y det ermi ned t o be

cocai ne, on t he dr i ver ' s si de f l oor . Among t he ot her i t ems f ound

i n t he vehi cl e wer e $1, 068 i n cash, t r af f i c t i cket s i ssued t o

Ramos, hi s Soci al Secur i t y car d, pl ast i c bags hol di ng ei ght een

bul l et s, some cel l ul ar phones, and t wo f or ms of i dent i f i cat i on wi t h

phot os of Ramos - - hi s dr i ver ' s l i cense and el ect or al car d. Based

on t he photos, Reyes i dent i f i ed Ramos as t he dr i ver who had f l ed.

Reyes al so r ecogni zed Ramos as t he same i ndi vi dual whomhe had seen

on t wo ot her r ecent occasi ons when he was i nvest i gat i ng a

motorcycl e acci dent . 1

B. Procedural Background

Ramos was i ni t i al l y pr osecut ed on dr ug charges by Puer t o

Ri co aut hor i t i es, but t he commonweal t h pr oceedi ngs ended at t he

pr el i mi nar y hear i ng st age wi t h a f i ndi ng of no pr obabl e cause. I n

J une 2007, about a week bef or e t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons woul d

have expi r ed on t he 2002 epi sode, f eder al aut hor i t i es f i l ed an

i ndi ct ment char gi ng appel l ant wi t h one count of possessi on wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e more t han 500 gr ams of cocai ne. See 21 U. S. C.

1 Bot h t i mes, Reyes saw Ramos accompanyi ng t he mot her of ayoung man who was i nj ured i n t he acci dent .

-3-


4/55

841( a) ( 1) . Appel l ant el uded ar r est f or t wo year s, unt i l Apr i l

2009, when he was t aken i nt o cust ody i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c.

Lat er t hat year , a j ur y f ound appel l ant gui l t y of t he dr ug

t r af f i cki ng cr i me, and he was sent enced t o 327 mont hs i n pr i son.

Thi s cour t vacat ed t hat convi ct i on because of a vi ol at i on of

appel l ant ' s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o conf r ont at i on, whi ch occur r ed

when a chemi st was al l owed t o t est i f y about t he resul t s of a dr ug

anal ysi s t hat he di d not per f orm. See Ramos- Gonzl ez, 664 F. 3d at

2.

Appel l ant was ret r i ed i n ear l y 2012. At t hat second

t r i al , he of f er ed a new al i bi def ense: he had been at t he beach

wi t h sever al peopl e, i ncl udi ng t he mot her of one of hi s chi l dr en,

on t he day of t he hi gh- speed chase i n 2002. I n addi t i on, he

pr esent ed a wi t ness who i dent i f i ed someone el se - - t he wi t ness' s

br ot her , now deceased - - as t he dr i ver of Ramos' s t r uck t hat day.

The j ur y nonet hel ess agai n f ound appel l ant gui l t y of t he dr ug

possessi on charge.

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t t r eat ed appel l ant as a

car eer of f ender based on t wo pr i or convi ct i ons under Puer t o Ri co

l aw. See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( a) . 2 One of t he pr i or cr i mes - - a 1991

convi ct i on f or f i r st - degr ee mur der - - undi sput edl y qual i f i es as a

2 Sect i on 4B1. 1( a) appl i es car eer of f ender st at us t o adef endant , age ei ght een or ol der , who commi t s a f el ony that i sei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a dr ug of f ense, and who "has at l eastt wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or acont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. "

-4-


5/55

pr edi cat e of f ense f or car eer of f ender pur poses. The ot her

qual i f yi ng convi ct i on was based on a par agr aph i n appel l ant ' s

Pr esent ence Repor t ( "PSR") l i st i ng a 1987 char ge under Ar t i cl e 256

of t he Puer t o Ri co Penal Code, whi ch cr i mi nal i zed t he "use[ ] [ of ]

vi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on agai nst a publ i c of f i ci al or empl oyee. "

See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 33, 4491 ( 1998) . 3 The par agr aph al so

i ncl uded under t he same dat e t he not at i on "Di st . Cont . Subst ances, "

evi dent l y descr i bi ng a dr ug cri me ( i . e. , di st r i but i ng cont r ol l ed

subst ances) . I n expl ai ni ng t hi s convi ct i on, t he PSR st at es:

"Accordi ng t o t he j udi ci al document s, on November 15, 1986, t he

def endant possessed wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e 2. 68 gr ams of

cocai ne. He f ur t her r esi st ed t he ar r est by pushi ng and gr abbi ng

one PRPD of f i cer . " The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed appel l ant ' s

obj ect i on t hat t he suppor t i ng document s wer e not "of f i ci al . "

The cour t ' s use of t he car eer of f ender cl assi f i cat i on

r esul t ed i n a Base Of f ense Level ( "BOL") of 34 and a Cr i mi nal

3 Puer t o Ri co' s Penal Code was r evi sed i n 2004 and 2012, andt he cur r ent ver si on of t hi s pr ovi si on i s now codi f i ed as 5335.The ear l i er ver si on of t he st at ut e pr ovi ded, i n r el evant par t :

Any per son who uses vi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on agai nst apubl i c of f i ci al or empl oyee t o compel hi m/ her t o per f or man act cont r ar y t o hi s/ her dut i es or t o omi t an act

i nher ent t o hi s/ her of f i ce, or who, by the use ofvi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on, of f er s r esi st ance t o sai dof f i ci al or empl oyee i n t he per f or mance of hi s/ herdut i es, shal l be puni shed by [ i mpr i sonment or a f i ne, orbot h] .

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 33, 4491 ( 1998) .

-5-


6/55

Hi st or y Cat egor y ( "CHC") of VI , wi t h a Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange

of 262 t o 327 mont hs. Wi t hout car eer of f ender st at us, appel l ant

woul d have had a BOL of 30 and a CHC of V, wi t h a Gui del i nes r ange

of 151 t o 188 mont hs. The di st r i ct cour t i mposed t he hi gh end of

t he hi gher r ange, 327 mont hs.

On appeal , Ramos asser t s t hat hi s convi ct i on must be

vacat ed and hi s i ndi ct ment di smi ssed because he was deni ed due

pr ocess by t he f eder al aut hor i t i es' pr e- i ndi ct ment del ay. He al so

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made mul t i pl e er r or s at t r i al ,

i ncl udi ng r ef usal t o al l ow an al i bi wi t ness, r ej ect i ng a mi ssi ng

wi t ness i nst r uct i on, and mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y wi t h i t s i nst r uct i ons

on possessi on. He f ur t her cl ai ms t hat hi s sent ence i s bot h

er r oneousl y cal cul at ed and unr easonabl y har sh. Fi nal l y, he

mai nt ai ns t hat t he cour t shoul d have di smi ssed t he case agai nst hi m

because of government mi sconduct . 4

II.

We t ur n f i r st t o Ramos' s cl ai ms r el at i ng t o hi s

convi ct i on, begi nni ng wi t h t he t wo asser t ed pr obl ems t hat Ramos

says r equi r e di smi ssal of t he char ge agai nst hi m.

4 The mi sconduct cl ai m was asser t ed i n a post - t r i al mot i ont hat was submi t t ed i n Apr i l 2012 and deni ed i n Febr uary 2013. Aseparate appeal of t hat deni al ( No. 13- 1263) was subsequent l yconsol i dat ed wi t h t he pr evi ousl y f i l ed appeal of t he convi ct i on andsent ence ( No. 12- 1610) . Thi s opi ni on t her ef or e addr esses bot happeal s.

-6-


7/55

A. Pre-indictment Delay

Shor t l y af t er t hi s cour t vacat ed Ramos' s or i gi nal

convi ct i on and r emanded t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t , Ramos f i l ed

a renewed mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment on t he gr ound t hat t he

gover nment ' s del ay i n f i l i ng t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng char ge vi ol at ed

hi s due pr ocess r i ght s. He emphasi zed t hat t he i ndi ct ment had been

br ought a week bef or e t he f i ve- year l i mi t at i ons per i od woul d have

bar r ed hi s prosecut i on, and t he second t r i al woul d occur mor e than

ni ne year s af t er t he event s at i ssue. Ramos compl ai ned t hat t he

passage of t i me had er oded hi s abi l i t y t o mount a vi gorous def ense

because of di mmed memor i es and t he l oss of wi t nesses and evi dence.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on wi t h a docket or der ,

and we r evi ew t hat deci si on f or abuse of di scr et i on, Uni t ed St at es

v. Bat er , 594 F. 3d 51, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . 5 We have obser ved t hat

"excessi ve pr e- i ndi ct ment del ay can somet i mes, al bei t r ar el y,

vi ol ate t he Fi f t h Amendment ' s Due Pr ocess Cl ause i f t he def endant

shows bot h t hat t he ' del ay caused subst ant i al pr ej udi ce t o hi s

r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al ' and t hat ' t he [ g] over nment i nt ent i onal l y

del ayed i ndi ct ment . . . t o gai n a t act i cal advant age. ' " I d. at 54

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pi cci andr a, 788 F. 2d 39, 42 ( 1st Ci r .

5 As we noted i n Bater , some mat t er s subj ect t o t he abuse- of -di scr et i on st andar d wi l l encompass subsi di ar y i ssues of f act - -"f or whi ch cl ear er r or i s t he cust omar y t est " - - or "mi st akes onabst r act i ssues of l aw [ t hat ar e] r evi ewed de novo. " 594 F. 3d at54 n. 1.

-7-


8/55

1986) ) ( al t er at i on and omi ssi on i n or i gi nal ) ; see al so Uni t ed

St ates v. Mar i on, 404 U. S. 307, 325 ( 1971) .

I n asser t i ng pr ej udi ce, Ramos cl ai ms t hat he was deni ed

t he oppor t uni t y t o pr esent t he t est i mony of J os Nr i s Rodr guez

( " J os Nr i s" ) , who Ramos mai nt ai ns was t he dr i ver i nvol ved i n t he

hi gh- speed chase and who di ed i n 2006, whi l e t he gover nment was

abl e t o t ake advant age of t he del ay by aski ng each t est i f yi ng

def ense wi t ness why he or she had wai t ed so l ong t o come f or war d

wi t h t hei r excul pat or y t est i mony. 6 Ramos al so cl ai ms pr ej udi ce i n

t he di sappear ance of "t wo cri t i cal sour ces of i dent i f i cat i on

evi dence" : a pai r of f l i p- f l ops f ound near t he abandoned r ed t r uck

and a f anny pack bel ongi ng t o J os Nr i s t hat he cl ai ms was i n t he

t r uck. He ci t es as wel l t he l oss of r ecor di ngs made at t he

pr el i mi nary hear i ng i n commonweal t h cour t , whi ch he descr i bes as

"i nval uabl e t ool s" t o conf r ont Of f i cer Reyes about hi s i nabi l i t y t o

i dent i f y Ramos as t he dr i ver shor t l y af t er t he event s.

The gover nment of f er s r ej oi nder s t o each of t hese cl ai med

di sadvant ages, emphasi zi ng t hat most depend on "r ank conj ect ur e" - -

par t i cul ar l y Ramos' s assumpt i on t hat J os Nr i s woul d have

i mpl i cat ed hi msel f as t he dr i ver of t he t r uck and, hence, possessor

of t he cocai ne. The gover nment al so chal l enges Ramos' s asser t i on

t hat a f anny pack bel ongi ng t o Nr i s was f ound i n the vehi cl e,

6 Ramos poi nt s i n par t i cul ar t o the quest i oni ng of J osNr i s' s brot her , Hct or ; Ger ar do Cr uz, a byst ander t o t he chase;and J ohanna Ber mdez, hi s chi l d' s mother .

-8-


9/55

not i ng t hat such an i t emdoes not appear on any i nvent or y l i st , and

i t asser t s t hat t he shar p cr oss- exami nat i on of def ense wi t nesses

r esul t ed not f r om t he passage of t i me but f r om t he wi t nesses'

f ai l ur e t o i nf or m i nvest i gat or s ear l y on of t hei r supposed

knowl edge of t he event s. Mor eover , t he gover nment not es t hat Ramos

was abl e t o pr esent hi s al i bi def ense t hr ough wi t nesses ot her t han

J os Nr i s, "even i f not t o t he f ul l ext ent he desi r ed. " Uni t ed

St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d 36, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

We need not dwel l on t he i ssue of pr ej udi ce, however ,

because we f i nd no evi dence that t he government pur posef ul l y

del ayed t he i ndi ct ment t o gai n a t act i cal advant age at t r i al .

Ramos urges us t o f i nd si ni st er mot i ve i n t he gover nment ' s deci si on

t o br i ng t hi s case on t he eve of a separ at e 47- def endant , t en- count

i ndi ct ment al l egi ng t hat he was t he ki ngpi n of a mul t i - year dr ug

t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy. Tr i al i n t he conspi r acy case or i gi nal l y

was set f or mi d- August 2009, t wo weeks bef or e t he t r i al i n t hi s

case, 7 and Ramos argues t hat t he near l y si mul t aneous pr osecut i ons

wer e pr obl emat i c f or hi m and advant ageous f or t he gover nment .

Ramos cl ai ms he f el t pr essure t o pl ead gui l t y i n one of t he cases,

and he asser t s t hat a r esol ut i on i n one case woul d "vi r t ual l y

pr ecl ude hi s exer ci si ng hi s r i ght t o t est i f y i n t he second. "8

7 The conspi r acy t r i al event ual l y began i n mi d- Oct ober 2009,l ess t han a mont h af t er t he t r i al i n t hi s case.

8 Ramos' s or i gi nal convi ct i on i n t he case now bef or e usoccur r ed on September 25, 2009, and he was convi ct ed on si x counts

-9-


10/55

Al t hough t he back- t o- back t r i al schedul e was no doubt

di f f i cul t f or Ramos, we see no evi dence t hat t he t i mi ng was

orchest r ated by t he gover nment f or t he pur pose of i mposi ng t hat

bur den. I ndeed, t he gover nment coul d not have known t hat t he

compl ex mul t i - def endant case woul d be set f or t r i al at t he same

t i me as t hi s si ngl e- count pr osecut i on agai nst onl y Ramos. 9 The

gover nment at t r i but es t he l engt h of t he del ay t o t he case' s

t r ansf er f r omcommonweal t h cour t t o f eder al cour t , f ol l owed by t he

case' s shi f t i ng assi gnment among pr osecut ors. At or al argument ,

gover nment counsel expl ai ned that , i n her r ol e as l ead pr osecut or

i n t he conspi r acy i nvest i gat i on, she was al er t ed t o t hi s case and

di scover ed t hat t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons was about t o expi r e.

She t her ef or e " t r i ed t o move as qui ckl y as possi bl e" i n secur i ng an

i ndi ct ment .

Ramos has of f er ed no reason f or us t o di scr edi t t he

gover nment ' s pl ausi bl e expl anat i on and, hence, no basi s f or us t o

concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng

hi s mot i on t o di smi ss f or pre- i ndi ct ment del ay. As we have

i n t he conspi r acy case on November 3, 2009. I n t he conspi r acycase, he was sent enced i n Apr i l 2012 t o l i f e t er ms on f i ve count sand a concur r ent 240- mont h sent ence on anot her count , al l of whi char e t o be served concur r ent l y wi t h t he sent ence i n t hi s case. An

appeal i s pendi ng i n t he conspi r acy case.9 Al t hough t he or i gi nal i ndi ct ment s wer e i ssued i n cl ose

successi on - - i n J une 2007 f or t he i nst ant case and i n August 2007f or t he conspi r acy case - - a super sedi ng i ndi ct ment was i ssued i nt he conspi r acy case i n Febr uary 2008, and a super sedi ng i ndi ct mentwas i ssued i n t hi s case more t han a year l ater , i n May 2009.

-10-


11/55

obser ved, " [ t ] he Due Pr ocess Cl ause has onl y a l i mi t ed r ol e i n t hi s

cont ext because t he st at ut es of l i mi t at i ons pr ovi de t he pr i mar y

pr ot ect i on agai nst undue pr e- i ndi ct ment del ays. " DeCol oger o, 530

F. 3d at 78. Al t hough t here may be i nst ances when pr osecut or i al

del ay wi l l be suf f i ci ent l y egr egi ous t o suppor t a due pr ocess

vi ol at i on even absent t act i cal pur pose, t hi s i s not such a case.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Lovasco, 431 U. S. 783, 795 n. 17 ( 1977) ( not i ng

t he gover nment ' s concessi on t hat due pr ocess mi ght be vi ol ated by

del ay "i ncur r ed i n r eckl ess di sr egar d of ci r cumst ances, known t o

t he pr osecut i on, suggest i ng t hat t her e exi st ed an appr eci abl e r i sk

t hat del ay woul d i mpai r t he abi l i t y t o mount an ef f ect i ve def ense"

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

B. Government Misconduct

Three days bef or e t he r et r i al i n t hi s case, t he

government pr ovi ded Ramos wi t h FBI r epor t s ( "302 Repor t s" )

r ecount i ng i nt ervi ews t hat had been conduct ed i n 2006 and 2007 wi t h

t he t wo of f i cers, Reyes and Vl ez, who had been i nvol ved i n t he

2002 vehi cl e chase. The cont ent of Reyes' s i nt ervi ews was

consi st ent wi t h hi s t est i mony at t he f i r st t r i al , but t he 302

r epor t s of Vl ez' s st at ement s r eveal ed conf l i ct s wi t h her t r i al

t est i mony. I n par t i cul ar , one 302 Repor t st at ed t hat Vl ez had

sai d she "di d not see t he dr i ver ' s f ace dur i ng or af t er t he chase, "

whi l e at t r i al she t est i f i ed t hat she not i ced Ramos' s "l i ght -

col or ed eyes. " Ramos moved t o excl ude Vl ez as a government

-11-


12/55

wi t ness at t he second t r i al because of t he i nconsi st enci es, but

f ol l owi ng t hat mot i on nei t her t he gover nment nor t he def ense sought

t o cal l Vl ez to t est i f y. 10

Af t er Ramos was convi ct ed and sent enced f or t he second

t i me, he moved t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment f or pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct . I n t he por t i on of t he mot i on most per t i nent her e, he

compl ai ned t hat t he gover nment had i nt ent i onal l y conceal ed mater i al

evi dence - - t he 302 r epor t s of Vl ez' s i nt er vi ews - - t hat woul d

have r eveal ed her f al se t est i mony at t he f i r st t r i al . See Br ady v.

Mar yl and, 373 U. S. 83, 87 ( 1963) ( hol di ng that , upon request ,

pr osecut i on must t ur n over t o the def ense f avorabl e evi dence t hat

i s mat er i al t o gui l t or puni shment ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bagl ey, 473

U. S. 667, 676 ( 1985) ( hol di ng t hat t he dut y t o di scl ose extends t o

i mpeachment evi dence) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d 179,

195 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( expl ai ni ng t hat one t ype of Br ady vi ol at i on

occur s when "undi scl osed evi dence shows t hat pr osecut or s knowi ngl y

used per j ur ed t est i mony or al l owed f al se t est i mony t o go

uncor r ect ed") . I n addi t i on, t he mot i on char ged a " r ecur r ent

pat t er n of conceal ment and decept i on, " ci t i ng t he same pr osecut or ' s

bel ated di scl osur e of evi dence i n t he cont emporaneous conspi r acy

10 The gover nment expl ai ned that i t acqui esced t o def ensecounsel ' s mot i on t hat Vl ez be pr ecl uded as a wi t ness because "wehad gi ven hi m t he 302 l ast Fri day, and i t woul dn' t be f ai r f or hi mt o cr oss- exami ne her so l at e. So t hat ' s why we l ef t her out ,concedi ng t o hi s mot i on. "

-12-


13/55

case i n whi ch Ramos al so was a def endant . 11 Ramos ar gued t hat

di smi ssal of t he i ndi ct ment was t he appr opr i at e sanct i on f or

per si st ent gover nment conduct "under t aken wi t h such f l agr ant

di sr egar d f or Mr . Ramos- Gonzal ez' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. "

I n consi der i ng t he mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t addr essed

bot h t he al l eged mi sconduct i n t hi s case ( t he possessi on case) - -

al l owi ng Vl ez to t est i f y f al sel y at Ramos' s f i r st t r i al - - and t he

al l eged wi t hhol di ng of evi dence i n t he separ at e, 47- def endant

conspi r acy case. Wi t h r espect t o t he possessi on case, t he cour t

f ound no pr ej udi ce because Vl ez di d not t est i f y at t he second

t r i al : "[ A] ny er r or her conf l i ct i ng t est i mony may have or i gi nal l y

i nt r oduced was cur ed i n t hi s subsequent and new t r i al . " Uni t ed

St ates v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, No. 3: 07- cr - 00262- J AF, Memorandum and

Or der ( D. P. R. Feb. 1, 2013) , at 5 ( "Memorandumand Or der " ) . As f or

t he gover nment ' s al l egedl y i mpr oper act i ons i n t he conspi r acy

pr osecut i on, t he cour t l ooked t o a deci si on i ssued i n t hat case on

t he def endant s' mot i on f or a new t r i al . I n r ej ect i ng a Br ady cl ai m

based on some of t he same al l egat i ons of mi sconduct , a di f f er ent

t r i al j udge had concl uded t hat t he undi scl osed document s wer e

ei t her cumul at i ve or col l at er al i mpeachment evi dence, Uni t ed St at es

11 The mot i on asser t ed that i n the conspi r acy case t hegover nment had, i nt er al i a, i mpr oper l y wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on aboutbenef i t s pr ovi ded t o t he gover nment ' s "st ar wi t ness, " Har r y Smi t hDel gado- Cauel as ( "Del gado") , who was a cooperat i ng co- def endant ,and bel at edl y pr ovi ded copi es of not es Del gado made memor i al i zi nghi s conver sat i ons wi t h ot her def endant s.

-13-


14/55

v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 747 F. Supp. 2d 280, 294 ( D. P. R. 2010) , and t hat

t he pr osecut or had not wi t hhel d evi dence i n bad f ai t h, i d. at 288.

The cour t i n t hi s case adopt ed and r eaf f i r med t hat assessment of

t he gover nment ' s act i ons i n t he conspi r acy t r i al : "The gover nment

nei t her commi t t ed a Br ady vi ol at i on nor engaged i n pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct when i t pr oduced mat er i al s t o t he def ense post - t r i al . "

Memorandumand Or der , at 4 ( ci t i ng Ramos- Gonzl ez, 747 F. Supp. 2d

at 294; Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, No. 07- 318, 2011 WL

2144215, at *2 ( D. P. R. May 31, 2011) ) . Concl udi ng t hat Ramos

suf f er ed no pr ej udi ce i n ei t her t he conspi r acy t r i al or t he

possessi on r et r i al , t he cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o di smi ss.

A di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o deny a mot i on t o di smi ss

based on pr osecut or i al mi sconduct i s r evi ewed f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Dancy, 640 F. 3d 455, 463 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . 12 We pr evi ousl y have r ecogni zed t hat , gi ven " t he

const i t ut i onal l y mandated i ndependence of t he gr and j ur y and t he

pr osecut or , cour t s shoul d be r el uct ant t o di smi ss an i ndi ct ment . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Sant i ago, 872 F. 2d 1073, 1088 ( 1st Ci r .

1989) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Mor eover , once a

def endant has been convi ct ed, t he sanct i on of di smi ssi ng an

i ndi ct ment " i s empl oyed i n onl y t r ul y ext r eme cases of egr egi ous

12 The government argues t hat t hi s i ssue was not adequat el ypr eserved and t hat , accor di ngl y, we shoul d appl y pl ai n er r orr evi ew. Because t he cl ai mdoes not succeed even under t he st andardf or pr eser ved er r or , we need not , and do not , consi der i t st i mel i ness.

-14-


15/55

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , " i d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ,

and onl y wher e the mi sconduct " ' so poi soned t he wel l ' t hat i t

l i kel y af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al , " Dancy, 640 F. 3d at 463

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Azubi ke, 504 F. 3d 30, 39 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ) .

We ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scr et i on i n r ef usi ng t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment her e. The

unr eveal ed i nconsi st ency i n Vl ez' s st at ement s r el at es t o

i mpeachment r at her t han i nnocence. Mor eover , t he undi scl osed

r epor t s al so di f f er ed on t he di sput ed f act . The FBI 302 Repor t i n

whi ch Vl ez i s quot ed as sayi ng she di d not see t he dr i ver ' s f ace

- - a st at ement i nconsi st ent wi t h her t r i al t est i mony - - i s dat ed

J une 25, 2007. However , i n a r epor t pr epar ed ei ghteen mont hs

ear l i er , i n J anuar y 2006, she descr i bed t he dr i ver as she had at

t r i al as havi ng "l i ght col or ed eyes. " The l at er r epor t not es t hat

Vl ez "opened t he i nt er vi ew by st at i ng t hat she di d not have her

not es of an i nci dent whi ch occur r ed on J ul y 4, 2002" and t hat she

"at t empt ed t o pr ovi de t he f act s of t hat i nci dent as wel l as she

coul d f r ommemory. " The di scr epanci es bet ween t he t wo FBI r epor t s,

t oget her wi t h t he di scl ai mer i n t he second r epor t suggest i ng t hat

t he ear l i er one may be more accur at e, i nevi t abl y woul d have r educed

t he i mpact of t he i nconsi st ency bet ween Vl ez' s t r i al t est i mony and

t he J une 2007 r epor t . Mor eover , al t hough t he di scl osur e shoul d

have come ear l i er , t he gover nment pr ovi ded t he repor t s bef ore the

-15-


16/55

r et r i al began. I n t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t

suppor t abl y concl uded t hat t he gover nment ' s nondi scl osur e and i t s

use of Vl ez' s t est i mony i n t he f i r st t r i al was not an ext r eme case

of prosecut or i al mi sconduct . See Ri ver a- Sant i ago, 872 F. 2d at

1088.

I n addi t i on, as t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed, any

pr ej udi ce ar i s i ng f r omt he f ai l ur e t o di scl ose Vl ez' s conf l i ct i ng

r epor t s di d not r ecur at t he second t r i al because the gover nment

di d not cal l her as a wi t ness. Nonet hel ess, Vl ez r emai ned

avai l abl e, and i f Ramos' s counsel had t hought i t usef ul t o r eveal

t he i nconsi st enci es i n her st at ement s, she coul d have been cal l ed

as a def ense wi t ness. 13

Nor can we concl ude that t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on i n r ej ect i ng t he mot i on t o di smi ss based on t he

government ' s cumul at i ve conduct i n Ramos' s t wo i ndependent cases.

As an i ni t i al mat t er , t he di st r i ct cour t i n t he conspi r acy case

13 I n passi ng, Ramos al so compl ai ns t hat t he FBI 302 r epor t sr eveal an i nconsi st ency i nvol vi ng Vl ez' s t est i mony i n t he f i r stt r i al t hat , bef or e the car chase, she had seen Ramos i n hernei ghbor hood br i ngi ng vehi cl es t o "a ki d who washes car s. " I n t he2007 FBI 302, Vl ez st at ed t hat she had never seen t he person sheknew by r eputat i on as "Rober t Bel l eza" - - a name used by Ramos - -bef ore t he car chase. That r epor t and her t est i mony are notnecessar i l y i nconsi st ent . Vl ez t est i f i ed t hat she f i r st connect ed

t he per son i n her nei ghborhood wi t h Ramos/ Bel l eza dur i ng t he post -chase i nvest i gat i on. Her 302 st at ement may be underst ood,consi st ent l y, t o repor t t hat she had never pr evi ousl y associ at edt he f ami l i ar f ace wi t h t he al so f ami l i ar name. I n any event , t heof f endi ng evi dence was not i nt r oduced at t he second t r i al , andRamos coul d have, but di d not , cal l Vl ez as a wi t ness t o expl oi tany such i nconsi st ency.

-16-


17/55

t ook t he def endant s' Br ady cl ai ms ser i ousl y, conduct ed an

evi dent i ary hear i ng, and wr ot e a t hought f ul opi ni on expl ai ni ng why

t he al l eged vi ol at i ons t her e di d not war r ant a new t r i al . See

Ramos- Gonzl ez, 747 F. Supp. 2d at 291- 97. 14 Gi ven such car ef ul

t r eat ment , t hat cour t ' s j udgment t hat no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on

occur r ed i n t he t r i al over whi ch i t pr esi ded i s owed def er ence by

bot h t he di st r i ct cour t i n t he i nst ant case and by us on appeal .

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mat hur , 624 F. 3d 498, 504 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( not i ng t hat t he t r i al cour t ' s "vi ews about t he l i kel y i mpact

of newl y di scl osed evi dence deser ve consi der abl e def er ence" because

"[ t ] he t r i al j udge, havi ng seen and hear d t he wi t nesses at f i r st

hand, has a speci al sense ' of t he ebb and f l ow of t he r ecent l y

concl uded t r i al ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302,

313 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) . I n addi t i on, we al r eady have descr i bed t he

l i mi t ed si gni f i cance of t he ci t ed nondi scl osur es i n t hi s case.

Hence, even t aki ng t he gover nment ' s f ai l ur es i n combi nat i on, t he

di st r i ct cour t coul d pr oper l y concl ude t hat di smi ssal was

unwar r ant ed. 15

14 The cour t i n the conspi r acy case al so subsequent l y deni edRamos' s mot i on t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment i n that case based on t hesame f ai l ur e by t he pr osecut i on t o t ur n over t he evi dence. SeeRamos- Gonzl ez, 2011 WL 2144215, at *1; see al so supr a not e 11.

15 We add t wo br i ef comment s on t hi s cl ai m. Fi r st , we r ej ectRamos' s cont ent i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed r ever si bl eer r or i n r ef usi ng t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. As not ed above,a hear i ng was hel d i n t he conspi r acy case. Onl y l i mi t ed addi t i onalgovernment behavi or was chal l enged here, and t he cour t t hus act edwi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat anot her hear i ng was

-17-


18/55

Though we f i nd no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r esol ut i on of t he pr osecut or i al mi sconduct cl ai m, and no basi s f or

f i ndi ng bad f ai t h by the pr osecut or s i n t hese cases, we nonet hel ess

expr ess concer n about t he r epeated nondi scl osur e of evi dence. As

not ed above, i mpeachment evi dence, as wel l as excul pat ory evi dence,

i s cover ed by t he pr i nci pl es of Br ady and r el at ed cases. See

e. g. , Dr umgol d v. Cal l ahan, 707 F. 3d 28, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ;

Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d at 195. Mor ever , pr osecut or s i n ever y case

- - even i n a di st r i ct wi t h a bur densome and congest ed cr i mi nal

docket , such as Puer t o Ri co - - have a dut y to l ear n of evi dence

f avor abl e t o t he accused t hat i s " known t o t he ot her s act i ng on t he

gover nment ' s behal f i n t he case, i ncl udi ng t he pol i ce. " Kyl es v.

Whi t l ey, 514 U. S. 419, 437 ( 1995) . The Uni t ed St at es At t or ney' s

Of f i ce shoul d devel op pr ocedur es t o avoi d r epeat i ng t he l apses t hat

occur r ed i n these cases.

unnecessar y.Second, Ramos' s mot i on t o di smi ss al so compl ai ned t hat t he

government had vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o counsel ofchoi ce by i nvest i gat i ng whet her hi s at t or ney hel ped f abr i cat e hi sal i bi def ense, t her eby i nt i mi dat i ng counsel and "est abl i sh[ i ng] a

per se and act ual conf l i ct of i nt er est by pl aci ng Counsel ' si nt er est s at odds wi t h t he Def endant ' s. " That post - t r i ali nvest i gat i on coul d not have cont r i but ed, however , t o t he j ur y' sver di ct of gui l t , and i t t her ef or e does not assi st Ramos' s ef f or tt o show pr ej udi ce. Mor eover , t hi s cl ai m was r ef er enced onl y i npassi ng on appeal and, hence, i s wai ved. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at esv. Mar t i nez, 762 F. 3d 127, 132 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-18-


19/55

C. Exclusion of Alibi Witness

Ramos argues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed hi s

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o pr esent wi t nesses i n hi s def ense when i t

r ef used t o al l ow an al i bi wi t ness t hat Ramos di d not di scl ose t o

t he gover nment unt i l he sought t o cal l her on t he t hi r d day of

t r i al . See gener al l y Tayl or v. I l l i noi s, 484 U. S. 400, 402 & n. 1

( 1988) ( not i ng t he accused' s r i ght under t he Si xt h Amendment ' s

Compul sor y Pr ocess Cl ause "t o obt ai n the t est i mony of f avor abl e

wi t nesses" ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Por t el a, 167 F. 3d 687, 705 ( 1st Ci r .

1999) ( same) . We r evi ew t hi s cl ai m de novo, bal anci ng t he

def endant ' s r i ght t o pr esent hi s def ense wi t h "[ t ] he St at e' s

i nt er est i n t he or der l y conduct of a cri mi nal t r i al . " Tayl or , 484

U. S. at 411. Among t he "count er vai l i ng publ i c i nt er est s" ar e

" [ t ] he i nt egr i t y of t he adver sary pr ocess, whi ch depends bot h on

t he pr esent at i on of r el i abl e evi dence and t he r ej ect i on of

unr el i abl e evi dence, t he i nt er est i n t he f ai r and ef f i ci ent

admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, and t he pot ent i al pr ej udi ce t o t he

t r ut h- det er mi ni ng f unct i on of t he t r i al pr ocess. " I d. at 414- 15.

Even i f const i t ut i onal er r or occur r ed, i t may be f ound har ml ess i f

t he pr osecut i on i s abl e t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he

er r or di d not cont r i but e t o t he ver di ct . Por t el a, 167 F. 3d at 706

( ci t i ng Sat t er whi t e v. Texas, 486 U. S. 249, 256 ( 1988) ) .

Under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 12. 1, i f t he

gover nment r equest s not i ce of t he def endant ' s i nt ent t o of f er an

-19-


20/55

al i bi def ense, t he def endant must r espond i n wr i t i ng wi t h t he names

of each al i bi wi t ness on whomhe i nt ends t o r el y. Fed. R. Cr i m. P.

12. 1( a) ( 1) , ( 2) . The Supr eme Cour t has observed t hat r ul es

pr ovi di ng f or pr et r i al di scover y of an opponent ' s wi t nesses

"mi ni mi ze[ ] t he r i sk t hat a j udgment wi l l be pr edi cat ed on

i ncompl et e, mi sl eadi ng, or even del i ber at el y f abr i cat ed t est i mony. "

Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 411- 12. Her e, t he gover nment made a r equest

under Rul e 12. 1( a) ( 1) , and Ramos not i f i ed the gover nment t hat he

woul d pr esent t est i mony t hat he was at t he beach wi t h "f r i ends and

f ami l y members" on J ul y 4, 2002, t he day of t he chase. He

i dent i f i ed hi s al i bi wi t ness as J ohanna Ber mdez, hi s t hen- mi st r ess

and t he mother of one of hi s chi l dr en, and he r epor t ed t hat

Ber mdez was accompani ed to t he beach t hat day by "her daught er and

Mr s. Rosa Lpez. "

At t r i al , af t er Ber mdez t est i f i ed t hat Ramos spent most

of J ul y 4 wi t h her and ot her s, Ramos sought t o cal l Lpez' s

daught er , Ki omar i e Her nndez- Lpez ( "Her nndez") , as a

cor r oborat i ng wi t ness. Def ense counsel expl ai ned t hat Her nndez

was bei ng cal l ed because her mot her , Rosa Lpez, "doesn' t want t o

get i nvol ved i n cour t . " The gover nment obj ect ed on t he gr ound t hat

Hernndez had not been named as an i nt ended al i bi wi t ness and t hat ,

i ndeed, Lpez had not been i dent i f i ed as a wi t ness ei t her . The

cour t sust ai ned t he gover nment ' s obj ect i on, poi nt i ng out t hat Rul e

12. 1 requi r ed Ramos t o pr ovi de t he name, addr ess, and tel ephone

-20-


21/55

number of each al i bi wi t ness. Def ense counsel di d not pr ess t he

i ssue.

On appeal , Ramos does not di sput e t hat he vi ol at ed Rul e

12. 1( a) ( 2) . Rat her , he ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

const i t ut i onal er r or by f ai l i ng t o wei gh hi s r i ght t o pr esent t he

pr oposed wi t ness agai nst " t he i nt egr i t y of t he adver sar y pr ocess, "

Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 414, and by unj ust i f i abl y di sr egar di ng t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s st at ement t hat sanct i ons ot her t han pr ecl usi on

"woul d be ' adequat e and appr opr i at e' " f or most di scover y

vi ol at i ons, Mi chi gan v. Lucas, 500 U. S. 145, 152 ( 1991) ( quot i ng

Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 413) . See Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 413 ( not i ng t he

avai l abi l i t y of " l ess dr ast i c sanct i on[ s] , " i ncl udi ng gr ant i ng a

cont i nuance t o pr ovi de t i me f or f ur t her i nvest i gat i on) .

As an i ni t i al mat t er , we not e t hat def ense counsel di d

not cont emporaneousl y pr otest t he excl usi on, 16 gi vi ng t he cour t

16 Af t er t he gover nment obj ect ed t o t he wi t ness, def ensecounsel st at ed t hat he di d not t hi nk he needed t o pr ovi de "al l t henames of t he peopl e t hat I am goi ng t o pr esent . " I n r esponse, t hedi st r i ct cour t r evi ewed al oud Rul e 12. 1' s r equi r ement t hat t hedef endant gi ve t he gover nment t he name, address and t el ephonenumber of each al i bi wi t ness. The f ol l owi ng exchange t hen t ookpl ace:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: However , i t does say t hat , but I sai d,I t ol d the gover nment t he addr ess.

COURT: Counsel , you have not gi ven her t hat i nf ormat i on.DEFENSE COUNSEL: I di d not gi ve her t he name.COURT: Obj ect i on sust ai ned.DEFENSE COUNSEL: Okay.COURT: Do you have any ot her wi t nesses asi de f r om t hat ?DEFENSE COUNSEL: No, si r .

-21-


22/55

l i t t l e r eason t o consi der a l ess sever e sanct i on f or Ramos' s

admi t t ed r ul e vi ol at i on. Al t hough Ramos now argues t hat a

cor r obor at i ng al i bi wi t ness was essent i al t o hi s case because

Bermdez was " an easy t ar get f or i mpeachment on grounds of bi as, "

t he onl y j ust i f i cat i on of f er ed at t r i al f or pr esent i ng Her nndez as

a sur pr i se wi t ness was t hat she was a subst i t ut e f or anot her

unannounced wi t ness who had decl i ned t o appear . I mpor t ant l y,

havi ng pr of f er ed t he al i bi t hr ough Ber mdez, suppor t ed by Hct or

Nr i s' s t est i mony that hi s brot her was t he t r uck dr i ver , Ramos was

not deni ed t he oppor t uni t y t o pr esent hi s def ense. Cf . , e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Levy- Cor der o, 67 F. 3d 1002, 1014- 15 ( 1st Ci r .

1995) ( f i ndi ng excl usi on of al i bi evi dence unj ust i f i ed and

r emandi ng f or a hear i ng t o eval uat e i t s cont ent and r el i abi l i t y) ;

Bowl i ng v. Vose, 3 F. 3d 559, 562 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( f i ndi ng er r or

wher e "an excul pat or y and pot ent i al l y rel i abl e al i bi " was whol l y

excl uded) .

Al l t ol d, t hi s i ssue i s not a cl ose cal l . Wi t hout any

appar ent j ust i f i cat i on f or doi ng so, and i n t he cour se of

pr esent i ng a newl y unvei l ed al i bi , Ramos i gnor ed t he f eder al not i ce

r ul e whose pur poses i ncl ude "mi ni mi z[ i ng] t he r i sk that f abr i cat ed

t est i mony wi l l be bel i eved. " Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 413; see al so

Chappee v. Vose, 843 F. 2d 25, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( obser vi ng t hat a

The def ense t hen r est ed. Bot h par t i es t r eat t he i ssue as pr oper l ypr eserved, and we t her ef or e do l i kewi se.

-22-


23/55

"cour t may r easonabl y ' pr esume t hat t here i s somethi ng suspect

about a def ense wi t ness who i s not i dent i f i ed unt i l af t er t he

el event h hour has passed' " ( quot i ng Tayl or , 484 U. S. at 414) ) .

I ndeed, Ramos di d not even ment i on Hernndez i n hi s Rul e 12. 1

not i ce r epor t i ng t hat her mot her was at t he beach wi t h Bermdez and

Bermdez' s daught er . That omi ss i on magni f i ed t he government ' s

sur pr i se at t r i al and pr esumabl y was easy t o avoi d. See Tayl or ,

484 U. S. at 415 ( not i ng t hat t he "si mpl i ci t y of compl i ance wi t h t he

di scover y r ul e i s . . . r el evant " i n det er mi ni ng t he pr oper

sanct i on f or a vi ol at i on) . Fi nal l y, because t he al i bi f i r st

appear ed i n Ramos' s second t r i al , and t hat del ay was emphasi zed by

t he gover nment , see supr a Sect i on I I . A, t he pr oposed cor r obor at i ng

t est i mony was unl i kel y t o be compel l i ng even i f t he j ur ors di d not

consi der i t unbel i evabl e. 17

We t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s excl usi on

of Ki omar i e Her nndez' s t est i mony was not const i t ut i onal er r or .

D. Jury Instructions

Ramos chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur y i nst r uct i ons

on mul t i pl e gr ounds. I n eval uat i ng pr eserved cl ai ms of

i nst r uct i onal er r or , we consi der de novo whet her an i nst r uct i on

pr oper l y conveyed the governi ng l aw, and we revi ew f or abuse of

di scret i on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s choi ce of l anguage t o pr esent t hat

17 The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he al i bi was "a made updef ense" based on i t s assessment of wi t ness cr edi bi l i t y.

-23-


24/55

l aw. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) . Whatever t he natur e of t he asser t ed er r or , we exami ne t he

chal l enged i nst r uct i on i n cont ext t o det er mi ne "whet her t he char ge

i n i t s ent i r et y . . . pr esent ed t he r el evant i ssues t o t he j ur y

f ai r l y and adequat el y. " Uni t ed St at es v. St ef ani k, 674 F. 3d 71, 76

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Even an i ncor r ect i nst r uct i on wi l l not war r ant

r ever sal i f i t was har ml ess. Uni t ed St ates v. McDonough, 727 F. 3d

143, 157 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I f

t he def endant di d not obj ect t o t he chal l enged i nst r uct i on at

t r i al , we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on,

695 F. 3d 44, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

1. Instruction on Constructive and Joint Possession

Ramos cont ends t hat t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons on

possessi on al l owed t he j ur y t o f i nd hi m gui l t y based on t wo

i ncor r ect t heor i es: si mpl y because he owned t he vehi cl e wher e t he

cocai ne was f ound, or because he j oi nt l y possessed t he cocai ne wi t h

Nr i s. Ramos asser t s t hat t he f i r st t heor y r el i es on an er r or of

l aw and t he second i s unsuppor t ed by t he f act s.

The cour t i ni t i al l y i nst r uct ed on possess i on as f ol l ows:

The t er m possess i ng means t o exerci seaut hor i t y, domi ni on or cont r ol over somet hi ng,and t he l aw r ecogni zes sever al ki nds of

possessi on.Possessi on can be actual or

const r uct i ve. Act ual possessi on i s whensomeone has i n hi s per son di r ect physi calcont r ol of somet hi ng or so cl ose t o hi m or hert hat he i s t hen i n act ual possessi on of i t .

-24-


25/55

A person who i s not i n act ualpossessi on of somethi ng but who has bot h t hepower and t he i nt ent i on t o event ual l y obt ai npossessi on of somet hi ng i s i n const r uct i vepossessi on of t hat . Whenever I use t he t er mpossessi on, I am r ef er r i ng t o bot h ki nds,

act ual and const r uct i ve. . . .

A good exampl e of const r uct i vepossessi on woul d be what i s r i ght now i n t het r unk of my car par ked i n t he par ki ng l ot ,what I have at home, i n my cl oset , may have i nmy l ocker r oom, i n t he dr awers of my desk.I ' m i n const r ucti ve possessi on of t hat st uf f ,and I amper haps mi l es away f r omi t r i ght now.So you have actual and const r uct i ve possessi onand bot h meet t he r ul e.

And t hen you have sol e possessi on andj oi nt possess i on. Sol e possess i on i s oneper son onl y havi ng i t . J oi nt i s shar edpossessi on, t wo or more peopl e shar i ng t hepossessi on. So al l ki nds of possessi on ar ei ncl uded i n t he descri pt i on of di st r i but i on ofa cont r ol l ed subst ance.

I mmedi at el y af t er t he charge, def ense counsel expr essed concer n

t hat t he exampl e used i n t he const r uct i ve possessi on i nst r uct i on

coul d be mi sl eadi ng because i t suggest ed t hat t he owner of a

vehi cl e may be hel d r esponsi bl e f or i t ems i n t he t r unk of hi s car ,

"even mi l es away, " r egar dl ess of hi s knowl edge of t he t r unk' s

cont ent s. Counsel asked t he cour t t o st r ess t hat bot h t ypes of

possessi on must be knowi ng and wi l l f ul . I n r ef usi ng t o do so, t he

cour t st ated i t s bel i ef t hat t he knowl edge el ement had been "ampl y

expl ai ned. " 18

18 The cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons j ust bef or e t he possessi onexpl anat i on i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng:

-25-


26/55

Subsequent l y, dur i ng del i ber at i ons, t he j ur or s asked t he

cour t t o "send" t hem t he def i ni t i ons of "act ual possessi on" and

"const r uct i ve possessi on. " The j ur y was br ought i nt o t he

cour t r oom, and t he t r i al j udge r ei t er at ed i t s i nst r uct i on,

i ncl udi ng t he def i ni t i on of " j oi nt possessi on. " At t he r equest of

def ense counsel , however , i t di d not r epeat t he t r unk- of - t he- car

exampl e. I n addi t i on, counsel agai n asked t he cour t t o add a

speci f i c i nst r uct i on on t he st at e- of - mi nd r equi r ement , and t hi s

t i me t he cour t di d so:

Of cour se counsel and the Assi st ant r emi nd met hat I shoul d al ways say t hat bot h possessi onsshoul d be knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y, wi t hi nt ent i on of cour se.

The cour t al so pr ovi ded t he j ur or s wi t h a copy of t he possessi on

i nst r uct i on "f r om t he book, " pr esumabl y r ef er r i ng t o t he cour t ' s

compi l at i on of t he appl i cabl e pat t er n j ur y i nst r uct i ons. See

Pat t er n Cr i mi nal J ur y I nst r ucti ons f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t s of t he

F i r s t C i r c u i t ( " P a t t e r n I n s t r u c t i o n s " ) ,

ht t p: / / www. med. uscour t s. gov/ pdf / cr pj i l i nks. pdf ( 2014) .

For you t o f i nd t he def endant gui l t y of t hi s cr i me,you must be convi nced t hat t he Gover nment has proven each

of t hese t hi ngs beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Fi r st , t hatt he def endant on t hat dat e, J ul y 4, 2002, possessedcocai ne, ei t her act ual l y or const r uct i vel y. Second, t hathe di d so wi t h a speci f i c i nt ent t o di st r i but e t hecocai ne over whi ch he had act ual or const r uct i vepossessi on. And t hi r d, t hat he di d so knowi ngl y andi nt ent i onal l y, whi ch i s what I j ust expl ai ned t o you.

-26-


27/55

The next day, t he j ur or s asked f or a def i ni t i on of

"r easonabl e doubt " and "a br i ef r ef r esh of t he def i ni t i on of

knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y. " I n r espondi ng t o t he quer y on

knowl edge and i nt ent , t he cour t emphasi zed t hat t he dr ug of f ense i n

t hi s case requi r ed pr oof of cr i mi nal i nt ent , and t hen el abor at ed,

i n subst ant i al par t , as f ol l ows:

[ O] ne of t he t hi ngs t he Government has t opr ove i s cr i mi nal i nt ent , t hat i s, t hat t hedef endant act ed knowi ngl y, wi l l f ul l y andunl awf ul l y, and t hat means wi t h a bad pur poset o di sobey or di sr egar d t he l aw, and notbecause of mi st ake, not because of acci dentand not because of an i nnocent r eason.

The i dea i s t hat t here be evi dence,pr oof beyond a reasonabl e doubt t o pr ove thati nt ent , excl udi ng t he possi bi l i t y t hat t her ewas a mi st ake, acci dent , or an i nnocentr eason. That ' s basi cal l y i t . Doi ng somet hi ngt hat t he l aw f or bi ds, wi t h a bad pur pose t odi sobey or di sr egar d t he l aw, t hat i s what youref er t o as cr i mi nal i nt ent , t hat ' s al l , i t ' sas si mpl e as that , excl udi ng mi st ake, acci dentor ot her i nnocent r eason. Ther e i s no ot herway to descr i be i t .

On appeal , Ramos agai n compl ai ns t hat t he cour t ' s use of

t he car - t r unk exampl e i n i t s i ni t i al i nst r ucti on on const r ucti ve

possessi on er r oneousl y suggest ed t hat hi s mer e owner shi p of t he

vehi cl e coul d pr ovi de a basi s f or convi ct i on. He asser t s t hat t he

i nst r uct i on al l owed t he j ur y to f i nd t hat he possessed t he dr ugs

based sol el y on t he f act t hat t hey wer e i n hi s t r uck.Revi ewi ng t hi s pr eser ved cl ai mof l egal er r or de novo, we

f i nd no such f l aw i n t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons. As we have

descr i bed, t he cour t r epeat edl y char ged t he j ur or s t hat t hey had t o

-27-


28/55

f i nd t hat Ramos act ed knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y. The cour t al so

cor r ect l y i nf or med t he j ur or s t hat t hey must f ol l ow t he

i nst r uct i ons i n t hei r ent i r et y, and coul d not "i gnor e one and f avor

anot her . " I n so st at i ng, t he cour t ef f ecti vel y l i nked i t s

i nst r uct i ons on i nt ent wi t h i t s i nst r uct i ons on possessi on, and t he

i nescapabl e message conveyed was t hat t he j ury needed t o f i nd

i nt ent i onal possessi on, whet her act ual or const r uct i ve. Mor eover ,

i n char gi ng on Ramos' s al i bi def ense, t he cour t emphat i cal l y st at ed

t he gover nment ' s bur den t o pr ove t hat Ramos was at t he scene of t he

cr i me and not at t he beach: "Unl ess t he Government pr oves [ t hat t he

def endant ' was pr esent at t hat t i me and pl ace' ] beyond a reasonabl e

doubt , t hen you must f i nd t he def endant not gui l t y. " That

i nstr uct i on, t oo, pl ai nl y r ej ect s a f i ndi ng of gui l t based sol el y

on Ramos' s r el at i onshi p t o the t r uck.

I n sum, t he cour t expr essl y announced and r ei nf orced t he

j ur y' s obl i gat i on t o f i nd Ramos' s knowi ng and i nt ent i onal

i nvol vement i n t he cr i me. We t hus rej ect hi s cont ent i on t hat t he

i nst r uct i on on const r uct i ve possessi on was i nadequat e as a mat t er

of l aw.

Ramos i s cor r ect , however , t hat t he i nst r uct i on on j oi nt

possessi on was i mpr oper because t he recor d cont ai ns no evi dence of

such a t heor y, and no par t y ar gued i t . Most l i kel y, t he t r i al

j udge unt hi nki ngl y r ead t he i nst r uct i on di st i ngui shi ng bet ween sol e

and j oi nt possessi on si mpl y because i t i s par t of t he boi l er pl at e

-28-


29/55

j ur y char ge on possess i on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i bute a cont r ol l ed

subst ance. See Pat t er n I nst r uct i ons, supr a. The cour t , however ,

shoul d have been mi ndf ul of t he f act s of t he case bef or e i t . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Wol ak, 923 F. 2d 1193, 1198 ( 6t h Ci r . 1991) ( not i ng

t hat boi l er pl at e i nst r uct i ons " shoul d not be used wi t hout car ef ul

consi der at i on bei ng gi ven t o t hei r appl i cabi l i t y to t he f act s and

t heor i es of t he speci f i c case bei ng t r i ed") . Nonet hel ess, no

obj ect i on was made t o t he i nst r uct i on at t r i al , and our r evi ew i s

t hus f or pl ai n er r or . Accor di ngl y, Ramos must bear t he "heavy

bur den" of showi ng t hat t he er r or was cl ear or obvi ous, and t hat i t

bot h af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s and "ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he

f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Mej a, 721 F. 3d 12, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I n asser t i ng pr ej udi ce, Ramos cl ai ms t hat t he f aul t y

i nst r uct i on may have i nf l uenced t he j ur or s t o i mpr oper l y f i nd hi m

gui l t y based on a t heor y of j oi nt possessi on wi t h Nr i s. On t he

r ecord bef ore us, we ar e unper suaded that t he j ur or s woul d have

made such a mi st ake. The j ur y was f aced wi t h a cl ear choi ce

between t he government ' s t heor y t hat Ramos was dr i vi ng t he vehi cl e

( and, hence, possessed t he cocai ne) and Ramos' s al i bi def ense t hat

Nr i s was t he dr i ver ( and, hence, t he possessor ) . No one suggest ed

t hat Ramos coul d be f ound gui l t y i f Nr i s, not he, had been t he one

t o abandon t he cocai ne i n t he t r uck. I ndeed, as quot ed above, t he

-29-


30/55

cour t t ol d t he j ur or s t hey must f i nd t he def endant not gui l t y i f

t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove hi s presence at t he scene of t he

pur sui t . Al t hough t he j ur or s sought cl ar i f i cat i on on t he meani ng

of "possessi on, " t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he not i on of j oi nt

possessi on pl ayed a r ol e i n t hei r del i ber at i ons. Rat her , t hei r

quest i ons f ocused on st at e of mi nd and const r uct i ve possessi on, t he

cent r al component s of t he gover nment ' s t heor y t hat , not wi t hst andi ng

hi s physi cal di st ance f r omt he t r uck af t er he f l ed, Ramos knowi ngl y

and i nt ent i onal l y possessed t he cocai ne he l ef t behi nd. Cf . , e. g. ,

Uni t ed St ates v. J ames, 819 F. 2d 674, 675- 76 ( 6t h Ci r . 1987)

( r ever si ng convi ct i on based on i mpr oper i nst r uct i on on const r uct i ve

possessi on wher e j ur y not e i ndi cat ed hi gh pr obabi l i t y of j ur or s'

r el i ance on const r uct i vepossessi on t heor y) .

The gover nment ' s t heor y i s ampl y suppor t ed i n t he r ecor d,

and we see l i t t l e r i sk t hat t he al i bi evi dence of an al t er nat i ve

suspect woul d have l ed a r easonabl e j ur y to f i nd gui l t based on

j oi nt wr ongdoi ng by t he t wo men. Consequent l y, r egar dl ess of t he

cl ar i t y of t he i nst r uct i onal mi sst ep, we cannot f i nd pl ai n er r or .

The j oi nt possess i on char ge nei t her af f ect ed Ramos' s subst ant i al

r i ght s nor had a ser i ous i mpact on "t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or

publ i c r eput at i on" of hi s t r i al . Ramos- Mej a, 721 F. 3d at 14

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-30-


31/55


32/55

j udgment . Fi r st , as descr i bed above, t he r equest was undevel oped

and hal f hear t edl y pur sued. Second, and most i mpor t ant l y, Ramos

hi msel f asked t hat Vl ez be excl uded as a wi t ness based on t he

i nconsi st enci es bet ween her t est i mony i n t he f i r st t r i al and t he

2007 FBI 302. Havi ng secur ed t he government ' s acqui escence to t hat

r equest , Ramos cannot r easonabl y demand an i nst r uct i on t hat , i n

ef f ect , seeks t o penal i ze t he gover nment f or maki ng t he

accommodat i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nosa, 982 F. 2d 620, 633

( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( af f i r mi ng deni al of mi ssi ng wi t ness i nst r uct i on

wher e the def endant "sought t he dual benef i t of avoi di ng [ t he

wi t ness' s] pot ent i al l y har mf ul t est i mony at t r i al , whi l e at t he

same t i me obt ai ni ng the advant age of a negat i ve i nf erence dr awn by

t he j ur y about t he gover nment ' s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce" t he wi t ness) .

Thi r d, nei t her of t he pr i mar y j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he

i nst r uct i on appl i ed her e. We have expl ai ned t hat , as a

pr er equi si t e f or a mi ssi ng wi t ness i nst r uct i on, a cr i mi nal

def endant must show ei t her t hat t he uncal l ed wi t ness i s " f avor abl y

di sposed" t o t est i f y on behal f of t he gover nment - - meani ng t hat

t he gover nment ordi nar i l y woul d be expect ed t o pr oduce t hat wi t ness

- - or t hat t he wi t ness i s "pecul i ar l y avai l abl e" t o t he gover nment .

Uni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 299 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Not hi ng i n t he r ecor d suggest s that

Ramos l acked access t o Vl ez or was unabl e t o cal l her as a

wi t ness. Less cl ear i s whi ch si de woul d have benef i t t ed mor e f r om

-32-


33/55

her t est i mony. Al t hough Vl ez' s t est i mony pr esumabl y woul d have

f avored t he pr osecut i on, she woul d have f aced vi gorous cr oss-

exami nat i on based on t he newl y r eveal ed, i nconsi st ent FBI r epor t

f r om 2007.

Gi ven t he uncer t ai nt i es, i t i s unsur pr i si ng t hat nei t her

si de cal l ed Vl ez as a wi t ness. For t hat r eason, and t he ot her s we

have i dent i f i ed, t he di st r i ct cour t cannot be f aul t ed f or r ef usi ng

t o advant age Ramos wi t h a mi ss i ng- wi t ness i nst r uct i on.

III.

Ramos asser t s a var i et y of sent enci ng er r or s, most of

whi ch he acknowl edges were not r ai sed bel ow. We address each cl ai m

i n t ur n, i dent i f yi ng t he appl i cabl e st andar d of r evi ew as par t of

our anal yses. Gener al l y, however , any asser t i on of sent enci ng

er r or r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal i s af f or ded onl y pl ai n

er r or r evi ew. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos, 763 F. 3d 45, 56

( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n eval uat i ng a pr eser ved chal l enge t o t he t r i al

cour t ' s choi ce of a par t i cul ar sent ence, we most commonl y appl y the

def er ent i al abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Sur ez- Gonzl ez, 760 F. 3d 96, 101- 02 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( appl yi ng t hat

st andar d t o t he cour t ' s bal anci ng of t he sent enci ng f act or s and t he

subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he sent ence i mposed) .

A. Timing of the Sentencing Hearing

Ramos cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by gi vi ng

hi m onl y ni neteen days t o r evi ew, and comment on, t he updat ed PSR

-33-


34/55

t hat was pr epar ed af t er hi s r et r i al convi ct i on. He r el i es on

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 32, whi ch st at es, i n per t i nent

part:

Mi ni mum Requi r ed Not i ce. The pr obat i onof f i cer must gi ve t he pr esent ence r epor t t ot he def endant , t he def endant ' s at t or ney, andan at t orney f or t he government at least 35days before sentencing unl ess t he def endantwai ves t hi s mi ni mum per i od.

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( e) ( 2) ( emphasi s added) . A di st r i ct cour t ' s

compl i ance wi t h Rul e 32 i s r evi ewed de novo, and we wi l l r emand f or

r esent enci ng i f we f i nd er r or t hat was not har ml ess. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Gonzl ez- Vl ez, 587 F. 3d 494, 508- 09 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

1. Background

Ramos' s updat ed PSR was di scl osed by the Probat i on Of f i ce

on March 20, 2012. On Apr i l 6, al ong wi t h hi s r esponse t o t he PSR,

Ramos f i l ed a mot i on t o cont i nue sent enci ng on t he gr ound t hat he

needed mor e t i me to pr epar e a r equest f or a l ower sent ence based onhi s medi cal condi t i on. Ramos, t hen 43 year s ol d, r epor t ed t hat he

was awai t i ng addi t i onal medi cal r ecords so he coul d submi t an

exper t opi ni on on "t he i mpact t hat a l ong t er m per i od of

i ncar cer at i on wi l l have upon [ hi s] car di ac condi t i on. " He

t her ef or e sought " t he 35- day st at ut or y t i me per i od t o pr oper l y

addr ess t hese i ssues. "The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he r equest ed cont i nuance at

t he sent enci ng hear i ng, whi ch was hel d as schedul ed on Apr i l 9.

The cour t acknowl edged t hat onl y ni net een days had el apsed si nce

-34-


35/55

di scl osur e of t he amended PSR, but i t deemed t hat per i od adequat e

because i t t hought an amended PSR was unnecessar y and t hat Ramos

coul d have been sent enced based on t he or i gi nal PSR. The cour t

sai d i t "gave [Ramos] t he break" when i t or der ed an amended PSR so

he coul d pur sue hi s cl ai mt hat hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y was i ncor r ect l y

cal cul at ed. 20 The cour t t hus concl uded t hat Rul e 32( e) ' s 35- day

not i ce per i od di d not appl y.

2. Discussion

The gover nment ar gues t hat t he appl i cat i on of Rul e 32 i n

t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of t hi s case i s a novel quest i on and

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r eadi ng of t he r ul e was r easonabl e. The

gover nment f ur t her asser t s t hat any er r or was harml ess because t he

r ecor d demonst r at es t hat a cont i nuance t o sat i sf y Rul e 32' s 35- day

r equi r ement woul d not have r esul t ed i n a di f f er ent sent ence. I t

poi nt s out t hat t he di st r i ct cour t emphat i cal l y rej ect ed t he

possi bi l i t y t hat f ur t her i nf or mat i on about Ramos' s hear t condi t i on

- - t he reason he sai d he needed a cont i nuance - - woul d i mpact t he

sent ence.

We do not t ake l i ght l y t he r equi r ement s of Rul e 32,

whose t i me l i mi t s "ar e i nt egr al t o t he f ai r and or der l y pr ocess of

20 The Pr obat i on Of f i ce i n f act concl uded t hat a pr i orconvi ct i on had been i mpr oper l y counted t owar d Ramos' s car eerof f ender st at us, but t he PSR subst i t ut ed anot her convi ct i on t osuppor t t he r ecommendat i on f or career of f ender st atus. Thatsubst i t ut ed convi ct i on i s t he subj ect of t he cl ai med er r ordi scussed i n Sect i on I I I . B i nf r a.

-35-


36/55

i mposi ng sent ence. " Uni t ed St ates v. Casas, 425 F. 3d 23, 59 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The pr ocedur es i t

pr escr i bes may not be di smi ssed as "mer e t echni cal i t i es. " Uni t ed

St ates v. Lpez- Lpez, 295 F. 3d 165, 169 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Hence,

we ar e i ncl i ned t o concl ude t hat t he f ul l ar r ay of Rul e 32' s

pr ot ect i ons ordi nar i l y shoul d accompany a PSR t hat i s r evi sed and

r ei ssued af t er a new t r i al and gui l t y ver di ct. I t i s no l ess

i mpor t ant f or a new sent enci ng t o be f ai r and accur ate t han i t was

f or t he or i gi nal pr oceedi ngs, and t he Rul e set s t he def aul t t i me

per i ods f or achi evi ng t hat obj ect i ve. A def endant ' s ci r cumst ances

coul d have changed i n any number of ways dur i ng t he l apse of t i me

bet ween convi ct i ons. He may have a new at t or ney, new convi ct i ons,

or new evi dence of mi t i gat i ng f act or s - - al l of whi ch may i nf l uence

t he sent enci ng pr ocess. I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case

acknowl edged t hat t he amended PSR ser ved an i mpor t ant f unct i on

because i t s pr epar at i on r eveal ed t hat an i nel i gi bl e convi ct i on had

pr evi ousl y been count ed t o est abl i sh car eer of f ender st at us. The

l ogi c i n excl udi ng an amended PSR f r om t he scope of Rul e 32, when

t hat r epor t i s par t of a whol l y new pr oceedi ng, pr epar ed af t er a

r et r i al and ver di ct , i s not appar ent .

Enf orci ng t he Rul e' s t i me l i mi t s need not compr omi se a

cour t ' s i nt er est i n avoi di ng r edundanci es and movi ng cases to

compl et i on. I n many i nst ances of r esent enci ng af t er r e- convi ct i on,

t he Pr obat i on Of f i ce wi l l be abl e t o t ake advant age of i t s ear l i er

-36-


37/55

wor k, and, hence, t he i nvest i gat i ve st age of t he pr ocess wi l l

pr oceed qui ckl y. I n addi t i on, bot h t he def endant and t he cour t

have t he abi l i t y t o modi f y t he 35- day mi ni mum per i od wher e

appr opr i at e. See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( e) ( 2) ( al l owi ng wai ver by t he

def endant ) ; 32( b) ( 2) ( al l owi ng t he cour t t o change t he Rul e' s t i me

l i mi t s f or good cause) . Ti me f or del i ber at i on i s i nt ent i onal l y

bui l t i nt o t he syst em, however , and t he pr oduct i on of an amended

PSR f ol l owi ng a ret r i al and new convi ct i on woul d seem t o t r i gger

t he Rul e' s pr ot ect i ons as a mat t er of cour se.

Nonet hel ess, even i f t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

deni ed a cont i nuance i n t hi s case, t hat er r or woul d not r equi r e a

r emand f or r esent enci ng. We agr ee wi t h t he government t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s st at ement s at t he sent enci ng hear i ng demonst r at e

beyond debat e t hat t he cour t woul d not have sent enced Ramos mor e

f avor abl y even i f pr esent ed wi t h addi t i onal evi dence on t he i mpact

of i ncar cer at i on on hi s car di ac condi t i on. Cf . Casas, 425 F. 3d at

63 ( f i ndi ng "a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t wi l l

i mpose a more f avorabl e sent ence on r emand") . The cour t f i r ml y

r ej ect ed t he val ue of t he pr oposed test i mony of Ramos' s sur geon,

st at i ng that i t al r eady had revi ewed Ramos' s medi cal r ecor ds and

under st ood t he di r e nat ur e of hi s " ver y ser i ous car di ac condi t i on. "

The cour t not ed t hat Ramos had been seen by "a f i r st cl ass

car di ol ogi st " dur i ng t r i al because he f el t si ck, and t he doct or had

-37-


38/55

f ound "onl y the t ypi cal compl i cat i ons t hat any person who has had

a hear t val ve t r anspl ant f aces. "

The cour t al so express l y r ej ect ed t he appl i cabi l i t y of

Gui del i nes Sect i on 5H1. 4, whi ch al l ows a downward sent enci ng

depar t ur e f or " [ a] n ext r aor di nar y physi cal i mpai r ment " and gi ves as

an exampl e " t he case of a ser i ousl y i nf i r m def endant [ f or whom]

home det ent i on may be as ef f i ci ent as, and l ess cost l y t han,

i mpr i sonment . " See U. S. S. G. 5H1. 4. The cour t vi ewed Ramos' s

condi t i on as ser i ous, but unpr edi ct abl e: "He coul d l i ve unt i l he' s

70. But he has a car di ac condi t i on, and he coul d al so di e

t omor r ow. " The cour t t hus demonst r at ed unwi l l i ngness t o f ur t her

consi der sent enci ng l eni ency based on Ramos' s medi cal condi t i on.

As t he pur sui t of f ur t her medi cal i nf or mat i on was t he onl y

j ust i f i cat i on of f er ed f or Ramos' s r equest ed cont i nuance, we

concl ude t hat t he r ef usal t o gr ant t he ext r a t i me, i f er r or , was

har ml ess.

B. Career Criminal Classification

I n chal l engi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o sent ence

hi m as a car eer of f ender , Ramos cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y count ed hi s 1987 convi ct i on f or vi ol at i ng Ar t i cl e 256 of

t he Puer t o Ri co Penal Code - - whi ch makes unl awf ul t he use of

vi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on agai nst publ i c of f i ci al s - - as a pr edi cat e

cr i me of vi ol ence. See supr a Sect i on I . B & n. 3. As descr i bed

above, one par agr aph of Ramos' s PSR l i st s convi ct i ons f or a

-38-


39/55

cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense and vi ol at i ng Ar t i cl e 256, bot h

occur r i ng on t he same day i n Mar ch 1987 and subst ant i at ed by

unspeci f i ed "j udi ci al document s. " 21 At Ramos' s sent enci ng hear i ng,

t he pr obat i on of f i cer pr ovi ded t he cour t wi t h a st ack of

commonweal t h cour t r ecords r ef er enci ng t he two convi ct i ons, whi ch

were based on gui l t y pl eas, and t he document s were subsequent l y

t r ansl at ed i nt o Engl i sh and ent er ed on t he docket . See Dkt . 237.

I n hi s sent enci ng memor andum, Ramos had obj ect ed t o

count i ng t he Ar t i cl e 256 convi ct i on f or car eer of f ender pur poses on

t he gr ound t hat i t occur r ed out si de t he l i mi t at i on per i od i n t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( a) , 4B1. 2( c) ,

4A1. 1( a) , 4A1. 2( e) . 22 At hi s sent enci ng hear i ng, he compl ai ned t hat

21 The cour t di d not r el y on t he 1987 cont r ol l ed subst anceof f ense and, as expl ai ned i nf r a, i t i s not a qual i f yi ng pr edi cat ecr i me.

22

Sect i on 4B1. 1 st at es t he requi r ement s f or car eer - of f enderst at us, see supr a n. 2, and 4B1. 2 expl ai ns t hat t he r equi r ement of"t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons" means, i nt er al i a, t hat t hesent ences f or t hose cr i mes ar e count ed separatel y under 4A1. 1,whi ch l i st s t he cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s assi gned t o var i ous t er msof i mpr i sonment . Sect i on 4A1. 2, whi ch i s l abel ed "Def i ni t i ons andI nst r uct i ons f or Comput i ng Cr i mi nal Hi st or y, " st at es i n per t i nentpar t as f ol l ows:

Any pr i or sent ence of i mpr i sonment exceedi ng one year andone mont h t hat was i mposed wi t hi n f i f t een years of t hedef endant ' s commencement of t he i nst ant of f ense i s

count ed. Al so count any pr i or sent ence of i mpr i sonmentexceedi ng one year and one mont h, whenever i mposed, t hatr esul t ed i n t he def endant bei ng i ncar cer at ed dur i ng anypar t of such f i f t een- year per i od.

U. S. S. G. 4A1. 2( e) ( 1) . Hence, Ramos' s Ar t i cl e 256 convi ct i onwoul d count as a pr i or f el ony convi ct i on i f he r ecei ved a sent ence

-39-


40/55

t he suppor t i ng j udi ci al document s pr oduced by t he pr obat i on of f i cer

wer e not an "appr oved" sour ce of i nf ormat i on about t hat cr i me.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 752 F. 3d 8, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . On appeal , Ramos r ei t er at es

t hose obj ect i ons and ar gues i n addi t i on t hat , r egar dl ess of t i mi ng,

t he Ar t i cl e 256 convi ct i on does not qual i f y as a pr edi cat e cr i me of

vi ol ence.

As a st ar t i ng poi nt , we rej ect Ramos' s cont ent i on t hat

t he Ar t i cl e 256 cr i me was t oo r emot e t o count as a pr edi cate

of f ense f or car eer of f ender pur poses. I ndeed, Ramos r ai ses t hat

cl ai m t o t hi s cour t onl y i n hi s r epl y br i ef , and we t her ef or e need

not addr ess i t at al l . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Di az- Cast r o,

752 F. 3d 101, 106 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( not i ng that an argument not

pr esent ed i n appel l ant ' s openi ng br i ef on appeal i s wai ved) . The

cl ai m al so f ai l s, however , on t he mer i t s. The commonweal t h cour t

r ecor ds show t hat Ramos, t hen ni neteen years ol d, was gi ven

suspended sent ences on t he Ar t i cl e 256 and cont r ol l ed subst ance

convi ct i ons i n December 1987, cont i ngent on hi s compl et i ng an

i npat i ent t r eat ment pr ogr am ( t he "Puer t o Ri co Teen Chal l enge

Pr ogr am") and f ul f i l l i ng ot her condi t i ons. See Dkt . 237 at 7, 90. 23

exceedi ng one year and one mont h t hat r esul t ed i n hi s i mpr i sonmentat any t i me i n t he f i f t een year s pr ecedi ng J ul y 4, 2002.

23 Ramos ci t es no case l i mi t i ng our consi der at i on of r el i abl ecommonweal t h cour t r ecor ds t o determi ne t he t i mi ng of hi sconvi ct i on or i ncar cer at i on. The cases on whi ch he r el i es di scussdocument s t hat may be r evi ewed t o det ermi ne t he el ement s of t he

-40-


41/55

I n May 1988, Ramos was or dered ar r est ed and hel d wi t hout bai l , and

hi s suspended sent ence was f ormal l y r evoked l at er t hat year . I d.

at 83, 110- 111. He was t hus i ncar cer at ed wi t hi n f i f t een year s of

t he J ul y 4, 2002 dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me under l yi ng t hi s appeal ,

pl aci ng t he sent ence wi t hi n t he per i od pr escr i bed by Gui del i nes

4A1. 2( e) .

Ramos' s r emai ni ng chal l enge t o hi s desi gnat i on as a

car eer of f ender i s t hat hi s Ar t i cl e 256 convi ct i on i s cat egor i cal l y

i nel i gi bl e t o qual i f y as a pr edi cat e cr i me of vi ol ence. Because

t hi s ar gument i s r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , our r evi ew i s

f or pl ai n er r or .

1. Identifying a Predicate Crime of Violence

Under t he Gui del i nes, an of f ense qual i f i es as a cr i me of

vi ol ence i f i t i s puni shabl e by mor e than one year of i mpr i sonment

and ei t her " ( 1) has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed use, or

t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son of anot her , " or

( 2) i s one of sever al enumer at ed cr i mes not per t i nent her e, "or

ot her wi se i nvol ves conduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk

of physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her . " U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) . To det er mi ne

whet her a def endant ' s past convi ct i on f al l s wi t hi n t he scope of

4B1. 2( a) , cour t s use ei t her a "cat egor i cal appr oach" or a

cr i me of convi ct i on. See, e. g. , Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S.13, 26 ( 2005) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 19.

-41-


42/55

"modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. " See, e. g. , Descamps v. Uni t ed

St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2276, 2281 ( 2013) ; Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 16- 17. 24

Under t he cat egor i cal appr oach, an of f ense const i t ut es a

cr i me of vi ol ence "onl y i f i t s el ement s are such t hat we can

concl ude t hat a per son convi ct ed of t he of f ense has ' necessar i l y'

been f ound gui l t y of conduct t hat meet s t he [ 4B1. 2( a) ]

def i ni t i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t nez, 762 F. 3d 127, 133 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . The cat egor i cal appr oach l i mi t s t he cour t ' s i nqui r y t o

"' t he el ement s of t he st at ut e of convi ct i on, not . . . t he f act s of

each def endant ' s conduct . ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Fi sh, 758 F. 3d 1, 5

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Tayl or v. Uni t ed St at es, 495 U. S. 575, 601

( 1990) ) . Hence, under t he categor i cal appr oach, we woul d ask

whet her Ramos' s convi ct i on f or vi ol at i ng Ar t i cl e 256 necessar i l y

means - - wi t hout consi der i ng hi s act ual conduct - - t hat he used,

at t empt ed t o use, or t hr eatened t o use f orce agai nst another

per son, or engaged i n conduct pr esent i ng "a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk

of physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her . " U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( a) .

However , when a def endant ' s pr i or convi ct i on i s f or

vi ol at i ng a "di vi s i bl e stat ut e" - - i . e. , a stat ut e t hat "set s f or t h

24 Much of t he case l aw devel opi ng t he t wo approaches hasar i sen i n t he cont ext of t he Ar med Career Cr i mi nal Act , whi ch

i mposes sent enci ng enhancement s on def endants who have t hree pr i orconvi ct i ons f or "ser i ous dr ug of f enses or vi ol ent f el oni es. "Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 15; see al so, e. g. , Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at2281; Tayl or v. Uni t ed St ates, 495 U. S. 575, 577- 78 ( 1990) . Wehave l ong r ecogni zed t he appl i cabi l i t y of t hi s pr ecedent t o thecar eer of f ender i nqui r y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Fl i x, 667F. 3d 47, 55- 56 & n. 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

-42-


43/55

one or mor e el ement s of a par t i cul ar of f ense i n t he al t er nat i ve, "

Fi sh, 758 F. 3d at 6 ( ci t i ng Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2281) - - t he

modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach may be t he appr opr i at e method f or

r esol vi ng t he cri me- of - vi ol ence quest i on. I f such a pr ovi si on

al t er nat i vel y cr i mi nal i zes qual i f yi ng vi ol ent conduct and non-

qual i f yi ng conduct , maki ng i t i mpossi bl e t o det er mi ne f r omt he f ace

of t he st at ut e whet her t he def endant ' s convi ct i on was f or a cr i me

of vi ol ence, t he sent enci ng cour t i s per mi t t ed t o consul t a l i mi t ed

set of "appr oved r ecor ds" t o det er mi ne whi ch al t er nat i ve pr ovi ded

t he basi s f or t he convi ct i on. Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 19 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) ; see al so Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2284- 85.

These r ecor ds i ncl ude char gi ng document s, pl ea agreements,

t r anscr i pt s of pl ea col l oqui es, j ur y i nst r ucti ons, and ver di ct

f or ms. J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133, 144 ( 2010) ; see

al so Tayl or , 495 U. S. at 602 ( acknowl edgi ng t he need f or cour t s t o

l ook t o t he char gi ng paper s and j ur y i nst r uct i ons i n a "nar r ow

r ange of cases" i nvol vi ng cr i mes wi t h al t er nat i ve el ement s) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Dvi l a- Fl i x, 763 F. 3d 105, 110 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( not i ng t he need t o consul t "cer t ai n document s of r ecor d" f or

di vi si bl e st at ut es ( ci t i ng Tayl or and Descamps) ) . The quest i on

t hen becomes whether t he var i ant of t he cr i me reveal ed by t hose

document s sat i sf i es t he cr i me of vi ol ence def i ni t i on.

-43-


44/55

2. Does Ramos's Article 256 conviction qualify as a

predicate crime of violence?

As descr i bed above, Ar t i cl e 256 cr i mi nal i zes t he use of

vi ol ence or i nt i mi dat i on agai nst a publ i c of f i ci al or empl oyee.

The gover nment mai nt ai ns t hat bot h al t er nat i ves const i t ut e cr i mes

of vi ol ence, maki ng i t unnecessar y t o per f or m t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal i nqui r y, whi l e Ramos asser t s t hat a vi ol at i on based on

"i nt i mi dat i on" does not necessar i l y qual i f y as such an of f ense

because a t hr eat t o damage pr oper t y suf f i ces t o sat i sf y t hat pr ong.

Nei t her par t y of f er s usef ul suppor t f or i t s ar gument . The

gover nment ci t es onl y a si ngl e, i napposi t e case, 25 and Ramos r el i es

on what i s appar ent l y hi s own t r ansl at i on of a sent ence f r om a

Spani sh- l anguage t r eat i se on Puer t o Ri co' s penal code. 26

25 The gover nment r el i es on Uni t ed St ates v. Sant os, 131 F. 3d16 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) , wher e t he def endant was charged wi t h"t hr eat eni ng t he l i f e of and bodi l y har m t o t he Pr esi dent , " i nvi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 871. I d. at 21. We concl uded t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t pr oper l y cl assi f i ed t he of f ense as a cr i me ofvi ol ence because i t "had as an el ement t he t hr eat ened use ofphysi cal f or ce agai nst anot her per son, " one of t he t r i gger i ngat t r i but es of a cr i me of vi ol ence under Gui del i nes 4B1. 2. I d.Sant os sheds no l i ght on whet her a convi ct i on f or use ofi nt i mi dat i on under Ar t i cl e 256 woul d necessar i l y i ncl ude any of t her equi si t e el ement s of a cr i me of vi ol ence.

26 Ramos quotes a t ext t i t l ed "Penal Code of Puer t o Ri co" byDor a Nevar es- Mui z f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "i nt i mi dat i on r ef er s t ot he use of coer ci on or psychol ogi cal pr essur e on t he per son,char act er i zed by the t hr eat t hat he wi l l suf f er i mmi nent andunj ust i f i ed damage t o hi s or her per son or pr oper t y. " I t does notappear t hat t he vol ume ( "Cdi go Penal de Puer t o Ri co" ) i s avai l abl ei n Engl i sh.

-44-


45/55

The gover nment has of f er ed no basi s on whi ch we coul d

concl ude t hat bot h t he "vi ol ence" and " i nt i mi dat i on" prongs of

Ar t i cl e 256 necessar i l y i ncl ude an el ement r el at ed t o ei t her

physi cal f or ce agai nst an i ndi vi dual or a "ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk

of physi cal i nj ur y" t o a per son, whi ch woul d al l ow us t o cl assi f y

t he st at ut e as a cr i me of vi ol ence under t he cat egor i cal appr oach.

Al t hough t he gover nment st at es i n i t s br i ef t hat "j udi ci al r ecor ds"

r epor t t hat Ramos' s Ar t i cl e 256 cr i me i nvol ved physi cal act i on

agai nst a pol i ce of f i cer , i t does not ar gue t hat t he convi ct i on

qual i f i es under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. Hence, t he

gover nment has wai ved t hat backup posi t i on. Nonet hel ess, gi ven t he

si gni f i cance of t he i ssue her e and t he l i kel i hood t hat si mi l ar

ci r cumst ances wi l l ar i se i n ot her cases, we t hi nk i t i mpor t ant t o

expl ai n why the argument woul d i n any event f ai l .

Al t hough most of t he Super i or Cour t document s submi t t ed

by t he pr obat i on of f i cer do not f al l i nt o any of t he usual

cat egor i es of per mi ssi bl e r ecor ds, we have obser ved t hat , " [ i ] n

addi t i on t o t hese ' appr oved' r ecor ds, a f eder al cour t may al so

consi der some compar abl e j udi ci al r ecor d. " Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 19

( f oot not e omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Our r evi ew,

however , " ' must be "conf i ned t o [ t he] r ecor ds of t he convi ct i ng

cour t , "' " i d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do, 468 F. 3d

34, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 23)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ) , and we t hus "may not r el y on t he pol i ce

-45-


46/55

r epor t s r el at ed t o t he ear l i er convi ct i on, " i d. at 20 ( ci t i ng

Shepard, 544 U. S. at 16)

united states v. ramos-gonzalez, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents