united states v. garcia-ortiz, 1st cir. (2015)

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

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1632

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J OS A. GARC A- ORTI Z,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

H. Manuel Her nndez, wi t h whomH. Manuel Hernndez, P. A. , wason br i ef f or Appel l ant .

Susan Z. J or gensen, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t orney, 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 Fr anci sco A. Besosa- Mar t nez, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef f or Appel l ee.

J ul y 6, 2015

-1-


2/22

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Hi s t hi r d t i me bef or e us,

Def endant - Appel l ant J os Gar c a- Or t i z ( "Gar c a" ) asks us t o vacat e

hi s 2004 r obber y convi ct i on, argui ng t hat t he gover nment di d not

pr esent enough evi dence at hi s j ur y t r i al t o sust ai n i t . He al so

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct j udge er r ed at hi s sent enci ng by f ai l i ng

t o consi der cer t ai n of hi s mi t i gat i ng ar gument s, by or der i ng hi s

sent ences be served consecut i vel y i nst ead of concur r ent l y, and by

i mpr oper l y i mposi ng $60, 000 i n r est i t ut i on.

Seei ng er r or onl y i n t he di str i ct cour t ' s r est i t ut i on

or der , we af f i r m Gar c a' s convi ct i on, and vacat e and r emand onl y

t he r est i t ut i on por t i on of hi s sent ence.

BACKGROUND

As t hi s i s Gar c a' s t hi r d appeal , we wi l l not r epeat

anot her det ai l ed r eci t at i on of t he f act s. But her e' s our mi se- en-

scne. 1

I n 2001, a f ood warehouse manager and hi s secur i t y escor t

were wal ki ng t o t he manager ' s car wi t h a bag of cash, whi ch t hey

pl anned t o deposi t at t he bank. Two men r an t owar d t hem. One of

t he men gr abbed t he guard, and af t er a st r uggl e, gunshot s were

1 On t hi s appeal , Garc a has not di r ect ed us t o any newl y-di scover ed evi dence, so we dr ew t he f act s f r om our r evi ew of t het r i al evi dence as ar t i cul at ed i n Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Or t i z, 528F. 3d 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . As we not ed t her e, we r eci t e t he f act s i nt he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y ver di ct , consi st ent wi t hsuppor t f r om t he t r i al r ecor d. I d. at 77 n. 1.

-2-


3/22

f i r ed. The guard, who was apparent l y armed, r et ur ned f i r e and shot

and ki l l ed one of t he i l l - f at ed bandi t s.

Af t er t he ml e, t he manager hear d voi ces f r om t he

near by- parked get away car yel l i ng "ki l l hi m. " One of t he r obber s

grabbed the bag of cash whi l e t he manager l ay on the ground,

beseechi ng mer cy. The manager hear d t wo mor e shots ( presumabl y

f r omt he r obbers because t he wounded guard had al r eady empt i ed hi s

chamber ) , but f or t unat el y nei t her t he manager nor guard wer e

ki l l ed. The get away car sped away, and t he assai l ant s made of f

wi t h $60, 000.

For ensi cs l at er showed t hat t hr ee guns wer e f i r ed dur i ng

t he r obbery, one bel ongi ng t o t he guard. The get away car , whi ch

had been r epor t ed st ol en about a mont h bef ore t he r obbery, was

r ecover ed nearby t he scene, donni ng a bul l et hol e i n one of t he

si de wi ndows. The r ear wi ndow was al so compl et el y broken out and

shel l casi ngs l ay about , t he backseat bl ood- st ai ned.

Law enf or cement nat ur al l y st ar t ed i nvest i gat i ng. Pol i ce

suspect ed Gar c a was i nvol ved i n t he robber y af t er t hey di scover ed

a phot o of hi mwi t h t he deceased r obber at a mechani c shop t hat had

been under pol i ce sur vei l l ance.

The FBI br ought Gar c a ( and ot her suspect s) i n t o col l ect

t hei r DNA sampl es. Garc a al so consent ed t o a body sear ch, dur i ng

whi ch t he FBI f ound what appear ed t o be a bul l et wound on hi s body

wi t h met al l i c r esi due. Anot her pi ece of damni ng evi dence, t he FBI

-3-


4/22

l ab conf i r med t hat Garc a' s DNA was i n t he back seat of t he

abandoned escape r i de, pr ompt i ng t he FBI t o excl ude the ot her

suspect s.

Gar c a was i ndi ct ed on char ges of i nt ent i onal obst r uct i on

of commerce by r obber y under t he Hobbs Act , 18 U. S. C. 2 and

1951( a) ( Count One) ; 2 unl awf ul l y car r yi ng and usi ng a f i r ear m

dur i ng a cr i me of vi ol ence under 18 U. S. C. 2 and 924( c) ( 1) ( A)

2 18 U. S. C. 1951( a) , t he Hobbs Act , pr ovi des:

Whoever i n any way or degr ee obst r uct s, del ays, oraf f ect s commerce or t he movement of any ar t i cl e orcommodi t y i n commer ce, by r obber y or ext or t i on orat t empt s or conspi r es so t o do, or commi t s or t hr eatensphysi cal vi ol ence t o any per son or pr oper t y i nf ur t her ance of a pl an or pur pose t o do anythi ng i nvi ol at i on of t hi s sect i on shal l be f i ned under t hi s t i t l eor i mpr i soned not more t han t went y year s, or bot h.

18 U. S. C. 2 i s t he ai di ng and abet t i ng pr ovi si on, whi chpr ovi des:

( a) Whoever commi t s an of f ense agai nst t he Uni t ed St at esor ai ds, abet s, counsel s, commands, i nduces or pr ocur esi t s commi ssi on, i s puni shabl e as a pr i nci pal .

( b) Whoever wi l l f ul l y causes an act t o be done whi ch i fdi r ect l y per f or med by hi mor another woul d be an of f enseagai nst t he Uni t ed St at es, i s puni shabl e as a pr i nci pal .

-4-


5/22

( Count Two) ; 3 and f el ony murder under 18 U. S. C. 2 and 924( j )

( Count Thr ee) . 4

3

18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t , t hatany per son who, dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o any cr i me ofvi ol ence . . . . f or whi ch t he per son may be pr osecut edi n a cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, uses or car r i es af i r ear m, or who, i n f ur t her ance of any such cr i me,possesses a f i r ear m, shal l , i n addi t i on t o t he puni shmentpr ovi ded f or such cr i me of vi ol ence . . .

( i ) be sent enced t o a t er m of i mpr i sonment ofnot l ess t han 5 year s;

( i i ) i f t he f i r ear m i s br andi shed, besent enced t o a t er m of i mpr i sonment of notl ess t han 7 year s; and

( i i i ) i f t he f i r ear m i s di schar ged, besent enced t o a t er m of i mpr i sonment of notl ess t han 10 years.

4 18 U. S. C. 924( j ) i s t he f el ony mur der pr ovi si on, whi chpr ovi des:

A per son who, i n t he cour se of a vi ol at i on of subsect i on

( c) , causes t he deat h of a per son t hr ough t he use of af i r ear m, shal l - -

( 1) i f t he ki l l i ng i s a mur der ( as def i ned i nsect i on 1111) , be puni shed by deat h or byi mpr i sonment f or any t er m of year s or f orl i f e; and

( 2) i f t he ki l l i ng i s mansl aught er ( as def i nedi n sect i on 1112) , be puni shed as pr ovi ded i nt hat sect i on.

18 U. S. C. 1111 def i nes " mur der , " i n r el evant par t , as

t he unl awf ul ki l l i ng of a human bei ng wi t h mal i ceaf oret hought . Ever y mur der per pet r at ed by poi son, l yi ngi n wai t , or any ot her ki nd of wi l l f ul , del i ber at e,mal i ci ous, and pr emedi t at ed ki l l i ng; or commi t t ed i n t heper pet r at i on of , or at t empt t o per pet r at e, any . . .

-5-


6/22

Af t er a 14- day t r i al , i n August 2004 a j ur y convi ct ed

Gar c a on al l t hr ee count s. At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct j udge

handed down t wo concur r ent l i f e- i mpr i sonment sent ences on Count s

One and Thr ee, and a ten- year consecut i ve pr i son sent ence on Count

Two. Gar c a appeal ed bot h t he convi ct i on and sent ences.

I n 2008, we af f i r med the convi ct i on but vacat ed t he

sent ence as t o Count One because t he di st r i ct j udge i mper mi ssi bl y

sent enced Gar c a t o l i f e, even t hough t he st at ut or y maxi mum f or

t hat char ge was 20 year s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Or t i z, 528

F. 3d 74, 84- 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( "Gar c a I " ) . We r emanded t o t he

di st r i ct cour t f or r e- sent enci ng on t hat count . I d. at 85.

On r emand, t he di st r i ct j udge sent enced Garc a t o 50

mont hs on Count One, t o be ser ved concur r ent l y wi t h a 240- mont h

sent ence on Count Thr ee. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Or t i z, 657

F. 3d 25, 27- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Gar c a I I ") . The j udge al so gave

Gar c a an addi t i onal ( consecut i ve) f i ve year s on Count Two. See

i d. at 27.

Gar c a appeal ed agai n, pr i mar i l y ar gui ng hi s convi ct i on

and sent ence on Count Two vi ol at ed hi s doubl e j eopardy r i ght s

because t hat cr i me ( unl awf ul l y car r yi ng a f i r ear mdur i ng a cr i me of

r obber y . . . or per pet r at ed f r om a pr emedi t at ed desi gnunl awf ul l y and mal i ci ousl y t o ef f ect t he deat h of anyhuman bei ng ot her t han hi m who i s ki l l ed, i s mur der i nt he f i r st degr ee.

Any ot her murder i s murder i n the second degree.

-6-


7/22

vi ol ence) was a l esser i ncl uded of f ense of t he mur der char ge. See

i d. at 28. We agr eed. The cr ux of our deci si on was t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s admoni t i on t hat "wi t hout a cl ear i ndi cat i on t hat Congr ess

i nt ended cumul at i ve puni shment s f or t he same of f ense under t wo

di f f er ent st at ut es, cour t s must pr esume t hat Congr ess aut hor i zed

onl y one puni shment . " I d. at 29 ( ci t i ng Whal en v. Uni t ed St at es,

445 U. S. 684, 691- 92 ( 1980) ) . And, as we di scussed i n Gar c a I I ,

unl awf ul l y car r yi ng a f i r ear mwas an el ement of f el ony mur der under

924( j ) ; t he l at t er "r equi r es pr oof of [ onl y] one addi t i onal f act:

t he deat h. " Gar c a I I , 657 F. 3d at 28. Thus, we vacat ed Gar c a' s

convi ct i on and sent ence on Count Two, and af f i r med the convi ct i ons

on Count s One and Thr ee. I d. at 31. But we r emanded f or r e-

sent enci ng on t hose count s, i n case t he di st r i ct j udge want ed t o

"unbundl e and r econst i t ut e t he sent enci ng package. " I d.

I n Apr i l 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t agai n r e- sent enced

Gar c a, t hi s t i me t o 36 mont hs on Count One and 240 mont hs on Count

Three, t o be ser ved consecut i vel y. That made f or a gr and t ot al of

23 years ( t wo years f ewer t han t he pr evi ous sent ence) . The cour t

al so or der ed Gar c a t o pay $60, 000 i n r est i t ut i on t o t he f ood

war ehouse.

Gar c a now appeal s f or a t hi r d t i me. Fi r st , he says hi s

ar med r obber y convi ct i on - - and, as a resul t , t he f el ony mur der

convi ct i on pr emi sed on t he r obber y - - shoul d not st and because t he

evi dence at hi s t r i al est abl i shed onl y t hat he was pr esent at t he

-7-


8/22

scene of t he r obber y. Second, he ar gues t he di st r i ct j udge er r ed

( agai n) at sent enci ng by f ai l i ng t o pr oper l y consi der t he sent ences

of def endant s i n si mi l ar cases. Thi r d, Gar c a cont ends, t he j udge

mi st akenl y or der ed r est i t ut i on. Fi nal l y, he ar gues (i n a br i ef he

f i l ed on hi s own, af t er hi s counsel l ed br i ef was f i l ed) t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y or der ed t hat he ser ve t he sent ences f or

Count One and Count Thr ee consecut i vel y, when he shoul d onl y have

t o ser ve t hem concur r ent l y. 5

We f i nd t hat onl y Gar c a' s r est i t ut i on ar gument bear s any

t eet h. We addr ess each gr i evance i n t ur n.

DISCUSSION

The Convictions

Gar c a has i t r i ght t hat i f hi s r obber y convi ct i on was

pr emi sed on hi s r ol e as an ai der and abet t or , hi s "mer e associ at i on

wi t h t he pr i nci pal , or mer e pr esence at t he scene of a cr i me, even

when combi ned wi t h knowl edge t hat a cr i me wi l l be commi t t ed, i s not

suf f i ci ent to establ i sh . . . l i abi l i t y. " Uni t ed St at es v.

5 Gar c a al so rai ses a number of addi t i onal ar gument s i n hi spr o se br i ef . Speci f i cal l y, he ar gues: ( 1) hi s doubl e j eopar dyr i ght s wer e vi ol at ed because t he robbery charge f or whi ch he wasconvi ct ed i s a l esser - i ncl uded of f ense of f el ony mur der ; ( 2) t heFBI ' s sear ch of hi s body, whi ch l ed t o hi s ar r est , was i l l egal ; and( 3) he coul d not be convi ct ed under t he f el ony mur der st atut e

because t he def endant s di d not br i ng t he gun t hat l ed t o hi s co-r obber ' s deat h. We do not address t hese ar gument s because t heycoul d have (and t her ef ore shoul d have) been br ought up i n not j ustone, but t wo pr i or appeal s. Uni t ed St at es v. Mor an, 393 F. 3d 1, 11( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "I n gener al , avai l abl e cl ai ms of er r or not r ai sedi n an i ni t i al appeal may not be r ai sed dur i ng subsequent appeal s i nt he same case. " ) .

-8-


9/22

Medi na- Romn, 376 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( ci t at i on and

al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . Rat her , "[ i ] n or der t o sust ai n a convi ct i on

f or ai di ng and abet t i ng t he gover nment must pr ove, i n addi t i on t o

t he commi ssi on of t he of f ense by t he pr i nci pal , t hat t he def endant

consci ousl y shar ed t he pr i nci pal ' s knowl edge of t he under l yi ng

cr i mi nal act , and i nt ended t o hel p t he pr i nci pal . " Uni t ed St at es

v. Hender son, 320 F. 3d 92, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Recogni zi ng t hat we have t wi ce " r ej ect ed [ hi s] argument s

at t acki ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence, " Gar c a nonet hel ess

ur ges us t o reassess whet her t he evi dence pr esent ed at hi s t r i al

was enough t o convi ct hi m of armed r obber y. Accordi ng t o Garc a,

t he government onl y est abl i shed hi s " mere pr esence" at t he scene of

t he r obber y - - not hi s "knowl edge and act i ve par t i ci pat i on" i n t he

cr i me, as ai di ng and abet t i ng l aw r equi r es.

Gar c a' s ar gument f ai l s - - yet agai n. Wel l est abl i shed

i s t hat "when a cour t deci des upon a r ul e of l aw, t hat deci si on

shoul d cont i nue to gover n t he same i ssues i n subsequent st ages i n

t he same case. " Negr n- Al meda v. Sant i ago, 579 F. 3d 45, 50 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed and quot at i ons omi t t ed) . That i s, "a

l egal deci si on made at one st age of a cr i mi nal . . . pr oceedi ng

shoul d r emai n t he l aw of t hat case t hr oughout t he l i t i gat i on,

unl ess and unt i l t he deci si on i s modi f i ed or over r ul ed by a hi gher

cour t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mor an, 393 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

-9-


10/22

"We revi ew de novo whet her t he l aw of t he case doct r i ne appl i es. "

Negr n- Al meda, 579 F. 3d at 50 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

I n Gar c a I , we speci f i cal l y r ej ect ed Gar c a' s at t acks on

t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence. See Gar c a I , 528 F. 3d at 83.

Gar c a doesn' t di sput e t hat . Even st i l l , he says, t he l aw of t he

case doct r i ne shoul d not appl y her e because except i onal

ci r cumst ances cal l f or a f r esh l ook.

To be sur e, t he l aw al l ows us t o " r eopen a mat t er

pr evi ousl y deci ded on a showi ng of except i onal ci r cumst ances - - a

t hr eshol d whi ch, i n tur n, demands t hat t he pr oponent accompl i sh one

of t hr ee t hi ngs: show t hat cont r ol l i ng l egal aut hor i t y has changed

dr amat i cal l y; pr of f er si gni f i cant new evi dence, not ear l i er

obt ai nabl e i n t he exer ci se of due di l i gence; or convi nce t he cour t

t hat a bl at ant er r or i n t he pr i or deci si on wi l l , i f uncor r ected,

r esul t i n a ser i ous i nj ust i ce. " Negr n- Al meda, 579 F. 3d at 51- 52

( ci t at i on and quot at i ons omi t t ed) . But i n Gar c a I I , we al r eady

f ound t hat Gar c a "made no showi ng of any such except i onal

ci r cumst ance. " Gar c a I I , 657 F. 3d at 30. And on t hi s go- r ound,

we see no reason t o doubt t hat deci si on.

Garc a cl ai ms a r ecent l y- deci ded Supr eme Cour t case

cl ar i f yi ng t he sci ent er ( i . e. , knowl edge) r equi r ement f or ai di ng

and abet t i ng l i abi l i t y, Rosemond v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . 1240

-10-


11/22

( 2014) , demands t hat Gar c a I came out t he wr ong way. 6 See Uni t ed

St at es v. Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 258 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat

we may reopen a mat t er "when an exi st i ng panel deci si on i s

under mi ned by cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y, subsequent l y announced, such

as an opi ni on of t he Supr eme Cour t . " ( ci t at i on, quot at i ons, and

al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ) . We are not moved by t hi s ar gument .

I n Rosemond, t he Supreme Cour t was t asked wi t h deci di ng

"what t he Gover nment must show when i t accuses a def endant of

ai di ng or abet t i ng" a 924( c) of f ense. 134 S. Ct . at 1243. The

Cour t hel d t hat " t he Government makes i t s case by pr ovi ng t hat t he

def endant act i vel y par t i ci pat ed i n t he under l yi ng . . . vi ol ent

cr i me wi t h advance knowl edge t hat a conf ederat e woul d use or car r y

a gun dur i ng t he cr i me' s commi ssi on. " I d. " [ T]hat means knowl edge

at a t i me t he accompl i ce can do somet hi ng wi t h i t - - most notabl y,

opt t o wal k away. " I d. at 1249- 50.

Rosemond, whi l e a si gni f i cant change i n t he l aw f or some

ci r cui t s, does not hi ng f or Gar c a' s case. 7 As hi s counsel

essent i al l y conceded at ar gument , t hi s cour t had al r eady been

6 Gi ven that t he government does not argue on thi s appeal t hatGarc a was convi ct ed as a pr i nci pal , we assume f or pur poses ofr esol vi ng t hi s appeal t hat Gar c a was convi ct ed as onl y an ai der

and abet t or t o t he ar med robber y.7 Nor does our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Rodr guez- Mar t i nez, 778 F. 3d 367, 373 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) , whi chGar c a ci t es i n suppor t of hi s ar gument . Rodr guez- Mar t i nez doesnot r ef l ect any change i n our l aw, but onl y our appl i cat i on ofexi st i ng l aw t o t he speci f i c f act s of t hat case.

-11-


12/22

appl yi ng t he "advance knowl edge" r equi r ement f or ai di ng and

abet t i ng a 924( c) ( 1) cr i me pr i or t o Rosemond. See i d. at 1244

( not i ng t hat some ci r cui t s, i ncl udi ng t hi s one, al r eady had

est abl i shed l aw " t hat a def endant ai ds and abet s a 924( c) of f ense

onl y i f he i nt ent i onal l y t akes some act i on t o f aci l i t at e or

encour age hi s cohor t ' s use of t he f i r ear m" ( ci t at i on and quot at i ons

omi t t ed) ) ; Medi na- Romn, 376 F. 3d at 5- 6 ( "Knowl edge i s t he cent r al

el ement of t he cr i me of ai di ng and abet t i ng t he car r yi ng or use of

a f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 924( c)( 1) . To suppor t ai di ng and

abet t i ng cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y under 18 U. S. C. 2, t hat knowl edge

cannot be mer e knowl edge of a l i kel i hood t hat a f i r ear m wi l l be

car r i ed or used but r at her must amount t o a pr act i cal cer t ai nt y of

t he ot her ' s car r yi ng or use. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nney, 65 F. 3d

231, 239 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( r equi r i ng t he government t o adduce

evi dence "suggest i ng t hat f i r ear ms wer e act ual l y cont empl ated i n

t he pl anni ng st ages, or t hat [ ai der and abet t or ] had any act ual

knowl edge that [ pr i nci pal ] woul d be ar med") ; Uni t ed St ates v.

Vzquez- Cast r o, 640 F. 3d 19, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "To show ai der and

abet t or l i abi l i t y, t he gover nment must pr ove t hat t he def endant

knew t o a ' pr act i cal cer t ai nt y' t hat t he pr i nci pal woul d use a

weapon dur i ng t he commi ssi on of t he cr i me. . . . ' [ P] r act i cal

cer t ai nt y i s a r ubr i c t hat cal l s f or pr oof ver gi ng on act ual

knowl edge. ' " ( quot i ng Spi nney, 65 F. 3d at 238) ) . Thus, we do not

bel i eve ( and Garc a cer t ai nl y has not convi nced us) t hat Rosemond

-12-


13/22

changed or even under mi ned our exi st i ng l aw, as i t per t ai ns t o t he

r equi r ement t hat an ai der and abet t or of a 924( c) cr i me have

advance knowl edge of t he pr i nci pal ' s i nt ent t o use a weapon. 8 I t

f ol l ows, t hen, t hat Rosemond di d not enhance t he knowl edge r equi r ed

of an ai der and abet t or of 924( j ) .

Garc a al so has not present ed us wi t h any new evi dence

t hat mi ght convi nce us t o change our t une. And he has not

per suaded us t hat any "mani f est i nj ust i ce l ooms. " See Uni t ed

St at es v. Bel l , 988 F. 2d 247, 251 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . To be sur e,

Gar c a di d not even r ai se t hi s speci f i c ar gument on hi s f i r st

appeal ( t hat t he evi dence was l acki ng as t o hi s advance knowl edge

t hat hi s cohor t s woul d br i ng a gun t o t he r obber y) , whi ch woul d

have been t he appr opr i ate t i me t o do so. He i nst ead chose t o

asser t he was not even pr esent at t he r obber y and f ocused hi s

ar gument s on ot her suf f i ci ency and evi dent i ar y i ssues. " [ N] o

credi bl e expl anat i on has been of f er ed f or [ hi s] f ai l ur e t o asser t

t he chal l enge i n a mor e t i mel y f ashi on. " See i d. Even at t hi s

l ast - di t ch j unct ur e, Gar c a has made no sol i d ef f or t t o convi nce us

a bl atant er r or occur r ed when we made our Garc a I suf f i ci ency

det er mi nat i on ( or when we uphel d i t i n Gar c a I I ) . Gar c a does not

par se out why t he speci f i c evi dence pr esent ed t o t he j ur y at hi s

t r i al was not enough t o convi ct hi m of ai di ng and abet t i ng ar med

8 Because we need not , we do not cast j udgment on whether someot her aspect of Rosemond' s hol di ng mi ght be di st i ngui shabl e f r omour pre- Rosemond case l aw.

-13-


14/22

r obber y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wal l ace, 573 F. 3d 82, 89 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( "A f i ndi ng of mani f est i nj ust i ce r equi r es a def i ni t e and

f i r m convi cti on t hat a pr i or r ul i ng on a mat er i al mat t er i s

unr easonabl e or obvi ousl y wr ong, as wel l as a f i ndi ng of

pr ej udi ce. " ( ci t at i on and quot at i ons omi t t ed) ) . I n sum, Gar c a di d

not convi nce us i n 2008 t hat he was wr ongl y convi ct ed based on a

l ack of evi dence, and he has not convi nced us t oday t o go back on

our f i ndi ng. 9

Thus, despi t e Gar c a' s persi st ence, nei t her t wi ce - - nor

t hr i ce - - over wer e hi s suf f i ci ency ar gument s good t o r epeat . We

see no r eason t o di st ur b our 2008 f i ndi ng t hat t he gover nment

pr esent ed suf f i ci ent physi cal and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence at t r i al

t hat Gar c a par t i ci pat ed i n t he r obber y, and t he r el i ef he seeks

si mpl y cannot be achi eved by maki ng t he same repeated r equest over

mul t i pl e appeal s. As we have sai d bef or e, and as i s appl i cabl e

her e, "[ t ] he l aw of t he case doctr i ne di ctat es t hat al l l i t i gat i on

9 To t he ext ent Gar c a ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d notsuf f i ci ent l y capt ur e t he knowl edge r equi r ement i n i t s ai di ng andabet t i ng j ur y i nst r uct i on, we see t wo i nsur mount abl e pr obl ems.Gi ven t hat Rosemond di d not espouse any r el evant change i n ourexi st i ng l aw, Gar c a shoul d have chal l enged t he ai di ng and abet t i ngi nst r uct i on i n a pr i or appeal . See Mor an, 393 F. 3d at 11. Ourdeci si ons i n Gar c a I and Gar c a I I pr ovi de no i ndi cat i on t hat

Gar c a di sput ed t he ai di ng and abet t i ng i nst r uct i on dur i ng t hoseappeal s; nor does Gar c a' s br i ef on t hi s appeal .I n any event , Gar c a' s one- sent ence suppl i cat i on ( i n a l et t er

submi t t ed post - br i ef i ng) aski ng us t o consi der t hi s i ssue does notgi ve us enough t o go on, and so t hi s i ssue i s wai ved f or l ack ofdevel opment . See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1stCi r . 1990) .

-14-


15/22

must somet i me come t o an end. " Bel l , 988 F. 2d at 252. Garc a' s

i nsi st ence that he was " mer el y pr esent " at t he scene of t he cr i me

i s a non- st ar t er . We wi l l not f ur t her bel abor t he poi nt .

The Sentence

Next , Gar c a ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed at

sent enci ng i n t hr ee r espect s. Fi r st , t he j udge f ai l ed t o

adequatel y addr ess why Garc a' s sent ence di d not l i ne up wi t h t he

sent ences gi ven t o ot her def endant s i n si mi l ar cases, and had t he

cour t made such a consi derat i on, Garc a' s sent ence woul d have been

cl oser t o 15 year s. Second, t he j udge mi st akenl y "cont i nued" hi s

r est i t ut i on or der , even t hough he had never or der ed r est i t ut i on i n

t he f i r st pl ace. And t hi r d, hi s sent ences f or Count s One and Thr ee

shoul d be ser ved concur r ent l y, not consecut i vel y, as t he di st r i ct

cour t or der ed.

Reasonabl eness

I n assessi ng whet her a di st r i ct cour t has commi t t ed a

sent enci ng er r or , we "must f i r st ensur e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

commi t t ed no si gni f i cant pr ocedur al er r or , such as f ai l i ng t o

cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange,

t r eat i ng t he Gui del i nes as mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he

3553( a) f act or s, sel ect i ng a sent ence based on cl ear l y er r oneous

f act s, or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen sent ence - -

i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes

r ange. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

-15-


16/22

( ci t at i on and quot at i ons omi t t ed) . "Once t he appel l at e cour t has

sat i sf i ed i t sel f t hat t he sent ence i s pr ocedur al l y sound, i t must

pr oceed, under t he same abuse of di scr et i on r ubr i c, t o r evi ew t he

subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he sent ence, t aki ng i nt o account t he

t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. " I d. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Her e, Garc a f ocuses on t he pr ocedur al r easonabl eness of

hi s sent ence, 10 ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r ef used t o consi der

hi s ar gument s t hat t he sent ences handed down i n si mi l ar r epor t ed

cases shoul d gui de t he cour t ' s sent ence i n hi s case, t hus

pr event i ng us f r om bei ng abl e to "conduct a meani ngf ul r evi ew of

t he [ subst ant i ve] r easonabl eness of t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s sent ence. "

We make shor t shr i f t of t hi s argument . 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 6) says

t hat a sent enci ng cour t must consi der , among a number of ot her

f act or s, t he need t o "avoi d unwarr ant ed sent ence di spar i t i es among

def endant s wi t h si mi l ar r ecords who have been f ound gui l t y of

si mi l ar conduct . " Gar c a ci t ed sever al cases t o t he di st r i ct cour t

i n ar gui ng t hat l i ke t he def endant s i n t hose cases, Gar c a' s

i nvol vement i n the cr i mes f or whi ch he was convi ct ed was mi ni mal ,

war r ant i ng a l ower - end sent ence.

10 "The l ack of an adequate expl anat i on can be character i zedas ei t her a pr ocedur al er r or or a chal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness of t he sent ence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cr espo- Ri os, No.13- 2216, 2015 WL 2445616, at *10 ( 1st Ci r . May 22, 2015) . Gi vent hat Gar c a' s ar gument s f ocus on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s supposedf ai l ur e t o "expl ai n why [ hi s] ar gument s wer e bei ng r ej ect ed on t her ecor d, " and t he l ack of any devel oped ar gument as t o what hi ssent ence shoul d have been, we deem Garc a' s r easonabl enesschal l enge t o be a pr ocedur al one.

-16-


17/22

Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t di d not speci f i cal l y di st i ngui sh

ever y one of t he cases Garc a ci t ed, i t need not have. The " r ecor d

makes mani f est " t hat t he j udge consi der ed Garc a' s argument s

r egar di ng 3553( a) ( 6) , r ej ect i ng t hem because "when you deci de to

go i n a car and at t ack a per son t hat most pr obabl y i s wi t h a

weapon, t o t ake $63, 000, you have t o know f or sur e that t her e may

be somebody ki l l ed. " See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637

F. 3d 26, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "We have conf i r med t hat a sent enci ng

cour t ' s expl anat i on need not be pr eci se to the poi nt of pedant r y. "

( ci t at i on and quot at i ons omi t t ed) ) . The cour t s i n t he compar at or

cases Gar c a of f er ed f ound t hose def endant s' cr i mi nal par t i ci pat i on

t o be mi ni mal . Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t sai d enough t o i ndi cat e

t hat Garc a was not i n t he same camp. Thus, we f i nd t hat t he

sent ence was not pr ocedur al l y unr easonabl e.

Rest i t ut i on

We al so make qui ck work of Garc a' s argument r egardi ng

t he pr opr i et y of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r est i t ut i on or der . The

government has conceded er r or , and we agree one occur r ed and t hat

t he pr oper r ecour se i s a remand on t hi s i ssue.

A di str i ct cour t i s stat ut or i l y r equi r ed "t o or der a

def endant t o make r est i t ut i on t o vi ct i ms of cer t ai n enumer at ed

cr i mes of vi ol ence, " i ncl udi ng ar med r obber y. Uni t ed St at es v.

Sal as- Fer nandez, 620 F. 3d 45, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; 18 U. S. C.

3663A( a) ( 1) , ( c) ( 1) ( A) . An "order f or r est i t ut i on shoul d be

-17-


18/22

t ai l or ed t o r equi r e r et ur n of t he pur l oi ned pr oper t y or i t s

equi val ent . " Sal as- Fer nandez, 620 F. 3d at 48.

At Gar c a' s most r ecent sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct j udge

or der ed t hat r est i t ut i on "cont i nue[ ] t o be par t of t he j udgment , "

even t hough ( t he mandatory) r est i t ut i on had never pr evi ousl y been

or der ed, such t hat i t coul d cont i nue. Whi l e a "det ai l ed

expl i cat i on of t he cour t ' s r easoni ng" i n i mposi ng a r est i t ut i on

or der i s not necessary, i d. , t he cour t her e pr ovi ded none.

Par t i cul ar l y, t he cour t di d not at al l addr ess whet her a payment

schedul e woul d be appr opr i at e. See i d. at 49 ( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C.

3664( f ) ( 2) ) ( "The [ Mandat or y Vi ct i ms Rest i t ut i on Act ] r equi r es a

cour t , i n set t i ng out a payment schedul e, t o consi der a def endant ' s

f i nanci al ci r cumst ances and pr ospect s. ") . Thus, gi ven t he cour t ' s

mi st aken vi ew t hat i t was mer el y cont i nui ng an al r eady- i mposed

r est i t ut i on or der , we t hi nk t he appr opr i at e cour se of act i on

anot her r emand t o al l ow t he cour t t o pr oper l y addr ess r est i t ut i on. 11

11 Gar c a al so cl ai ms t hat t he gover nment wai ved t he r i ght t oeven ask f or r est i t ut i on because i t f ai l ed t o r equest i t at hi spr i or sent enci ngs. But Gar c a has pr ovi ded no compel l i ng ( or evendevel oped) argument as t o why t he di st r i ct cour t woul d not beper mi t t ed t o or der st at ut or i l y- mandat ed r est i t ut i on atr esent enci ng, and so t hi s ar gument i s wai ved. I n any event , i n t heGar c a I I r emand we gave t he di st r i ct cour t br oad di scr et i on t o"unbundl e and r econst i t ut e t he sent enci ng package. " 657 F. 3d at

31. See Uni t ed St at es v. Pi l eggi , 703 F. 3d 675, 680 ( 4t h Ci r .2013) ( "Because t he appel l at e cour t had set asi de t he def endant ' sent i r e sent ence and remanded f or a de novo

r esent enci ng, t he r emandor der had ef f ect i vel y wi ped t he sl at e cl ean. " ) . To t he ext entGar c a has mor e speci f i c obj ect i ons t o t he r est i t ut i on or der ( suchas t he amount i mposed, t he vi ct i ms t o whom i t wi l l be pai d, et c. ) ,t hese i ssues shoul d be f l eshed out and addr essed on r emand.

-18-


19/22

Consecut i ve Sentences

Fi nal l y, Gar c a ar gues i n a pr o se br i ef t hat at r e-

sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y or der ed he ser ve t he

sent ences f or Count One and Count Thr ee consecut i vel y, as opposed

t o concur r ent l y. 12 A pl ucky ef f or t , gi ven t hat Gar c a had t o char t

t hi s cour se pr o se, we st i l l f i nd hi s shot sai l ed wi de.

The backdr op f or Gar c a' s ar gument i s 924( c) ' s mandat e

t hat "no t er m of i mpr i sonment i mposed on a per son under [ 924( c) ]

shal l r un concur r ent l y wi t h any ot her t er mof i mpr i sonment i mposed

on t he per son, i ncl udi ng any t er m of i mpr i sonment i mposed f or t he

cr i me of vi ol ence . . . dur i ng whi ch t he f i r ear mwas used, car r i ed,

or possessed. " 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( D) ( i i ) . Recal l t hat t he

second t i me t he di st r i ct j udge sent enced Gar c a, he or der ed t hat

t he sent ence f or t he 924( c) convi ct i on r un consecut i vel y to t he

f el ony mur der sent ence.

Then, i n Gar c a I I , we vacat ed t he 924( c) convi ct i on

and sent ence f or doubl e j eopardy r easons and r emanded f or r e-

sent enci ng. We al so not ed i n Gar c a I I t hat i n l i ght of t he f act

t hat we vacat ed t he 924( c) convi ct i on,

12Despi t e t he gover nment ' s mi sr epr esent at i on to t he cont r ar y,t hi s cl ai m was pr eser ved bel ow. Not onl y di d Gar c a br i ef t hei ssue i n hi s sent enci ng memorandum, but bot h si des ar gued i t atsent enci ng. Ther ef or e, we r evi ew t hi s cl ai m f or abuse ofdi scr et i on, as we woul d ot her pr eserved cl ai ms of sent enceunr easonabl eness. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

-19-


20/22

t he st at ut or y requi r ement t hat a par t of t hesent enci ng package r un consecut i vel y ar guabl yappl i es t o sect i on 924( j ) ( count 3) . I n vi ewof t hese ci r cumst ances, we t hi nk i t l i kel yt hat t he di st r i ct cour t may wi sh to unbundl eand r econst i t ut e t he sent enci ng package . . .

t he di st r i ct cour t may al so wi sh t o amel i or at et he over al l sent ence i n l i ght of t he r educednumber of count s on whi ch sent ence wi l l bei mposed.

Gar c a I I , 657 F. 3d at 31 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Wi t h our warni ng i n mi nd, t he government argued at r e-

sent enci ng t hat Gar c a' s 924( j ) sent ence must r un consecut i vel y

t o hi s 1951( a) sent ence because even t hough t he 924( c)

convi ct i on was vacat ed, t he under l yi ng f el ony was st i l l based on a

vi ol at i on of 924( c). 13 Gar c a di sagr eed, ar gui ng t hat t he cour t

was not r equi r ed t o i mpose consecut i ve sent ences, but acknowl edged

t hat t he cour t bor e t he di scr et i on t o do so. Af t er engagi ng wi t h

bot h si des on t he i ssue, t he cour t ul t i mat el y i mposed consecut i ve

sent ences.

Her e' s wher e Gar c a f al l s shor t . Al t hough t he di st r i ct

cour t di d end up handi ng down consecut i ve sent ences, t he cour t

r ej ect ed t he government ' s ar gument t hat t he consecut i ve sent ences

wer e mandat or y, and i nst ead exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on t o i mpose

consecut i ve sent ences. Not abl y, when t he government argued t hat

13 Recal l t hat 924( j ) pr ovi des t hat a "per son who, i n t hecour se of a vi ol at i on of [ 924( c) ] , causes t he deat h of a per sont hr ough t he use of a f i r ear m, shal l - ( 1) i f t he ki l l i ng i s amur der ( as def i ned i n sect i on 1111) , be puni shed by death or byi mpr i sonment f or any t er m of year s or f or l i f e. "

-20-


21/22

t he cour t was r equi r ed t o r un t he sent ences consecut i vel y, t he

j udge r esponded: " I don' t t hi nk t hat t hat ' s t he l aw . . . . Read

t he l ast par agr aph of [ Gar c a I I ] . [ I t ] says t hat I coul d r un i t

consecut i vel y or concur r ent l y. " Whi l e t he gover nment cont i nued t o

ar gue t he poi nt ( and whi l e t he cour t hear d addi t i onal ar gument f r om

Gar c a) , i t seems cl ear t o us t hat t he cour t was not adopt i ng t he

gover nment ' s take on t he l aw. Ther ef or e, si nce t he di st r i ct cour t

was mer el y exer ci si ng i t s di scr et i on t o i mpose consecut i ve

sent ences, Gar c a' s ar gument t hat t he cour t er r ed i n t hi nki ng i t

had t o i mpose t hemi s mi spl aced. 14 Besi de t he f act t hat hi s counsel

conceded at sent enci ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had such di scr et i on,

t he gener al sent enci ng pr i nci pl e under 18 U. S. C. 3584( a) i s t hat

" [ m] ul t i pl e t erms of i mpr i sonment i mposed at t he same t i me r un

concur r ent l y unl ess t he cour t or der s or t he st at ut e mandat es t hat

t he t er ms ar e t o r un consecut i vel y. " ( Emphasi s added) . Gar c a has

not di r ect ed us t o any cases or ot her aut hor i t y that says hi s

sent ences must r un concur r ent l y, and we ar e aware of none.

Garc a' s ar gument hol ds no wat er .

14 We r ecogni ze, as Gar c a poi nt s out i n hi s pr o se br i ef , t hatour si st er ci r cui t s ar e spl i t on whet her 924( j ) i ncor por at es byr ef er ence 924( c) ' s pr ohi bi t i on on concur r ent sent ences f or t he

under l yi ng cr i me of vi ol ence and t he f el ony mur der sent ence. See,e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ber r i os, 676 F. 3d 118, 139 ( 3d Ci r . 2012)( adopt i ng t he maj or i t y r ul e t hat 924( j ) does pr ohi bi t concur r entsent ences) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ul i an, 633 F. 3d 1250, 1253 ( 11t h Ci r .2011) ( adopt i ng t he opposi t e r ul e) . We have not deci ded t hi s i ssueone way or anot her , and need not t oday, gi ven t hat t he di st r i ctcour t onl y used i t s di scr et i on t o i mpose consecut i ve sent ences.

-21-


22/22

THE ADIEU

For t hese r easons, we af f i r m Gar c a' s convi ct i on and

sent ences, save the rest i t ut i on order , whi ch we vacat e and r emand

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

We expect t hat t hi s f our t h sent enci ng wi l l pr ovi de some

f i nal i t y t o t hi s pr ot r acted appel l at e mat t er .

-22-

united states v. garcia-ortiz, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents