united states v. razo, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Razo, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2176

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MARK RAZO,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howar d and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

J ef f r ey M. Si l ver st ei n, wi t h whom Law Of f i ce of J ef f r ey M.Si l ver st ei n, P. A. , was on br i ef , f or appel l ant Mar k Razo.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Ass i st ant Uni t ed St ates At t orney,wi t h whom Thomas E. Del ahant y, I I , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

Apr i l 1, 2015


2/24

BARRON, Circuit Judge. At hi s t r i al i n t he f eder al

Di st r i ct of Mai ne, Mar k Razo f aced a number of char ges r el at i ng t o

dr ug t r af f i cki ng. Af t er hi s convi ct i on on al l count s, he r ecei ved

a sent ence of 300 mont hs i n pr i son. Razo now asser t s var i ous

al l eged er r or s bot h at t r i al and at sent enci ng. Fi ndi ng none t hat

r equi r e r ever sal , we af f i r m bot h t he convi ct i on and t he sent ence.

I.

Razo was charged wi t h one count of conspi r acy t o commi t

a dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense under 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 846 and

t hr ee count s of cr i mi nal use of a communi cat i ons f aci l i t y to

f aci l i t at e a t r af f i cki ng of f ense under 21 U. S. C. 843( b) and ( d) .

The j ury convi ct ed Razo on al l count s. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen

sent enced Razo t o 300 mont hs of i mpr i sonment on t he conspi r acy

count . The j udge al so sent enced Razo t o 48 mont hs of i mpr i sonment

on t he t hr ee count s of cr i mi nal use of a communi cat i ons f aci l i t y.

That sent ence was t o be ser ved concur r ent l y wi t h Razo' s sent ence

f or t he conspi r acy count .

Thi s appeal f ol l owed. Razo chal l enges hi s conspi r acy

convi ct i on and sent ence under t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. He al so

br i ngs chal l enges under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes and Al l eyne v.

Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) . Fi nal l y, he chal l enges as

i mpr oper bot h t he use at t r i al of cer t ai n r ecor ded phone cal l s and

venue i n t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne. We di scuss t he f act s rel evant t o

each of t he t hese chal l enges i n t he cour se of our anal ysi s.

-2-


3/24

II.

Razo' s pr i mar y chal l enge ar i ses under t he Conf r ont at i on

Cl ause, whi ch pr ovi des t hat "[ i ] n al l cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, t he

accused shal l enj oy t he r i ght . . . t o be conf r ont ed wi t h t he

wi t nesses agai nst hi m. " U. S. Const . amend. VI . Razo cont ends t o

us, as he di d bel ow, t hat t he Cl ause bar s t he admi ssi on of a

por t i on of t he t est i mony of a st at e chemi st , Amy J ohnson.

At t r i al , J ohnson t est i f i ed about t he l abor at or y anal ysi s

she per f or med on a subst ance sei zed f r om one of Razo' s co-

conspi r at or s, Bl anca Or t i z. J ohnson t est i f i ed t hat her anal ysi s

conf i r med t he subst ance was pur e met hamphet ami ne. And her

t est i mony about t he methamphetami ne' s pur i t y was key t o t he j ur y' s

f i ndi ng t hat t he conspi r acy i nvol ved 50 gr ams of pur e

met hamphet ami ne. Mor eover , t he Di st r i ct Cour t r el i ed on t hi s j ur y

f i ndi ng at sent enci ng i n f i ndi ng Razo gui l t y of an aggr avat ed dr ug

t r af f i cki ng of f ense under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , whi ch car r i es

a st at ut or y maxi mum of l i f e.

Razo' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause chal l enge f ocuses sol el y on

t he por t i on of J ohnson' s t est i mony t hat concer ned a "known

st andard" methamphetami ne sampl e t hat t he st ate cr i me l ab used t o

cr eat e a r ef er ence poi nt f or compar i son wi t h sei zed evi dence. The

st at e cr i me l ab annual l y r ecei ved t hat sampl e f r om a pr i vat e

manuf act urer , t he Si gma Chemi cal Company. Member s of t he cr i me l ab

t hen anal yzed t he sampl e t o conf i r m t hat t he l ab' s "r ef er ence

-3-


4/24

l i br ar y" accur at el y r ef l ect ed t he pr oper t i es of t he known st andar d

sampl e.

Speci f i cal l y, Razo poi nt s t o t he par t of J ohnson' s

t est i mony i n whi ch she st at es t hat t he stat e cr i me l ab r el i ed on

t he manuf act ur er ' s assur ance t hat t he known st andard sampl e was

100- per cent pur e. And Razo al so poi nt s t o t he par t of J ohnson' s

t est i mony acknowl edgi ng t hat , af t er t est i ng t he sei zed subst ance,

she compar ed t he r esul t s of t hat t est i ng t o r esul t s gener at ed

t hr ough anal ysi s by ot her s at t he st at e cr i me l ab of t he known

st andar d sampl e Si gma had suppl i ed.

Razo t hus ar gues t hat , cont r ar y t o t he Conf r ont at i on

Cl ause, J ohnson' s t est i mony r el i ed on hear say st at ement s ar i si ng

out of t he anal ysi s and pr oduct i on of t hat known st andard sampl e,

even t hough t he sour ce ( or sour ces) f or t hose st atement s were not

made avai l abl e f or cross- exami nat i on. And t o suppor t t hat

chal l enge, Razo r el i es on t he l i ne of aut hor i t y t hat begi ns wi t h

Cr awf ord v. Washi ngt on, 541 U. S. 36 (2004) .

I n Cr awf or d, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause appl i es t o " t est i moni al " s t at ement s, whet her

made i n or out of cour t . That cat egor y, Cr awf or d expl ai ns,

i ncl udes " ex par t e i n- cour t t est i mony or i t s f unct i onal equi val ent

- - t hat i s, mat er i al such as af f i davi t s, cust odi al exami nat i ons,

pr i or t est i mony t hat t he def endant was unabl e to cross- exami ne, or

si mi l ar pr et r i al st at ement s t hat decl ar ant s woul d r easonabl y expect

-4-


5/24

t o be used pr osecut or i al l y. " I d. at 51. As f ur t her suppor t f or

hi s argument , Razo al so r el i es on t wo recent Supr eme Cour t cases

t hat f ol l owed Cr awf or d. Ther e, t he Cour t hel d t hat t he admi ssi on

of government t est i mony about f orensi c t est s per f ormed by non-

t est i f yi ng anal yst s vi ol at ed t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. See

Mel endez- Di az v. Massachuset t s, 557 U. S. 305 ( 2009) ; Bul l comi ng v.

New Mexi co, 131 S. Ct . 2705 ( 2011) .

But , as t he gover nment poi nt s out , unl i ke i n ei t her

Mel endez- Di az or Bul l comi ng, t he anal yst who t est i f i ed i n t hi s case

- - J ohnson - - di d per sonal l y per f or m t he f or ensi c t est i ng on t he

sei zed evi dence and per sonal l y compared t he resul t s wi t h t he

anal ysi s of t he known st andar d sampl e. And whi l e a por t i on of her

t est i mony di d addr ess l ab wor k r el at i ng t o t he known st andar d

sampl e t hat she di d not per f or m her sel f , we concl ude t hat por t i on

pr esent s no Conf r ont at i on Cl ause pr obl em under Cr awf or d or t he

pr ecedent s t hat f ol l owed i n i t s wake. 1

I n demar cat i ng the bounds of t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause,

t he Supr eme Cour t has onl y conf r ont ed cases where t he chal l enged,

out - of - cour t st at ement s wer e made i n t he cont ext of a par t i cul ar

i nvest i gat i on. I n t hi s case, by cont r ast , as J ohnson' s t est i mony

1 I n addr essi ng t hat por t i on of J ohnson' s t est i mony, t hepar t i es di sput e whet her J ohnson was expl ai ni ng t he assumpt i ons f orher own f or ensi c wor k or t est i f yi ng about t he accur acy of t he ot herl ab wor k on whi ch she r el i ed. But , as we expl ai n, even i f J ohnsonwent beyond merel y descr i bi ng t he assumpt i ons on whi ch her own workr est ed, t her e was st i l l no Conf r ont at i on Cl ause vi ol at i on.

-5-


6/24

makes cl ear , t he pr oduct i on of t he known st andar d sampl e, l i ke t he

anal ysi s of i t , occur r ed pr i or t o and wi t hout r egar d t o any

par t i cul ar i nvest i gat i on, l et al one any par t i cul ar pr osecut i on.

The anal ysi s and product i on i nst ead mer el y est abl i shed a gener al

r ef er ence poi nt t hat coul d assi st ot her anal yst s ( l i ke J ohnson

her sel f ) i n det er mi ni ng t he nat ur e of evi dence sei zed i n connect i on

wi t h a l at er i nvest i gat i on or pr osecut i on. And whi l e J ohnson' s

t est i mony r ecount ed her r el i ance on t hi s r ef er ence poi nt , she di d

not r ecount any expr ess, f or mal i zed st at ement s t hat ar ose f r omi t s

devel opment .

We concl ude t hat t hese di st i nct i ons, i n t hi s case, ar e

det er mi nat i ve. To be sur e, at a gener al l evel , J ohnson used t he

r ef er ence poi nt f or " t he pur pose of est abl i shi ng or pr ovi ng some

f act at t r i al . " Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 324. Her t est i mony

conveyed rel i ance on the l ab' s basel i ne pur i t y st andar d and assumed

i t s r el i abi l i t y.

But t he recor d does not show t hat J ohnson descr i bed any

par t i cul ar out - of - cour t st at ement s. And, on t hi s r ecor d, we

st r uggl e t o see how any out - of - cour t st at ement s t hat J ohnson

i mpl i ci t l y r el i ed upon r egar di ng t he sampl e' s pur i t y can be

descr i bed as havi ng been made wi t h "a ' pr i mary pur pose' of

' est abl i shi ng or pr ovi ng past event s pot ent i al l y r el evant t o l at er

cr i mi nal pr osecut i on. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Camer on, 699 F. 3d 621,

640 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Bul l comi ng, 131 S. Ct . at 2714 n. 6) .

-6-


7/24

Any such st at ement s woul d have been made when Si gma provi ded t he

sampl e or when the st at e cr i me l ab' s anal yst s updat ed the

"r ef er ence l i br ar y. " Not hi ng i n t he Supr eme Cour t ' s pr ecedent s

i ndi cat es t hat t he t er m "t est i moni al " st r et ches t o cover t hi s

anal yst ' s i mpl i ci t r el i ance on such backgr ound, empi r i cal l y-

ver i f i abl e st at ement s or r epr esent at i ons t hat wer e i ncor por at ed by

t he cr i me l ab f or use, pr ospect i vel y, i n al l f ut ur e anal yses t he

l ab woul d under t ake. Cf . Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 311 n. 1

( suggest i ng t hat "document s pr epar ed i n the regul ar cour se of

equi pment mai nt enance may wel l qual i f y as nont est i moni al r ecor ds" ) .

I n consequence, i n r ef er enci ng wor k r el ated t o t he known

st andard sampl e, J ohnson was not t est i f yi ng about st atement s made

t o est abl i sh or pr ove past "event s, " as has been t r ue i n each case

Razo i nvokes t o suppor t hi s chal l enge. She was i nst ead t est i f yi ng,

at most , about st at ement s ( i f st at ement s t hey can be cal l ed) t hat

had been used t o est abl i sh a backgr ound r ef er ence poi nt f or f ut ur e

t est i ng of mat er i al s t hat t hen woul d be used t o est abl i sh or pr ove

such event s. And, of cour se, wi t h r espect t o t hat t est i ng, J ohnson

her sel f per f or med i t , t est i f i ed about what she di d, and was subj ect

t o cr oss- exami nat i on. Thus, t o t he extent J ohnson coul d be sai d t o

have t est i f i ed t o t he t r ut h of any such st at ement s by ot her

anal yst s, t hose st at ement s wer e not t est i moni al under t he Cr awf or d

l i ne of aut hor i t y. See Peopl e v. Peal er , 985 N. E. 2d 903, 907 ( N. Y.

2013) ( "The f act t hat t he sci ent i f i c t est r esul t s and t he

-7-


8/24

obser vat i ons of t he t echni ci ans mi ght be rel evant t o f ut ur e

pr osecut i ons of unknown def endant s was, at most , an anci l l ar y

consi derat i on when t hey i nspect ed and cal i br at ed t he machi ne. " ) ;

Commonweal t h v. Dyar man, 73 A. 3d 565, 574 ( Pa. 2013)

( "[ C] al i br at i on and accur acy cer t i f i cat es [ f or br eat hal yzer

machi nes] were not pr epared f or t he pr i mary pur pose of pr ovi di ng

evi dence i n a cr i mi nal case, l et al one f or t he pr i mar y pur pose of

accusi ng appel l ant . ") .

The gover nment adds t hat t he Supreme Court ' s r ecent

f r actur ed deci si on i n Wi l l i ams v. I l l i noi s, 132 S. Ct . 2221 ( 2012) ,

suppor t s t hi s concl usi on. And, wi t hout addr essi ng how Wi l l i ams may

or may not have changed t he pr i mary purpose t est under t he Cr awf ord

l i ne of aut hor i t y, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. J ames, 712 F. 3d 79,

95- 96 (2d Ci r . 2013) , we agr ee.

Consi st ent wi t h t he t est used by the pl ur al i t y opi ni on i n

Wi l l i ams, st at ement s ar i si ng f r om t he anal ysi s and pr oduct i on of

t he known st andard sampl e were "not pr epared f or t he pr i mary

pur pose of accusi ng a t ar get ed i ndi vi dual , " Wi l l i ams, 132 S. Ct . at

2243 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) . And, t o t he ext ent t hat a t est i moni al

st at ement must be a " f or mal i zed st at ement [ ] bear i ng i ndi ci a of

sol emni t y, " as J ust i ce Thomas i ndi cat ed i n hi s concur r ence i n

Wi l l i ams, i d. at 2261 ( Thomas, J . , concur r i ng) , Razo al so has not

al l eged t hat any out - of - cour t st at ement ar i si ng f r om t he anal ysi s

or pr oduct i on of t he sampl e so qual i f i ed.

-8-


9/24

For t hese r easons, we concl ude the Conf r ont at i on Cl ause

di d not r equi r e more t han J ohnson' s pr esence. And so Razo' s

chal l enge on t hi s scor e f ai l s.

III.

Razo al so rai ses a number of obj ect i ons t o hi s sent ence.

We r evi ew chal l enges t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal i nt er pr et at i ons of

t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez, 609

F. 3d 13, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual

det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear er r or . I d. Chal l enges t o t he

r easonabl eness of a sent ence ar e r evi ewed f or abuse of di scr et i on,

wi t h r espect t o bot h pr ocedur al er r or and subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness. Uni t ed St at es v. Ki ng, 741 F. 3d 305, 307- 08 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . Appl yi ng t hese st andar ds of r evi ew as appl i cabl e, we

f i nd t hat none of t he chal l enges t o Razo' s sent ence have mer i t .

A.

Razo f i r st ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed by gi vi ng

one of hi s co- conspi r at or s di spar at e - - and mor e f avor abl e - -

t r eat ment . Razo r est s thi s ar gument on t he di spar i t y i n what i s

known under t he gui del i nes as t he base of f ense l evel , as Razo was

assi gned a hi gher one t han hi s co- conspi r at or .

The base of f ense l evel i s a key i ngr edi ent i n t he

cal cul at i on t hat a di st r i ct cour t must make t o det er mi ne t he

r ecommended gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange f or a def endant . Here, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t det er mi ned t hat Razo' s base of f ense l evel was 38

-9-


10/24

whi l e t he base of f ense l evel of t he co- conspi r at or i n quest i on,

Bl anca Or t i z, was 34.

The Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded Razo war r anted t he hi gher

base of f ense l evel . The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat Razo, on t he

basi s of f act s set f or t h i n t he pr e- sent ence r epor t t hat t he

pr obat i on of f i ce pr epar ed, was r esponsi bl e f or an of f ense t hat

i nvol ved 1, 789 gr ams of pur e methamphet ami ne. By cont r ast , t he

Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t he ot her def endant , Or t i z, on t he basi s of

f act s st i pul at ed i n her pl ea agr eement , t o be r esponsi bl e f or an

of f ense i nvol vi ng a dr ug quant i t y of 1, 789 gr ams of i mpur e

met hamphetami ne. See U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) ( 1) , ( 3) ( 2010) . And t he

Di st r i ct Cour t cor r ect l y concl uded t hat t he base of f ense l evel i s

hi gher f or an of f ense i nvol vi ng t hat amount of pur e methamphetami ne

t han f or an of f ense i nvol vi ng t hat amount of t he dr ug when i t i s

not pur e.

I n t r eat i ng Razo and Or t i z di f f er ent l y i n t hi s r espect ,

t he Di st r i ct Cour t commi t t ed no er r or , even t hough Or t i z was

i nvol ved i n t he same conspi r acy i nvol vi ng t he same dr ugs. The

Di st r i ct Cour t expl ai ned t hat Or t i z ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement

t wo days bef or e t he pr osecut or r ecei ved t he l ab r epor t det ai l i ng

t he pur i t y of t he methamphetami ne. Razo, by cont r ast , was

convi ct ed af t er a t r i al i n whi ch t hat evi dence of pur i t y had been

i nt r oduced. The def endant ' s di spar i t y ar gument t her ef or e f ai l s,

bot h because i t was f ul l y consi der ed by the Di st r i ct Cour t and

-10-


11/24

because t he Di st r i ct Cour t r easonabl y at t r i but ed t he basi s f or t he

di f f er ence at i ssue t o t he f act t hat , due t o Or t i z havi ng pl ed, she

was sent enced on t he basi s of a di f f er ent r ecor d t han Razo. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 50 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( "Whi l e avoi dance of di spar i t i es among codef endant s may be

consi der ed, a par t y i s not ent i t l ed t o a l i ght er sent ence mer el y

because hi s codef endant s r ecei ved l i ght er sent ences. " ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Lozada, 558

F. 3d 29, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( descr i bi ng "mat er i al di f f er ence"

between def endant s who pl ed gui l t y pur suant t o pl ea agr eement s and

t hose who di d not ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Br andao, 539 F. 3d 44, 65 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) ( same) .

B.

Razo next chal l enges t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s f our - poi nt

upwar d i ncr ease i n hi s t ot al of f ense l evel under t he gui del i nes.

See U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( a) . The t ot al of f ense l evel i s cal cul at ed by

addi ng poi nt s f or enhancement s to t he base of f ense l evel . To

j ust i f y t he i ncr ease under U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( a) , t he Di st r i ct Cour t

f ound t hat Razo was a l eader i n t he conspi r acy and t hat t he

conspi r acy i nvol ved f i ve or mor e par t i ci pant s. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Lucena- Ri ver a, 750 F. 3d 43, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

The Di st r i ct Cour t i dent i f i ed f i ve conspi r at or s who wer e

i nvol ved wi t h an i nt er cept ed shi pment of dr ugs t o I owa as wel l as

addi t i onal unnamed suppl i er s and r et ai l er s who had t o be i nvol ved

-11-


12/24

i n t hi s pl anned di st r i but i on. The r ecor d r eveal s evi dence

suf f i ci ent t o show t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not cl ear l y er r i n so

f i ndi ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Car r er o- Her nndez, 643 F. 3d 344, 352

( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Si mi l ar l y, t he r ecor d r ef ut es Razo' s cont ent i on t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng Razo had a l eader shi p r ol e i n t he

conspi r acy. The Di st r i ct Cour t st at ed t hat i t was "convi nced

beyond any shadow of a doubt " of Razo' s l eadershi p r ol e. The

Di st r i ct Cour t poi nt ed speci f i cal l y t o Razo' s rol e i n or gani zi ng

t he act i vi t i es of t he conspi r acy and hi s r ol e i n t he conspi r acy' s

hi er ar chy above Bar r y Di az, a co- conspi r at or t he Di st r i ct Cour t

descr i bed as havi ng "st ood over t he act ual di st r i but or s. " We see

no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat t hese f act ual f i ndi ngs ar e so l acki ng

i n r ecor d suppor t as t o be cl ear l y wr ong. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Tej ada- Bel t r an, 50 F. 3d 105, 111 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

C.

Razo al so chal l enges hi s desi gnat i on as a car eer of f ender

pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1. To qual i f y as a car eer of f ender

under t hat gui del i ne, a def endant must have at l east t wo pr i or

f el ony convi ct i ons f or a "cr i me of vi ol ence" or a cont r ol l ed

subst ance of f ense. See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( a) . The Di st r i ct Cour t

det er mi ned t hat Razo' s pr i or convi ct i ons so qual i f i ed hi m. Razo

cont ends t hat one of hi s pr i or of f enses, however , does not

const i t ut e a "cr i me of vi ol ence" wi t hi n t he meani ng of t hat

-12-


13/24

gui del i ne. And f or t hat r eason, he cont ends t hat t he car eer

of f ender desi gnat i on was err oneousl y appl i ed.

The convi ct i on i n quest i on i s f or vi ol at i ng sect i on

2800. 4 of Cal i f or ni a s Vehi cl e Code. 2 Sect i on 2800. 4 r equi r es, as

a pr edi cat e, a vi ol at i on of sect i on 2800. 1 of Cal i f or ni a s Vehi cl e

Code. That st at ut e cri mi nal i zes f l i ght f r om a pol i ce of f i cer .

Sect i on 2800. 4 t hen al so requi r es - - as a necessary el ement - - t hat

" t he per son oper at i ng t he pur sued vehi cl e wi l l f ul l y dr i ves t hat

vehi cl e on a hi ghway i n a di r ect i on opposi t e t o t hat i n whi ch t he

t r af f i c l awf ul l y moves upon t hat hi ghway. " Cal . Veh. Code

2800. 4.

Gi ven the el ement s of sect i on 2800. 4, Razo' s argument i s

f or ecl osed by Sykes v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2267 ( 2011) . I n

Sykes, t he Supr eme Cour t i nt erpr eted t he Ar med Career Cr i mi nal

Act ' s def i ni t i on of a "vi ol ent f el ony. " That def i ni t i on i s

consonant wi t h t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne' s def i ni t i on of a

"cr i me of vi ol ence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Har t , 674 F. 3d 33, 41 n. 5

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' t er m ' cr i me of

vi ol ence' and ACCA' s t er m ' vi ol ent f el ony' ar e def i ned al most

i dent i cal l y. Accor di ngl y, ' deci si ons const r ui ng one t er m i nf or m

t he const r ucti on of t he ot her . ' " ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . Thus, i f

2 Though t he speci f i c st at ut e f or t he cr i me of convi ct i on doesnot appear i n t he r ecor d, Razo and t he government poi nt t o sect i on2800. 4 of Cal i f or ni a s Vehi cl e Code i n t hei r br i ef s, whi ch al i gnswi t h t he pr i or of f ense as descr i bed i n t he pr e- sent ence r epor t .

-13-


14/24

Razo was convi ct ed of an of f ense t hat qual i f i ed as a "vi ol ent

f el ony" under Sykes, he was convi ct ed of an of f ense that qual i f i es

as a "cr i me of vi ol ence" under t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne. And

Sykes shows t hat Razo was.

Sykes hel d t hat an I ndi ana st at ut e t hat cr i mi nal i zed

vehi cul ar f l i ght f r oma pol i ce of f i cer was a "vi ol ent f el ony. " 131

S. Ct . at 2273, 2277. The Cal i f or ni a of f ense at i ssue her e

cri mi nal i zes a par t i cul ar t ype of vehi cul ar f l i ght t hat i s even

mor e dangerous t han t he type cr i mi nal i zed by t he I ndi ana st at ut e

t hat Sykes concl uded was a vi ol ent f el ony. Razo' s convi ct i on under

t he Cal i f or ni a st at ut e, t her ef or e, necessar i l y qual i f i es as a cri me

of vi ol ence under t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Davi s, 773 F. 3d 334, 343 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( " [ T] he r i sk of

vi ol ence i s i nher ent t o vehi cl e f l i ght . " ( quot at i on mar ks and

al t er at i on omi t t ed) ) .

As a f al l back posi t i on, Razo ar gues t hat , even accept i ng

t hat hi s convi ct i on under Sect i on 2800. 4 qual i f i es as a cri me of

vi ol ence under t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

st i l l i mposed an unr easonabl y har sh sent ence. But t hi s cl ai m, t oo,

f ai l s.

At sent enci ng, a di st r i ct cour t i s i nst r ucted t o consi der

a var i et y of f act or s. See 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) . The Di st r i ct Cour t

acknowl edged t he sent ence was st i f f , but car ef ul l y appl i ed t he

f act or s t hat sect i on 3553 r equi r es t he j udge t o consi der . See

-14-


15/24

Br andao, 539 F. 3d at 65. And, af t er maki ng t he i ndi vi dual i zed

assessment of t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s par t i cul ar def endant i n

connect i on wi t h t hose f act or s, t he Di st r i ct Cour t var i ed downwar ds

f r om t he r ecommended gui del i nes sent ence. The Di st r i ct Cour t di d

so based i n par t on t he f act t hat Razo had onl y t wo pr i or

convi ct i ons f or cr i mes of vi ol ence. Ther e i s t hus no basi s f or

concl udi ng t hat Razo' s sent ence was subst ant i vel y or pr ocedur al l y

unr easonabl e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) .

D.

Razo rai ses one ot her chal l enge t o hi s sent ence on t he

conspi r acy count . He cont ends t he Di st r i ct Cour t subj ect ed hi mt o

a penal t y r ange unaut hor i zed by st at ut e because the Di st r i ct Cour t

i mper mi ss i bl y used t he st at ut or y maxi mumf r omone par t of a st at ut e

and t he mandatory mi ni mumf r omanother . Razo cont ends t he Di st r i ct

Cour t was obl i ged t o use t he mi ni mum and maxi mum set f or t h i n t he

same par t of t he st atut e and not t o mi x and match. And f ur t her ,

Razo cont ends, had t he Di st r i ct Cour t done as r equi r ed, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t woul d have had t o have used a much l ower st atut ory

maxi mum t han i t di d.

Al t hough we concl ude t her e i s no mer i t t o Razo' s

ar gument , gi ven t he f act s of t hi s case, i t t akes a bi t of wor k t o

expl ai n why. And t hat i s because t he chal l enge r est s on some

-15-


16/24

shi f t s i n the l aw of sent enci ng t hat occur r ed bet ween t he t i me of

t r i al and t he t i me of sent enci ng i n t hi s case.

We begi n wi t h t he basi cs. Razo was char ged wi t h

conspi r acy t o commi t a t r af f i cki ng of f ense under 21 U. S. C. 846

and 841( a) ( 1) . The penal t i es f or a vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) ar e def i ned i n t he subsect i ons of 841( b) ( 1) . Those

subsect i ons pr ovi de f or a def aul t penal t y range, 841( b) ( 1) ( C) ,

and t hen hi gher r anges f or aggr avated of f enses when a cer t ai n

t r i gger i ng quant i t y of dr ugs i s i nvol ved, 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , ( B) .

Agai nst t hi s st at ut or y backdr op, t he Di st r i ct Cour t t ook

t he maxi mum of l i f e f r om 841( b) ( 1) ( A) and used a mi ni mumof zero

year s r at her t han t he much hi gher mi ni mumf r om 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . The

Di st r i ct Cour t r esor t ed t o t hi s appr oach - - whi ch Razo cal l s

"mi x[ i ng] and mat ch[ i ng] " - - because of a change i n t he st ate of

t he l aw bet ween t r i al and sent enci ng.

At t he t i me of t r i al , Fi r st Ci r cui t l aw based t he

st at ut or y mi ni mum under 21 U. S. C. 841 on t he quant i t y of dr ugs

speci f i cal l y at t r i but abl e t o t he def endant , and t he st at ut or y

maxi mumon t he quant i t y at t r i but abl e to t he conspi r acy as a whol e.

Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

At t r i al , t he gover nment had sought t o t r i gger t he hi gher penal t y

r ange t hat 841( b) ( 1) ( A) est abl i shed. To do so, t he gover nment

asked t he j ur y t o r et ur n a f i ndi ng t hat t he whol e conspi r acy

i nvol ved over 50 grams of pur e met hamphet ami ne, or 500 grams of a

-16-


17/24

subst ance cont ai ni ng met hamphet ami ne. The government sought t hat

j ury f i ndi ng because i t was est abl i shed at t hat t i me t hat t he

l i f et i me maxi mumunder 841( b) ( 1) ( A) coul d be t r i ggered onl y when

t he j ur y retur ned a f i ndi ng - - as i t di d her e - - as t o what

quant i t y of dr ugs was encompassed wi t hi n t he ent i r e conspi r acy.

See Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S. 466, 491- 92 ( 2000) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d 373, 377 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

At t hat t i me, however , t her e was no si mi l ar pr ecedent

r equi r i ng a j ur y f i ndi ng i n or der t o appl y t he aggr avat ed mi ni mum

f r om 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , whi ch i s 20 year s wi t h a qual i f yi ng pr i or

convi ct i on. I nst ead, a j udge coul d make a f i ndi ng at t he t i me of

sent enci ng about t he quant i t y of dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy

at t r i but abl e t o t he i ndi vi dual def endant . See Col n- Sol s, 354

F. 3d at 103. And so l ong as t he j udge f ound t hat amount was l arge

enough, t he mi ni mum of 20 year s ( at l east f or a def endant wi t h

Razo' s cr i mi nal hi st or y) woul d appl y. Thus, consi st ent wi t h t he

l aw at t he t i me of t r i al , t he gover nment di d not seek, and t hus di d

not r ecei ve, a j ur y f i ndi ng on t hat i ssue.

But , by t he t i me of sent enci ng, t he st at e of t he l aw had

changed as a resul t of Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151

( 2013) . Ther e, t he Cour t hel d t hat a j ur y f i ndi ng was r equi r ed t o

t r i gger a mandatory mi ni mum. I d. at 2155. And whi l e here, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded that Razo was subj ect t o t he maxi mum

sent ence of l i f e est abl i shed under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) because of t he

-17-


18/24

j ury' s f i ndi ng t hat t he conspi r acy i nvol ved 50 grams of pur e

methamphet ami ne, t he mandatory mi ni mumf or t hat pr ovi si on coul d not

be si mi l ar l y appl i ed. That was because t her e was no j ur y f i ndi ng

on t he quant i t y of dr ugs i ndi vi dual l y at t r i but abl e t o Razo and

Al l eyne had j ust hel d a j ur y f i ndi ng was necessary f or an el ement

t hat t r i ggered a mandatory mi ni mum. And so t he j udge appl i ed no

mi ni mum at al l , whi ch i n t hi s case was al so t he r esul t t hat woul d

have obt ai ned under t he def aul t penal t y range i n 841( b) ( 1) ( C) .

Thus, even assumi ng Razo i s cor r ect t o char act er i ze t he

Di st r i ct Cour t as havi ng t aken t he mi ni mumf r om 841( b) ( 1) ( C) and

t he maxi mumf r om 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , and even assumi ng doi ng so i s not

per mi ssi bl e, see Uni t ed St at es v. Ram r ez- Negr n, 751 F. 3d 42, 49

n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( l eavi ng open "whet her t hi s asymmet r y [ i n

def i ni ng t he appl i cabl e sent enci ng r ange] may remai n af t er

Al l eyne") , we agr ee wi t h t he government t hat t here was no harm t o

Razo. Her e, t he use of t he maxi mumof l i f e was suppor t ed by a j ur y

f i ndi ng t hat t he whol e conspi r acy i nvol ved at l east 50 gr ams of

pur e met hamphet ami ne. And, Razo was not subj ect ed t o a mi ni mum

t hat coul d possi bl y have caused hi m any harm, as t he mi ni mum

appl i ed - - zer o year s - - was no mi ni mum at al l . And whi l e t he

di st r i ct j udge pur por t edl y appl i ed a st at ut or y maxi mum of l i f e,

t hat di d not har m Razo ei t her . The j udge i n f act i mposed a

sent ence bel ow t he st atut ory maxi mum t hat woul d have appl i ed t o a

def endant wi t h Razo' s cr i mi nal hi st or y under t he def aul t penal t y

-18-


19/24

r ange i n 841( b) ( 1) ( C) , and not hi ng i ndi cat es t hat t he

"t heor et i cal " maxi mum i nf or med t he sent enci ng det er mi nat i on. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Robi nson, 241 F. 3d 115, 119 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( " [ T]heor et i cal exposure to a hi gher sent ence, unaccompani ed by t he

i mposi t i on of a sent ence t hat i n f act exceeds t he

ot her wi se- appl i cabl e st at ut or y maxi mum, i s of no consequence. " ) .

I n any event , t here al so was overwhel mi ng and

uncont r adi ct ed evi dence t o suppor t t he f i ndi ng necessary to t r i gger

t he hi gher mi ni mum t hat was not used but t hat woul d appl y under

841( b) ( 1) ( A) - - t hat t he i ndi vi dual was r esponsi bl e f or at l east

50 grams of pur e met hamphet ami ne. That evi dence consi st s of Amy

J ohnson' s t est i mony t hat t he drugs sei zed f r omBl anca Or t i z wer e of

t hat quant i t y and pur i t y and Or t i z' s t est i mony t hat t hose dr ugs

or i gi nat ed wi t h one of Razo' s suppl i er s and wer e t r anspor t ed by a

cour i er ar r anged and super vi sed by Razo. And, f ur t her , t he

government pr esent ed phone r ecor ds t hat r eveal ed t hat Razo was

per sonal l y i nvol ved i n pl anni ng t he di st r i but i on of t hat shi pment

of dr ugs t hr ough hi s co- conspi r at or Di az. I n f act , Razo poi nt s t o

no evi dence cont r adi ct i ng t he dr ug quant i t i es t est i f i ed t o at

t r i al , nor does he asser t t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or a l ower

quant i t y. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Casas, 425 F. 3d 23, 66 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) . Thus, a " r easonabl e j ur y necessar i l y woul d have f ound t he

aggr avat i ng el ement beyond a reasonabl e doubt " even though i t was

not asked t o do so her e. Uni t ed St at es v. Pi zar r o, 772 F. 3d 284,

-19-


20/24

296 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d

88, 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "Because the evi dence of t he t r i gger i ng

dr ug quant i t y was over whel mi ng, we hol d t hat t he Al l eyne er r or was

harml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " ) .

For al l of t hese reasons, we t hus agr ee wi t h t he

government t hat i f t here was any er r or here, i t was harml ess beyond

a r easonabl e doubt . 3

IV.

Razo pr esent s t wo r emai ni ng chal l enges. He f i r st

cont est s t he admi ssi on of cer t ai n r ecor ded phone cal l s dur i ng

t r i al . He t hen cont ends t hat Mai ne was not a pr oper venue f or t he

t r i al . Nei t her chal l enge i s per suasi ve.

A.

Razo obj ect s t o t he use at t r i al of unspeci f i ed r ecor ded

cal l s t he gover nment obt ai ned t hr ough wi r et aps dur i ng t he

3 We need not conf r ont Razo' s cl ai m t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour ter r oneousl y used t he st at ut or y maxi mum of l i f e i mpr i sonment under21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) i n appl yi ng t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne.See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( b) ( pr ovi di ng f or an al t er nat e base of f ensel evel cal cul at i on f or car eer of f ender s, det er mi ned f r om t her el evant st atut ory maxi mum, but appl i ed onl y when hi gher t han t heor di nar y gui del i nes cal cul at i on) . As we have al r eady expl ai ned,t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d not er r i n cal cul at i ng Razo' s or di nar y baseof f ense l evel at 42, af t er i ncl udi ng t he f our - poi nt l eader shi p

enhancement . Thi s base of f ense l evel was determi ned based on t hequant i t y and t ype of dr ug i nvol ved i n t he of f ense, see U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) ( 1) ( 2010) , and Razo' s r ol e i n t he of f ense, see U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( a) , wi t hout r ef erence t o any st atut ory maxi mum. Andbecause thi s base of f ense l evel was hi gher t han t he al t er nat e baseof f ense l evel avai l abl e under t he car eer of f ender gui del i ne, t hest at ut or y maxi mum was not , i n f act , used.

-20-


21/24

i nvest i gat i on. Razo ar gues some of t hese cal l s wer e wr ongl y

admi t t ed under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( E) , whi ch st at es

t hat t he out - of - cour t st at ement s of co- conspi r at or s, made dur i ng

and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, ar e not hear say. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mi t chel l , 596 F. 3d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Razo cont ends

t hat some of t he r ecor ded cal l s wer e admi t t ed as co- conspi r at or

st atement s even t hough t hey were not made i n f ur t herance of t he

conspi r acy i n whi ch he i s char ged wi t h par t i ci pat i ng. He ar gues

t hese out - of - cour t st at ement s wer e thus i nadmi ssi bl e under t he

hear say r ul e.

Razo does not speci f y, however , t he non- qual i f yi ng cal l s

he has i n mi nd, nor any that wer e i n f act err oneousl y admi t t ed.

And the gover nment cont ends t hat i n f act no such non- qual i f yi ng

cal l s wer e admi t t ed. Absent Razo i dent i f yi ng t he cal l s he bel i eves

shoul d have been excl uded f or f al l i ng out si de t he co- conspi r at or

except i on, we must r ej ect hi s chal l enge. Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no,

895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hat cl ai ms t hat ar e not

devel oped on appeal are wai ved) .

B.

Razo' s f i nal chal l enge concer ns venue. Razo was

i ncar cer at ed i n Cal i f or ni a f or t he dur at i on of t he conspi r acy and

was not physi cal l y pr esent i n Mai ne f or any of t hese of f enses. He

t hus argues t he government cannot est abl i sh venue i n Mai ne.

-21-


22/24

Absent cer t ai n except i ons not r el evant her e, t he

gover nment must pr osecut e an of f ense i n a di st r i ct wher e t he

of f ense was commi t t ed. Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 18. But when a cr i me

consi sts of di st i nct par t s, t aki ng pl ace i n di f f er ent l ocal i t i es,

venue i s pr oper wherever any part of t hat cr i me can be pr oved t o

have t aken pl ace. Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 270 F. 3d 30, 35 ( 1st

Ci r . 2001) .

When chal l enged, t he government must prove t he r equi r ed

connect i on bet ween t he cr i me and t he venue by a pr eponder ance of

t he evi dence. Uni t ed St at es v. Hal l , 691 F. 2d 48, 50 ( 1st Ci r .

1982) . I f a def endant appeal s a f i ndi ng t hat venue was pr oper , we

r evi ew l egal concl usi ons de novo and f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear

er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Sal i nas, 373 F. 3d 161, 164 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) . And, " [ f ] or pur poses of t hat r evi ew, we al i gn t he evi dence

of r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f l at t er i ng t o t he venue det er mi nat i on. "

I d.

The r ecor d shows t hat whi l e Razo was i ncar cer at ed i n

Cal i f or ni a, he used a cont r aband cel l phone t o coor di nat e a

t r af f i cki ng oper at i on wi t h hi s co- conspi r at or Bar r y Di az. The

r ecor d pr ovi des suppor t f or t he f act t hat Di az and Razo spoke on

t he phone whi l e Di az was i n Mai ne. The evi dence f ur t her shows t hat

t hese cal l s addr essed dr ug di st r i but i on i n Mai ne, and t hat money

or der s wer e sent f r om Di az i n Mai ne t o Razo' s cont act s i n

Cal i f or ni a. Thus, t he evi dence of Razo' s co- conspi r at or ' s act i ons

-22-


23/24

i n Mai ne suf f i ce t o suppor t t he j ur y' s venue det er mi nat i on. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Cor der o, 668 F. 2d 32, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Ur i be, 890 F. 2d 554, 558 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( "As t o

t he conspi r acy char ge ( count one) , i t i s cl ear beyond per advent ur e

t hat venue was proper so l ong as any act i n f ur t her ance of t he

conspi r acy was commi t t ed i n t he di st r i ct ( even i f a par t i cul ar

conspi r at or was not hi msel f physi cal l y pr esent t her e) . ") .

The r ecor d al so provi des suf f i ci ent suppor t f or f i ndi ng

venue pr oper as t o t he t hr ee count s f or cr i mi nal use of a

communi cat i ons f aci l i t y t o f aci l i t at e a t r af f i cki ng of f ense under

21 U. S. C. 843( b) , ( d) . Venue has t o be pr oper f or each count ,

as " [ t ] he cr i mi nal l aw does not r ecogni ze t he concept of

suppl ement al venue. " Sal i nas, 373 F. 3d at 164. But Razo concedes

Di az used a communi cat i on f aci l i t y i n Mai ne f or t he cal l s

under l yi ng al l t hr ee count s. See Andr ews v. Uni t ed St at es, 817

F. 2d 1277, 1279 ( 7t h Ci r . 1987) ( f i ndi ng a sect i on 843( b) of f ense

" i s commi t t ed bot h wher e t he cal l or i gi nat es and wher e i t i s

r ecei ved") . And, f ur t her , t he cal l s bet ween Razo and Di az

f aci l i t at ed a dr ug conspi r acy t hat i nvol ved t he di st r i but i on of

dr ugs i n Mai ne, f or whi ch venue i n Mai ne was pr oper . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Acost a- Gal l ar do, 656 F. 3d 1109, 1122 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011)

( f i ndi ng venue f or a sect i on 843 of f ense pr oper wher e venue i s

est abl i shed f or t he under l yi ng t r af f i cki ng of f ense) . Thus, Razo' s

venue chal l enge cannot succeed.

-23-


24/24

V.

Because we f i nd no r eversi bl e er r or among Razo' s many

chal l enges, t he j udgment of t he Di st r i ct Cour t i s af f i r med.

-24-

united states v. razo, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents