united states v. laureano-perez, 1st cir. (2015)

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

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-laureano-perez-1st-cir-2015 1/77

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 222413- 227613- 2284

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J UAN M. LAUREANO- PÉREZ, J EFFREY J OHN CUMMI NGS- ÁVI LA, and

CHRI STOPHER L. LAUREANO- PÉREZ,Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

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

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

Bef or e Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Bar r on,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Lydi a Li zar r í bar - Masi ni , f or appel l ant J uan M. Laur eano- Pér ez.Kar en A. Pi cket t , wi t h whom Pi cket t Law Of f i ces, P. C. was on

br i ef , f or appel l ant J ef f r ey J ohn Cummi ngs- Ávi l a. J er emy Gut man, wi t h whom Todd M. Mer er , wer e on br i ef , f or

appel l ant Chr i st opher L. Laur eano- Pér ez.Sonj a M. Ral st on, At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on, Cr i mi nal

Di vi si on, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whomLesl i e R. Cal dwel l ,Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Sung- Hee Suh, Deput y Assi st ant At t or neyGener al , Rosa Emi l i a Rodr í guez- Vél ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel son Pér ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Appel l at eChi ef , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 30, 2015



TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Def endant s J uan Laur eano- Pér ez

( " J uan") , J ef f r ey Cummi ngs- Ávi l a ( "Cummi ngs" ) , and Chr i st opher

Laur eano- Pér ez ( "Chr i st opher " ) 1 ( col l ect i vel y, "Def endant s") wer e

convi ct ed of var i ous nar cot i cs possessi on, f i r ear m, and conspi r acy

char ges ar i s i ng out of t hei r par t i c i pat i on i n an i l l i ci t dr ug

or gani zat i on. Al l t hr ee appeal t hei r convi ct i ons, al l egi ng a host

of er r or s dur i ng t he pr et r i al and t r i al phases of t he pr oceedi ngs;

Cummi ngs and Chr i st opher al so chal l enge t hei r sent ences. For t he

r easons expl ai ned bel ow, we af f i r mal l of t he convi ct i ons, as wel l

as Cummi ngs' s sent ence. However , we vacat e Chr i st opher ' s sent ence

and r emand f or r e- sent enci ng.

I. Background

We begi n wi t h a gener al over vi ew of t he f act s and pr i or

pr oceedi ngs, r eser vi ng addi t i onal f act ual and pr ocedur al det ai l s

f or t he r el evant di scussi ons bel ow. For pr esent pur poses, i t i s

enough t o know t hat Def endant s wer e member s of a l ar ge drug

or gani zat i on oper at i ng i n t he Resi denci al Vi l l as de Mont er r ey

publ i c housi ng pr oj ect i n Bayamón, Puer t o Ri co ( t he "Housi ng

Pr oj ect ") whi ch sol d a wi de ar r ay of nar cot i cs, i ncl udi ng her oi n,

cocai ne base ( "cr ack" cocai ne) , powder cocai ne, and mar i j uana.

Addi t i onal l y, Def endant s had di f f er ent r ol es i n t he conspi r acy.

1 Because J uan Laur eano- Pér ez and Chr i st opher Laur eano- Pér ez arebr ot her s wi t h t he same l ast name, we r ef er t o t hem by thei r f i r stnames i n order t o di st i ngui sh t hem. We mean no di sr espect i n doi ngso.

-2-



Chr i st opher was t he l eader of t he or gani zat i on. Known as bot h

"Negr o" and " t he boss, " he owned t he maj or i t y of t he dr ugs sol d i n

t he Housi ng Pr oj ect , and, want i ng t he or gani zat i on' s pusher s and

r unner s t o be ar med, he al so suppl i ed t he or gani zat i on wi t h

weapons. J uan, meanwhi l e, was Chr i st opher ' s br ot her and known as

"McGyver . " J uan' s r ol e was an enf orcer . Fi nal l y, Cummi ngs, or

"Pi t i l l o, " was an enf or cer as wel l , t hough he woul d al so del i ver

drugs on occasi on. Bot h J uan and Cummi ngs were known t o car r y . 40

cal i ber pi stol s .

Cummi ngs was i ni t i al l y i ndi ct ed on May 30, 2012, and was

char ged wi t h: possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e her oi n, cocai ne

base ( "cr ack" cocai ne) , and cocai ne, each i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

§§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( c) , 860 ( Count s One t hr ough Thr ee,

r espect i vel y) ; possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e mar i j uana, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( D) , 860 ( Count Four ) ;

i l l egal possessi on of a machi negun, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§§ 922( o) , 924( a) ( 2) ( Count Fi ve) ; and possessi on of f i r ear ms i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) , ( B) ( i i ) ( Count Si x) . Si x mont hs l at er , on

November 28, 2012, a supersedi ng i ndi ct ment was r etur ned. Thi s

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment r et ai ned t he i ni t i al si x char ges f r om t he

May i ndi ct ment but al so added t wo more: conspi r acy t o possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances i n a pr ot ect ed l ocat i on,

i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 846, 860 ( Count Seven) , and

-3-



conspi r acy t o possess f i r ear ms i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

conspi r acy, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 924( c) ( 1) , ( o) ( Count

Ni ne) . I t al so br ought char ges agai nst Chr i st opher , J uan, and

f or t y- one ot her coconspi r at or s. 2 Chr i st opher and J uan were bot h

char ged wi t h t he t wo conspi r acy count s ( Count s Seven and Ni ne) ,

whi l e J uan was al so char ged wi t h possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug conspi r acy, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) , ( B) ( i i ) ( Count Ei ght ) .

Tr i al began on J une 5, 2013, and af t er ei ght days of

t r i al , Def endant s wer e convi ct ed on al l count s. J uan and

Chr i st opher wer e subsequent l y sent enced t o l i f e i mpr i sonment , whi l e

Cummi ngs was sentenced t o 480 mont hs. These t i mel y appeal s

f ol l owed.

II. Pre-Trial Issues

Onl y Cummi ngs r ai ses pr e- t r i al i ssues, and he does so

bot h t hr ough hi s at t or ney and t hr ough a suppl ement al pr o se f i l i ng.

We addr ess each i n turn.

A. The Disqualification of Cummings's Counsel

Cummi ngs f i r st ar gues 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 counsel bot h when i t or der ed t he

di squal i f i cat i on of hi s at t or ney, J or ge Ar ment er os- Cher voni

( "Ar ment er os") , due t o a conf l i ct of i nt er est and when i t l at er

2 None of t hese ot her coconspi r at or s went t o t r i al wi t hDef endant s.

-4-



r ef used t o r e- appoi nt Ar ment er os despi t e Cummi ngs' s at t empt t o

wai ve t he conf l i ct . "We r evi ew deci si ons t o di squal i f y an at t or ney

f or conf l i ct of i nt er est f or abuse of di scr et i on. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Lanoue, 137 F. 3d 656, 663 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . Her e, we f i nd no

such abuse.

1. Relevant Facts

On J une 5, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Cummi ngs' s

mot i on t o be repr esent ed by Ar ment er os i nst ead of a cour t - appoi nt ed

at t or ney f r om t he Of f i ce of t he Feder al Def ender . A mont h l at er ,

t he gover nment became concer ned over t he sour ce of Ar ment eros' s

at t or ney f ees, so i t f i l ed a mot i on aski ng t he cour t t o det er mi ne:

( 1) t he sour ce of Ar ment er os' s at t or ney f ees; ( 2) whet her

Ar ment er os was r et ai ned or pai d by an i ndi vi dual ot her t han

Cummi ngs; ( 3) whet her t her e was a conf l i ct of i nt er est ; and ( 4) i f

t her e was a conf l i ct , whet her Cummi ngs was wai vi ng the conf l i ct and

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t woul d accept t he wai ver . At a st at us

conf er ence on J ul y 26, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t set a br i ef i ng

schedul e and hear i ng dat e f or t he i ssue.

Though t he gover nment never f i l ed i t s f or mal mot i on, t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d t he hear i ng on August 14. At t he hear i ng,

Ar ment er os obj ected, argui ng t hat t he hear i ng was "pr ematur e . . .

because I don' t know what i s t he i ssue or what i s t he i nt ent . " The

di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed, st at i ng t hat t he par t i es wer e t her e "t o

f i gur e out t he i ssue. " The gover nment t hen i nf ormed t he cour t t hat

-5-



i t had met wi t h Ar ment eros and t hat t he gover nment had "showed hi m

r ecor di ngs of hi s def endant , whi ch pr oved t hat . . . At t or ney

Ar ment eros [ ] was r etai ned by anot her person who i s not t he

def endant i n t hi s case. " The government added t hat Ar ment eros "di d

not deny" t hat he was bei ng pai d by another per son. I n r esponse to

t hi s pr of f er , t he di st r i ct cour t asked Ar ment er os about t he sour ce

of hi s f ees, but Ar ment er os r ef used t o answer . I nst ead, Ar ment er os

r esponded:

[ W] i t h al l due r espect we' r e goi ng t o cl ai m adue pr ocess r i ght now, Your Honor , because Idon' t t hi nk t hat t he hear i ng can come t o f i ndout what was goi ng on. I t hi nk t he pr osecut ormust make a cl ai m, and we must r espond t oi t . . . . I ' mt el l i ng you that I amnot cl earwhat i s t he cl ai m t o whi ch I have t o r espond. . . .

The di st r i ct cour t once agai n expl ai ned t hat t he cl ai m

was t hat Cummi ngs was not payi ng hi s own at t or ney f ees but r at her

t hat t hey wer e comi ng f r om a t hi r d par t y. To t hi s, Ar ment er os

r epl i ed t hat "t hat ' s not t he i nf or mat i on t hat I have been gi ven. "

He went on t o expl ai n t hat he had r ecei ved a $5, 000 i ni t i al payment

and t hat hi s r el at i onshi p wi t h Cummi ngs " date[ d] back t o another

case" i n whi ch he def ended Cummi ngs and was successf ul i n havi ng

t he case di smi ssed. Ar ment er os conceded t hat he had hear d one of

t he r ecordi ngs i nvol vi ng Cummi ngs but never t hel ess mai nt ai ned that" t he onl y per son t hat I t al ked t o i s [ Cummi ngs] who t ol d me, go and

l ook f or some money, okay, i n or der t o get my f ees. "

-6-



At t hi s poi nt , t he gover nment i nt er j ect ed, expl ai ni ng

t hat i t was "t r yi ng t o pr ot ect . . . t he r i ght of t he def endant "

because i t woul d creat e a "cl ear conf l i ct of i nt er est " i f t he

person payi ng Ar ment er os' s f ees wer e someone who t he gover nment

mi ght r equi r e Cummi ngs t o t est i f y agai nst shoul d he ent er a pl ea.

The di st r i ct cour t agreed, not i ng t o Ar menter os t hat

[ i ] f i t ' s t rue that there i s a poss i bi l i t yt hat a t hi r d par t y i s payi ng f or your cl i ent ' sdef ense, and your cl i ent i s i n a si t uat i onwher eby he' s f aci ng a 30- year mi ni mum, t heGover nment i s not goi ng t o of f er any pl eabar gai ni ng t o hi m, i t i s ent i r el y possi bl et hat t he pur pose, t hat t he pur pose of somebodyel se payi ng f or t he def ense i s t o keep hi mshut .

Ar ment er os once agai n obj ect ed, argui ng t hat he "under st [ oo] d t hat

t hose f unds came f r om t he def endant " and t hat t he gover nment ' s

posi t i on "presupposes . . . t hat t hat [ t hi r d] per son t ol d me t o go

def end t hi s per son. " Ar ment eros argued t hat " t hat has never been

t he case" and "[ i ] n f act , t her e ar e a mi l l i on phone cal l s of

Mr . Cummi ngs' [ s] wi f e aski ng me t o go and vi si t hi monce af t er he' s

ar r est ed. " Ar ment er os emphasi zed t hat he coul d r ecogni ze a

conf l i ct of i nt er est and was posi t i ve t hat no conf l i ct exi st ed.

The cour t t hen pr oceeded t o hear t he t wo t el ephone

r ecordi ngs of Cummi ngs wi t h counsel f or bot h t he gover nment and

Cummi ngs pr esent . I n t he f i r st , Cummi ngs spoke t o Ana Saur í ,

Cummi ngs' s gi r l f r i end' s mot her , and t ol d her t hat hi s l awyer had

come t o vi si t hi m and t hat " t hey pai d hi m t he money. " Saur í added

-7-



t hat she spoke wi t h Ar ment eros and asked hi m t o get someone she

cal l ed "Negr i t o" out of j ai l , t o whi ch Ar ment er os r esponded, "Don' t

ment i on t hat name. " Cummi ngs al so i nf or med Saur í t hat Ar ment eros

had t ol d hi m t hat i f " t hey work wi t h me on t he money and st uf f

. . . what I ask t hem i n or der t o hel p you, t hen I wi l l come on

Monday. " Lat er on i n t he cal l , Chr i st opher , who had not yet been

i ndi ct ed, t ook t he phone f r om Saur í and spoke wi t h Cummi ngs.

Cummi ngs t hanked Chr i st opher "a mi l l i on f or t he at t orney t hi ng" and

added t hat Ar ment er os had t ol d hi m t hat " [ t ] hey gave [ Ar ment er os]

10" and t hat Cummi ngs coul d gi ve Ar ment eros " t he ot her 10 . . .

when you get out . " Chr i st opher al so st ated t hat he "was goi ng t o

see i f . . . [ he] coul d send somet hi ng wi t h t he at t or ney, but i t

wasn' t possi bl e. "

The second r ecor di ng i nvol ved Cummi ngs, Saur í , her

daught er Ashl ey, and Chr i st opher . I n t hi s cal l , Cummi ngs asked

Chr i st opher , "what di d t he l awyer i nski say t o you?" and Chr i st opher

r esponded t hat " [ h] e hasn' t showed up. I have been cal l i ng hi mand

he hasn' t showed up . . . . [ H] e came t o t al k about money, but he

hasn' t r et ur ned. " Cummi ngs once agai n t hanked Chr i st opher f or t he

money, t o whi ch Chr i st opher r esponded t hat " [ t ] hi s i s not about t he

money, t hi s i s about bei ng uni t ed. " At t he end of t he cal l ,

Cummi ngs asked Chr i st opher t o put pressure on Ar ment eros because he

"does not come her e t o vi si t me, " and Chr i st opher r esponded t hat he

-8-



wi l l "t r y[ ] t o cal l and cont act hi m, but he doesn' t want t o t al k t o

me . . . . But , ever yt hi ng t hat he t el l s me I wi l l t el l you. "

Once t he r ecor di ngs wer e f i ni shed, t he di st r i ct cour t

asked Ar ment eros i f Cummi ngs was "wi l l i ng t o answer some quest i ons

f r om" t he cour t , but Ar ment er os decl i ned t he i nvi t at i on because i t

was a "ver y dubi ous si t uat i on. " The cour t emphasi zed t hat

i n order f or me to make a deci si on, a bal anceddeci si on, I have t o ask hi m some quest i ons t of i gur e out , you know, f i r st of al l , who i s t heper son t hat i s payi ng t he f ees, what i s t her el at i onshi p wi t h hi m, and advi se hi m of t hepot ent i al conf l i ct s, et cet er a. And he has t omake a deci si on, and t hen I have t o make myown deci si on. But we have t o have an exchangeobvi ousl y.

St i l l , Ar ment er os decl i ned. He i nf ormed t he cour t t hat Cummi ngs

was " mor e t han wi l l i ng t o l i st en t o what ever t he Cour t has t o say.

However , he' s not i n a posi t i on at t hi s poi nt t o gi ve any st at ement

t o t he Cour t . . . . " The gover nment obj ect ed t o t hi s r ef usal ,

ar gui ng "[ t ] hat ' s exactl y t he conf l i ct of i nt er est . The at t or ney

i s t her e, and I don' t know i f t he cl i ent want s t o t al k t o t he Cour t

or i f t he at t or ney i s not l et t i ng t he cl i ent . "

The di st r i ct cour t agreed:

I f i t ' s cl ear t o me t hat a t hi r d par t y i spayi ng f or t he f ees, t hen I have an obl i gat i ont o have some sor t of di al ogue, i f you wi l l ,

t hat has t o be t hr ough quest i ons and answerswi t h the def endant , and advi se hi m, geti nf or mat i on f r omhi mabout t hi s si t uat i on, andadvi se hi m of t he pot ent i al r i sks andconf l i cts. But I am i n a si t uat i on wher ebyt he def endant doesn' t want t o deal wi t h t hati ssue wi t h me. So I ' m get t i ng no i nf or mat i on

-9-



f r om hi m . . . . [ I t ] i s qui t e cl ear , t hat[ Chr i st opher ] [ 3] i s payi ng f or t he f ees, andt hat [ Chr i st opher ] has cont r ol over a bunch of t hi ngs t hat per t ai n t o t he def ense obvi ousl y.

. . . .

. . . Al l I ' msayi ng i s that i t ' s qui te cl ear ,qui t e cl ear f rom t hose t apes that[ Chr i st opher ] , who i s t he pur por t ed l eader ,has advanced t he f unds, r etai ned you t o dealwi t h Cummi ngs, t o r epr esent Cummi ngs, and t hatCummi ngs i s et er nal l y gr at ef ul t o[ Chr i st opher ] f or havi ng done t hat . Not onl yt hat , [ Chr i st opher ] and Cummi ngs ar e goi ng t odeci de basi cal l y what t he st r at egy' s goi ng t obe t oget her , and t he st r at egy i s goi ng t o besuch t hat [ Chr i st opher ] wi l l not bepr ej udi ced. . . .

. . . .

. . . You have been r et ai ned and pai d by at hi r d par t y. . . . [ I ] t goes beyond t hat ,because one t hi ng i s t he act of a char i t y of at hi r d par t y t o pay a def ense of somebody deart o hi m. Anot her t hi ng i s a si t uat i on wher ebyt he def ense i s bei ng pai d by a t hi r d par t y butat t he same t i me t her e i s i nt er vent i on of t hatt hi r d par t y and t he def endant as t o howt hey' r e goi ng t o deal wi t h t he i ssue.Basi cal l y, not onl y t o def end Cummi ngs, butal so t o make cer t ai n t hat [ Chr i st opher ]doesn' t get i nvol ved.

Seei ng how t he cour t was l eani ng, Ar ment er os asked t he di st r i ct

cour t t o del ay maki ng a r ul i ng, but t he cour t r ef used, st at i ng t hat

"[ i ] t ' s made. " The di st r i ct cour t pr oceeded t o expl ai n i t s r ul i ng

as f ol l ows:

3 Thr oughout t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t mi st akenl y r ef er r edt o Chr i st opher as Chr i st i an.

-10-



[ T] he r easons are t he ones t hat I ' ve st at ed:No cooper at i on on def endant ' s s i de; obvi ousconf l i ct of i nt er est ; f ai l ur e on t hedef endant ' s si de, who has a bur den, t oo, t oput me i n a posi t i on t o make a bal anci ng, abal anci ng t hat i s goi ng t o be ver y di f f i cul t

t o make even i f he t el l s me somethi ng, becauseof t he cont ent of t he t apes.

Ther ef or e, I amonce agai n st at i ng t hatt her e i s a pot ent i al mat er i al , huge conf l i ctof i nt er est her e t hat wi l l not al l ow you t o behi s at t or ney i n t hi s case.

Three mont hs l at er , on November 28, 2012, Cummi ngs f i l ed

a mot i on r equest i ng t hat Ar ment er os be re- appoi nt ed as hi s

at t orney. I n t he mot i on, Cummi ngs st ated t hat

Mr . Ar ment eros has been my at t or ney si nceFebr uar y 18, 2010 . . . . I f eel t hat he hasal l ways [ si c] and wi l l cont i nue to have mycompl et e conf i dence as my at t or ney.

. . . .

I do not bel i eve t hat Mr . Ar ment er oshas a conf l i ct of i nt er est . But i n any casei f i t wer e t r ue, I am wi l l i ng t o wai ve sai dconf l i ct .

The mot i on was deni ed on J anuar y 28, 2013.

2. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

The Si xt h Amendment guar ant ees t he r i ght of an i ndi vi dual

accused i n a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on t o "have t he Assi st ance of

Counsel f or hi s def ence, " U. S. Const . amend. VI , whi ch necessar i l y

i ncl udes " t he r i ght t o have an at t orney of one' s own choosi ng. "

Lanoue, 137 F. 3d at 663. Thi s r i ght , however , i s not absol ut e.

I d. To t he cont r ar y, because t he "essent i al ai m" of t he Si xt h

-11-



Amendment " i s t o guarant ee an ef f ect i ve advocat e f or each cr i mi nal

def endant , " Wheat v. Uni t ed St ates, 486 U. S. 153, 159 ( 1988) ,

"[ o] ne i mpor t ant l i mi t at i on on t h[ i s] r i ght i s t he t r i al cour t ' s

i nt er est i n ensur i ng t hat cri mi nal t r i al s ar e conduct ed wi t hi n

et hi cal and pr of essi onal st andar ds. " I n r e Gr and J ur y Pr oceedi ngs,

859 F. 2d 1021, 1023 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

To t hat end, " [ i ] f t here i s a r eal i st i c pot ent i al f or

conf l i ct of i nt er est , " a di st r i ct cour t ' s "concer n may over r i de a

def endant ' s Si xth Amendment r i ght f r eel y t o choose hi s l awyer . "

I d. And whi l e a def endant can of t en wai ve t he conf l i ct , t hi s, t oo,

i s not absol ut e. See, e. g. , Wheat , 486 U. S. at 158- 59; Lanoue, 137

F. 3d at 663. A di st r i ct cour t may decl i ne t o accept a def endant ' s

wai ver "not onl y i n t hose rar e cases wher e an act ual conf l i ct may

be demonst r ated bef ore t r i al , but [ al so] i n t he more common cases

wher e a potent i al f or conf l i ct exi st s whi ch may or may not bur geon

i nt o an act ual conf l i ct as t he t r i al pr ogr esses. " I n r e Gr and J ur y

Pr oceedi ngs, 859 F. 2d at 1023- 24 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( emphasi s

omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Wheat , 486 U. S. at 163) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . St i l l , t her e must be a "showi ng of a ser i ous pot ent i al

f or conf l i ct " t o over come the pr esumpt i on i n f avor of a def endant ' s

sel ect i on of counsel . I d. at 1024.

One such ser i ous pot ent i al f or conf l i ct occur s when "a

cr i mi nal def endant i s r epr esent ed by a l awyer hi r ed and pai d by a

t hi r d par t y, par t i cul ar l y when t he t hi r d par t y i s t he oper at or of

-12-



t he al l eged cr i mi nal ent er pr i se. " Wood v. Geor gi a, 450 U. S. 261,

268- 69 ( 1981) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Ur ut yan, 564 F. 3d 679 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2009) . The conf l i ct ar i ses because a l awyer coul d be i ncl i ned

t o "prevent hi s cl i ent f r om obt ai ni ng l eni ency by pr event i ng t he

cl i ent f r omof f er i ng t est i mony agai nst hi s f or mer empl oyer or f r om

t aki ng ot her act i ons cont r ar y t o t he empl oyer ' s i nt er est . " Wood,

450 U. S. at 269.

That was t he pr eci se si t uat i on f aci ng t he di st r i ct cour t .

The gover nment al er t ed t he di st r i ct cour t t hat i t was concer ned

Ar ment er os was bei ng pai d by Chr i st opher - - t he l eader of t he dr ug

organi zat i on connect ed t o Cummi ngs' s ar r est - - and want ed t he cour t

t o i nqui r e f ur t her . I n r esponse, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d a hear i ng

i n whi ch i t hear d t wo recor di ngs unequi vocal l y showi ng t hat

Ar ment er os was bei ng pai d by somebody ot her t han Cummi ngs, most

l i kel y Chr i st opher , and i n whi ch i t l ear ned t hat any pl ea agr eement

of f er ed by t he gover nment woul d necessar i l y ent ai l cooper at i on

agai nst ot her s, i ncl udi ng Chr i st opher . 4 Gi ven t hi s evi dence, t he

pot ent i al f or a conf l i ct of i nt er est was obvi ous. See Lanoue, 137

4 We r ej ect Cummi ngs' s argument t hat hi s due pr ocess r i ght s werevi ol at ed when t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t he hear i ng despi t e t hegover nment ' s f ai l ur e to f i l e a f or mal mot i on as or der ed by t he

di st r i ct cour t . The gover nment made i t s concer ns cl ear bot ht hr ough i t s i ni t i al i nf or mat i ve mot i on t o t he cour t and t hr ough i t sar gument s at t he st at us conf er ence. Mor eover , t he gover nment metwi t h Ar ment eros and "previ ewed" one of t he r ecorded phoneconver sat i ons. Any al l egat i on t hat Ar ment er os was f aced wi t h anunf ai r sur pr i se and was unabl e t o pr epar e f or t he hear i ng,t her ef or e, i s di si ngenuous at best .

-13-



F. 3d at 664 ( "The di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case di d not make t he

deci si on t o di squal i f y summar i l y. I t hel d a hear i ng and al l owed

each si de t o pr esent i t s ar gument s f or and agai nst

di squal i f i cat i on. ") ; see al so Ur ut yan, 564 F. 3d at 687 ( f i ndi ng no

abuse of di scr et i on i n di str i ct cour t ' s di squal i f i cat i on of

at t or ney due t o a conf l i ct of i nt er est wher e di st r i ct cour t hear d

a t el ephone r ecor di ng between def endant and co- def endant di scussi ng

how a member of t he al l eged conspi r acy coul d pr ovi de def endant wi t h

an at t or ney) . Add t o t hi s t he f act t hat Ar ment er os was

uncooperat i ve t hr oughout t he hear i ng and pr ohi bi t ed Cummi ngs f r om

par t aki ng i n a col l oquy wi t h t he cour t , and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat t her e was a l i kel i hood of a conf l i ct of i nt er est

was onl y f ur t her suppor t ed. 5 Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Di ozzi , 807 F. 2d

10, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( f i ndi ng no conf l i ct of i nt er est wher e t he

at t or neys wer e cooper at i ve) . Accor di ngl y, we f i nd no abuse of

di scr et i on i n t he di str i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o di squal i f y

Ar ment er os.

5 That Cummi ngs l ater seemed wi l l i ng t o engage i n a di scussi onwi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hr ough t he f i l i ng of a mot i on t o wai ve anyconf l i ct does not al t er our anal ysi s. Thi s wai ver occur r ed mont hsaf t er t he i ni t i al hear i ng, and af t er Chr i st opher had been i ndi ct ed

as a co- def endant . Chr i st opher ' s i ndi ct ment onl y i ncr eased t hechances of a conf l i ct si nce Ar ment er os woul d be repr esent i ngCummi ngs whi l e bei ng pai d not by some t hi r d par t y but by a co-def endant wi t h di f f er ent i nt er est s. As such, t he di st r i ct cour t ' sdeci si on t o r ej ect Cummi ngs' s wai ver mot i on was al so not an abuseof di scr et i on. See Wheat , 486 U. S. at 163; I n r e Gr and J ur yProceedi ngs, 859 F. 2d at 1023.

-14-



B. The Speedy Trial Act

Cummi ngs next argues t hat due to a vi ol at i on of t he

Speedy Tr i al Act , 18 U. S. C. § 3161, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

di smi ssed Cummi ngs' s i ni t i al i ndi ct ment wi t h pr ej udi ce, t hus

bar r i ng t he i ncl usi on of t hose char ges i n t he super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment . We di sagr ee wi t h Cummi ngs t hat t he Speedy Tr i al Act

was vi ol ated.

1. Standard of Review

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Speedy Tr i al Act

det er mi nat i on de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Bar nes, 159 F. 3d 4, 9- 10

( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( "Bar nes I ") . I n doi ng so, we "st ar t f r om scratch

i n t he comput at i on of excl udabl e and nonexcl udabl e t i me under t he

Act " by f i r st "do[ i ng] t he basi c mat hemat i cs and det er mi n[ i ng] t he

aggr egat e t i me el apsed awai t i ng t r i al , " and t hen "ascer t ai n[ i ng]

how many days shoul d be excl uded f r om t he t otal t i me. " I d. at 10

( i nt er nal quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . However , we do not go hunt i ng

f or nonexcl udabl e t i me; excl usi ons of t i me not speci f i cal l y

chal l enged i n t he di st r i ct cour t are wai ved on appeal . Uni t ed

St at es v. Gat es, 709 F. 3d 58, 67- 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

2. The Speedy Trial Act Was Not Violated

The Speedy Tr i al Act "commands t hat a def endant be t r i ed

wi t hi n 70 days of t he l at est of ei t her t he f i l i ng of an i ndi ct ment

or i nf or mat i on, or t he f i r st appear ance bef or e a j udge or

magi st r at e. " Bar nes I , 159 F. 3d at 9 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

-15-



ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Cer t ai n per i ods of t i me, however , ar e excl uded

f r om t hi s sevent y- day cal cul at i on. These i ncl ude:

[ a] ny per i od of del ay r esul t i ng f r om ot herpr oceedi ngs concerni ng t he def endant ,

i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o - -

. . . .

( F) del ay r esul t i ng f r om any pr et r i al mot i on,f r om t he f i l i ng of t he mot i on t hr ough t heconcl usi on of t he hear i ng on, or ot her pr omptdi sposi t i on of , such mot i on;

. . . .

( J ) del ay reasonabl y at t r i but abl e to anyper i od, not t o exceed t hi r t y days, dur i ngwhi ch any proceedi ng concer ni ng t he def endanti s act ual l y under advi sement by t he cour t .

. . . .

( 8) ( A) Any per i od of del ay r esul t i ng f r om acont i nuance gr ant ed by any j udge on hi s ownmot i on or at t he r equest of t he def endant orhi s counsel or at t he r equest of t he at t or neyf or t he Gover nment , i f t he j udge gr ant ed suchcont i nuance on t he basi s of hi s f i ndi ngs t hatt he ends of j ust i ce served by t aki ng suchact i on out wei gh t he best i nt er est of t hepubl i c and t he def endant i n a speedy t r i al .

I d. ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. § 3161( h) ) .

Her e, t he par t i es agr ee t hat we begi n count i ng on

J une 15, 2012 - - t he dat e of Cummi ngs' s ar r ai gnment 6 - - and t hat we

6 I t i s uncl ear t o us why t he par t i es begi n count i ng on J une 15,2012, t he dat e of Cummi ngs' s ar r ai gnment . The Speedy Tr i al Acti nst r uct s t hat we begi n count i ng on t he l at er of a def endant ' sf i r st appear ance or i ndi ct ment ; i t says not hi ng about a def endant ' sar r ai gnment . See 18 U. S. C. § 3161( c) ( 1) ; Bar nes I , 159 F. 3d at 9.Cummi ngs was i ndi ct ed on May 30, 2012, and hi s f i r st appear anceoccur r ed on May 2, 2012. Thus, t he pr oper s t ar t i ng date shoul d

-16-



st op t he cl ock on November 28, 2012 - - t he dat e the supersedi ng

i ndi ct ment addi ng Cummi ngs' s co- def endant s was f i l ed. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Bar nes, 251 F. 3d 251, 258 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( "Bar nes I I " )

( hol di ng t hat t he Speedy Tr i al Act cl ock reset s upon t he ret ur n of

a super sedi ng i ndi ct ment addi ng new def endant s i n or der t o

"synchr oni ze[ ] " t he cases and avoi d pi ecemeal pr osecut i ons and

dupl i cat i ve pr oceedi ngs) . Thi s i s a t ot al of 167 days. We f i nd

t he f ol l owi ng days t o be excl udabl e under t he Act :

Date(s) Number of

Days

Reason

J une 15, 2012 1 Ar r ai gnment - - a "pr oceedi ng[ ]concer ni ng t he def endant . " I d.§ 3161( h) ( 1) .

J une 20, 2012 - J une 25, 2012

6 Mot i on f or Rul e 404( b)di scl osur es - - a "pr et r i almot i on, f r om t he f i l i ng of t hemot i on t hr ough . . .di sposi t i on. " I d.§ 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) .

J une 25, 2012 - J une 27, 2012

27 Mot i on f or cont i nuance. I d.§ 3161( h) ( 7) .

J ul y 3, 2012 - J ul y9, 2012

7 Cont i nuance. 8 I d.

have been May 30. However , because Cummi ngs never ar gued f or t hi sst ar t i ng poi nt , any nonexcl udabl e t i me bet ween May 30, 2012, and J une 15, 2012, i s wai ved. See Gat es, 709 F. 3d at 67- 68.

7 Thr ee days el apsed f r om t he f i l i ng of t he mot i on on J une 25unt i l i t s resol ut i on on J une 27. However , we onl y i ncl ude t wo

excl udabl e days because J une 25 was al r eady excl uded as par t of t he404( b) mot i on.

8 Cummi ngs ar gues t hat t hese seven days shoul d not be excl udedbecause t he di st r i ct cour t never expl i ci t l y f ound t hat "t he ends of j ust i ce ser ved by t aki ng such act i on out wei gh t he best i nt er est of t he publ i c and t he def endant i n a speedy t r i al " as r equi r ed by t he

-17-



J ul y 9, 2012 - J ul y 26, 2012

179 Mot i on f or di scover y - - a"pr et r i al mot i on, f r om t hef i l i ng of t he mot i on t hr ough. . . di sposi t i on. " I d.§ 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) .

J ul y 23, 2012 -August 14, 2012

1910 Mot i on t o di squal i f y counsel - -a "pr et r i al mot i on, f r om t hef i l i ng of t he mot i on t hr ough. . . di sposi t i on. " I d.

August 21, 2012 1 St at us conf er ence - - a"pr oceedi ng[ ] concer ni ng t hedef endant . " I d. § 3161( h) ( 1) .

Sept ember 7, 2012 1 St at us conf er ence - - a"pr oceedi ng[ ] concer ni ng t hedef endant . " I d.

Sept ember 8, 2012 -Sept ember 20, 2012

13 Ti me bet ween r equest f or st at usconf er ence and hol di ng of st at usconf er ence. 11

Speedy Tr i al Act . See 18 U. S. C. § 3161( h) ( 7) ( A) . However , we havehel d t hat a di st r i ct cour t need not expl i ci t l y st at e i t s r easonsf or gr ant i ng a cont i nuance nor make a "best i nt er est " f i ndi ng i f i ti s "' obvi ous and set f or t h i n [ t he] mot i on f or a cont i nuance. ' "See Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i ngl e, 751 F. 2d 419, 432 ( 1st Ci r . 1984)( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Rush, 738 F. 2d 497, 507 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) ) .

Cummi ngs' s mot i on f or a cont i nuance was pr emi sed on Cummi ngs' scounsel bei ng out of t he j ur i sdi ct i on dur i ng t he cont i nued per i od. Thi s i s consi dered a suf f i ci ent r eason t o excl ude t he t i me. Seei d. at 432- 33 ( f i ndi ng t hat del ays r esul t i ng f r omdef ense counsel ' sschedul i ng conf l i ct s and def endant ' s t r avel out si de t he j ur i sdi ct i on wer e excl udabl e) .

9 Thi s sevent een- day per i od excl udes t he J ul y 9 over l ap wi t h t hecont i nuance.

10 Thi s ni net een- day per i od excl udes t he f our - day over l ap wi t hCummi ngs' s di scover y mot i on.

11 I t i s uncl ear t o us why t he par t i es excl ude t hi s t i me.Cummi ngs' s r equest f or an addi t i onal st atus conf er ence does notappear t o f i t under § 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) as a "pr et r i al " mot i on, andeven i f i t di d, t he mot i on woul d have been di sposed of as soon ast he cour t agr eed t o hol d anot her conf er ence, si nce t he request edconf er ence i t sel f cannot be f ai r l y cat egor i zed as a hear i ng on t he

-18-



Sept ember 21, 2012 1 St at us conf er ence - - a"pr oceedi ng[ ] concer ni ng t hedef endant . " I d.

Oct ober 18, 2012 1 St at us conf er ence - - a"pr oceedi ng[ ] concer ni ng t hedef endant . " I d.

Oct ober 24, 2012 -Oct ober 26, 2012

3 Mot i on by Cummi ngs - - a"pr et r i al mot i on, f r om t hef i l i ng of t he mot i on t hr ough. . . di sposi t i on. " I d.§ 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) .

Oct ober 30, 2012 -November 15, 2012

17 Cummi ngs pr o se mot i on asser t i nghi s r i ght t o a speedy t r i al - - a"pr et r i al mot i on, f r om t hef i l i ng of t he mot i on t hr ough

. . . di sposi t i on. "12

I d.

mot i on. Si mi l ar l y, we do not bel i eve t he t i me can be cat egor i zedas an excl udabl e cont i nuance under § 3161( h) ( 7) , si nce even i f i twer e consi der ed a cont i nuance, t her e ar e no f i ndi ngs - - ei t herexpl i ci t or obvi ous f r om t he r ecor d - - t hat woul d qual i f y i t asexcl udabl e. Never t hel ess, because Cummi ngs never argues f or i t s

nonexcl usi on, we excl ude i t . See Gates, 709 F. 3d at 67- 68.12 Thi s cour t has never f ormal l y r ul ed on whet her pr o se mot i onsar e excl udabl e under t he Speedy Tr i al Act . Gi ven t hat both par t i esexcl uded t he days i n t hei r r espect i ve cal cul at i ons and t heexcl usi on of t hese days does not af f ect our cal cul at i on, we assume,wi t hout deci di ng, t hat t he days ar e excl udabl e.

-19-



November 8, 2012 -November 28, 2012

1313 Gover nment cont i nuance. 14 I d.§ 3161( h) ( 7) .

Addi ng al l of t hese days t oget her , 102 days wer e

excl udabl e. Thi s l eaves si xt y- f i ve nonexcl udabl e days, f i ve l esst han t he per mi t t ed sevent y. Accor di ngl y, t he Act was not vi ol at ed.

C. The Sufficiency of the Superseding Indictment

I n hi s pr o se br i ef , Cummi ngs ar gues t hat t he super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment was f l awed i n t wo key r espect s. Fi r st , he al l eges t hat

because t he § 922( o) char ge ( Count Fi ve) f ai l ed t o pr ovi de pr oper

not i ce of what t he government consi der ed a machi negun and what

st at ut e made i t i l l egal , hi s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght t o due pr ocess

was vi ol at ed. Second, he cl ai ms that t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment ' s

r ef erence t o "cr ack" cocai ne i n Count s Two and Seven was

i nsuf f i ci ent f ol l owi ng t he Supr eme Cour t ' s 2011 deci si on i n

DePi er r e v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2225 ( 2011) , whi ch cl ar i f i ed

t he meani ng of " cocai ne base. " Cummi ngs never r ai sed t hese

13 Thi s t hi r t een- day per i od excl udes t he ei ght - day over l ap wi t hCummi ngs' s pro se mot i on.

14 Cummi ngs obj ect s t o t he excl usi on of t hese days because t hecour t never made expl i ci t i t s f i ndi ngs and r at i onal e f or gr ant i ngt he cont i nuance. As we st at ed above, t hi s i s not necessary i f t her easons are obvi ous. Pr i ngl e, 751 F. 2d at 432. The gover nment

expl ai ns t hat t he cont i nuance was r equest ed due t o t he i mpendi ngf i l i ng of t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment . Because a cont i nuance i nt hi s si t uat i on woul d al l ow al l Def endant s t o be t r i ed t oget her andt o avoi d pi ecemeal and r epet i t i ve pr oceedi ngs, " t he ends of j ust i ceserved by t aki ng such act i on out wei gh t he best i nt er est s of t hedef endant i n a speedy t r i al , " 18 U. S. C. § 3161( h) ( 7) ( A) , and t hust he days ar e pr oper l y excl uded. See Barnes I I , 251 F. 3d at 256.

-20-



chal l enges i n t he di st r i ct cour t , and hi s f ai l ur e t o do so

"const i t ut es a f or f ei t ur e, whi ch conf i nes appel l at e r evi ew t o pl ai n

er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 618 F. 3d 27, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ;

see al so Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 12( b) ( 3) ( B) ( st at i ng t hat chal l enges t o

t he suf f i ci ency of an i ndi ct ment must be r ai sed pr i or t o t r i al ) .

Pl ai n er r or exi st s when: ( 1) an er r or occur r ed; ( 2) whi ch was cl ear

or obvi ous; and bot h ( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al

r i ght s; and ( 4) 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. Tr oy, 618 F. 3d at 33.

We need not go past t he f i r st st ep, however , because nei t her

al l eged er r or has any mer i t .

1. Count Five of the Superseding Indictment Is Not

Defective

"An i ndi ct ment i s l egal l y suf f i ci ent i f i t ' f i r s t ,

cont ai ns t he el ement s of t he of f ense char ged and f ai r l y i nf or ms a

def endant of t he charge agai nst whi ch he must def end, and, second,enabl es hi m t o pl ead an acqui t t al or convi ct i on i n bar of f ut ur e

pr osecut i ons f or t he same of f ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ber k, 652

F. 3d 132, 137 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ci anci , 378

F. 3d 71, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

Her e, Count Fi ve of t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment al l eges

t hat[ o] n or about May 2nd, 2012, i n t he Di st r i ctof Puer t o Ri co and wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s Cour t , J ef f r ey Cummi ngs- Ávi l a, t hedef endant her ei n, di d knowi ngl y and unl awf ul l ypossess, machi neguns, t o wi t : ( 1) a Gl ock

-21-



pi st ol , Model 23, . 40 cal i ber , ser i al numberon t he body PDW- 403 and anot her di f f erentser i al number ETE- 057 on t he si de; ( 2) a Gl ockpi st ol , model 23, . 40 cal i ber , ser i al numberRYM722, bot h f i r ear ms modi f i ed t o shootaut omat i cal l y more t han one shot , wi t hout

manual r el oadi ng, by a si ngl e f unct i on of t het r i gger . Al l i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e 18, U. S. C.Sect i on 922( o) and 924( a) ( 2) .

Thi s descr i pt i on cont ai ns al l of t he el ements of Sect i on

922(o)(1), 15 whi ch pr ovi des t hat "i t shal l be unl awf ul f or any

per son t o t r ansf er or possess a machi negun, " and i t quot es ver bat i m

f r om26 U. S. C. § 5845( b) , whi ch def i nes a machi negun as "any weapon

whi ch shoot s, i s desi gned t o shoot , or can be r eadi l y r est or ed t o

shoot , aut omat i cal l y more t han one shot , wi t hout manual r el oadi ng,

by a si ngl e f unct i on of t he t r i gger . " I t al so descri bes t he

speci f i c machi neguns at i ssue. As such, Cummi ngs was f ai r l y

i nf ormed of what he had t o def end agai nst , and t he i ndi ct ment was

t her ef or e suf f i ci ent . See Ber k, 652 F. 3d at 137; Uni t ed St at es v.

J ust , 74 F. 3d 902, 904 ( 8t h Ci r . 1996) ( f i ndi ng i ndi ct ment f or

possessi on of a machi negun suf f i ci ent wher e i t onl y ci t ed t o

§ 922( o) and di d not i ncl ude l anguage def i ni ng a machi negun) .

That t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment onl y quot es t he l anguage

of § 5845( b) wi t hout ci t i ng t o t he st at ut e di r ect l y does not al t er

t hi s concl usi on. 16 I t i s the l anguage descr i bi ng t he el ement s t hat

15 Cummi ngs makes no ar gument r egar di ng § 924( a) ( 2) .

16 We do not e, however , t hat i n an abundance of caut i on i t woul dbe i n t he gover nment ' s best i nt er est t o ci t e t o al l r el evantpr ovi si ons, especi al l y when di r ect l y quot i ng f r omt hose pr ovi si ons.

-22-



put s a def endant on not i ce, not a si mpl e ci t at i on t o a st at ut e.

Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Dani el s, 973 F. 2d 272, 275 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992)

( " [ T] he mer e ci t at i on t o t he st at ut e of whi ch t he def endant i s

char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o cur e t he f ai l ur e of t he

i ndi ct ment t o charge each essent i al el ement of t he of f ense because

t he ci t at i on al one does not i nsur e t hat t he gr and j ur y consi der ed

and f ound each of t hese el ement s. " ) . Mor eover , whi l e Cummi ngs was

char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng § 922( o) , t hi s i s mer el y a subsect i on of

§ 922. A f ul l r eadi ng of § 922 di r ect s t he r eader t o § 5845 f or

t he meani ng of a machi negun, see § 922( a) ( 4) , ( b) ( 4) , and i t i s

hor nbook st at ut or y const r uct i on t hat " i dent i cal wor ds used i n

di f f erent par t s of t he same act are i nt ended t o have the same

meani ng. " Sorenson v. Sec' y of Tr easur y, 475 U. S. 851, 860

( 1986) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Ozuna- Cabr er a, 663 F. 3d 496, 499 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Accor di ngl y, we f i nd no er r or wi t h Count Fi ve of t he

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment .

2. Counts Two and Seven of the Superseding Indictment

Are Not Defective

I n Count s Two and Seven of t he supersedi ng i ndi ct ment ,

t he gover nment char ged Cummi ngs wi t h possessi on wi t h i ntent t o

di st r i but e cocai ne base and conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t odi st r i but e cocai ne base ( and ot her nar cot i cs), r espect i vel y. I n

Count Two, t he supersedi ng i ndi ct ment st at es t hat Cummi ngs " di d

knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e a

-23-



measur abl e amount of a mi xt ur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng a detect abl e

amount of cocai ne base ( ' cr ack' ) . . . . " Count Seven, meanwhi l e,

st at es t hat f or t y- f our conspi r at or s, i ncl udi ng Cummi ngs, "di d

knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y combi ne, conspi r e and agr ee wi t h each

ot her . . . t o possess wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e . . . t wo-

hundr ed and ei ght y ( 280) grams or mor e of a mi xt ure or subst ance

cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amount of cocai ne base ( ' cr ack' ) . . . . "

Accor di ng t o Cummi ngs, t he i ncl usi on of "cr ack" r ender s t he

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment i nsuf f i ci ent because DePi er r e

"decri mi nal i ze[ d] cer t ai n i ndi vi dual ' s conduct . . . [ whi ch] woul d

have ot her wi se been aggr avat ed vi ol at or s. "

Cummi ngs, however , badl y mi sr eads DePi er r e. I n DePi er r e,

t he Supr eme Cour t "h[ e] l d t hat t he ter m ' cocai ne base' as used i n

§ 841( b) ( 1) means not j ust ' cr ack cocai ne, ' but cocai ne i n i t s

chemi cal l y basi c f or m. " 131 S. Ct . at 2237. I n ot her wor ds, t he

Supreme Cour t expanded t he meani ng of cocai ne base t o i ncl ude ot her

f or ms of cocai ne i n addi t i on t o cr ack cocai ne. 17 I d. at 2231. I t

i n no way "decr i mi nal i zed" cr ack cocai ne as Cummi ngs seems t o

al l ege.

Counts Two and Seven of t he supersedi ng i ndi ct ment char ge

possessi on wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e and conspi r acy t o possess

wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne base. The par ent het i cal

17 These i ncl ude f r eebase and coca past e. DePi er r e, 131 S. Ct . at2231.

-24-



i ncl usi on of "cr ack" si mpl y speci f i ed whi ch f or m of cocai ne base

was at i ssue. Ther e i s not hi ng i mpr oper about t hi s pr act i ce. 18

III. Trial Issues

Def endant s al so pr esent a number of al l eged er r ors t hey

cl ai m occur r ed dur i ng t he t r i al i t sel f . We addr ess each i n t ur n,

not i ng t hat unl ess ot her wi se st at ed, t he i ssue was rai sed i n some

f or m by al l t hr ee Def endant s.

A. The Admission of Certain Pieces of Evidence

Def endant s cl ai m t hat var i ous pi eces of evi dence - - t he

t est i moni es of Mar co A. Dí az Nar váez ( "Dí az" ) , Car l os Ri vas Ser r ano

( "Ri vas" or "Gor do") , and Of f i cer Lui s Vázquez Tor r es ( "Of f i cer

Vázquez" ) , and t he two phone cal l s bet ween Cummi ngs and Chr i st opher

- - wer e i mpr oper l y admi t t ed. As expl ai ned i n mor e det ai l bel ow,

al l of t he evi dence was admi ssi bl e.

1. Díaz

a. The Contested Testimony

Dí az was a member of t he conspi r acy who agreed t o

cooper ate wi t h t he gover nment . Accordi ng t o Dí az, he was a sel l er

i n t he or gani zat i on and woul d al so st or e guns f or Chr i st opher .

Af t er di scussi ng hi s i nvol vement , Dí az t est i f i ed about t hr ee

18 Cummi ngs makes a si mi l ar unpreser ved ar gument r egar di ng t he j uryi nst r ucti ons f or t hese count s, al l egi ng t hat i t was er r or t oi nst r uct t he j ur y on cr ack cocai ne as opposed t o cocai ne basebecause cr ack and cocai ne base wer e no l onger synonymous underDePi er r e. For t he same r easons di scussed above, we r ej ect t hi sar gument .

-25-



speci f i c i nst ances. The f i r st t wo i nvol ved "r ounds" wi t h J uan.

Dur i ng t hese " r ounds, " Dí az - - dr i vi ng Cummi ngs' s car - - woul d t ake

J uan t o a speci f i ed l ocat i on, f i nd t he person t hey wer e l ooki ng

f or , beat t he per son up, put t he per son i n t he t r unk of Cummi ngs' s

car , and t hen dr i ve f or a whi l e bef or e l et t i ng Dí az out and

cont i nui ng t o dr i ve onwar d wi t h t he vi ct i m i n t he t r unk. Dí az

t est i f i ed t hat he never knew i n advance where they were goi ng, who

t hey wer e l ooki ng f or , or why t hey wer e l ooki ng f or t hat per son.

Rat her , he j ust f ol l owed J uan' s i nst r uct i ons, whi ch wer e bei ng

car r i ed out on Chr i st opher ' s behal f . Dí az added t hat J uan was

armed both t i mes and t hat Chr i st opher was t he l eader of t he

conspi r acy.

The t hi r d i nci dent occur r ed one ni ght i n t he Housi ng

Pr oj ect . Accor di ng t o Dí az, he had been on dut y sel l i ng dr ugs l at e

one ni ght when he hear d t wo shot s. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , J uan and

Chr i st opher appeared and enl i st ed Dí az' s hel p put t i ng a young man

wi t h a gunshot wound i n hi s l eg i nt o a car . Dí az t est i f i ed t hat he

was l at er t ol d t hat J uan had shot t he young man - - who was not f r om

t he Housi ng Pr oj ect - - t wi ce at Chr i st opher ' s behest .

b. This Testimony Was Properly Admitted

Def endant s cont end that t hi s t est i mony was i r r el evant and

t hus shoul d have been excl uded. Because t hey made t hi s obj ect i on

at t r i al , we r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v.

-26-



Ri char dson, 421 F. 3d 17, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Cont r ar y t o

Def endant s' asser t i on, however , t he t est i mony was r el evant .

We r ej ect Def endant s' suggest i on t hat Dí az' s t est i mony

shows t hat t he "r ounds" wer e not par t of t he dr ug conspi r acy.

Though Dí az di d t est i f y about t he " r ounds" i n r esponse t o quest i ons

f r om t he pr osecut or about act i ons "asi de f r om t he dr ugs, " a r evi ew

of t he t r anscr i pt as a whol e makes cl ear t hat t he "r ounds" wer e

r el at ed t o t he dr ug or gani zat i on. Gi ven t hi s r el at i onshi p, t her e

i s l i t t l e quest i on t hat t he t est i mony was r el evant . See Fed. R.

Evi d. 401 ( "Evi dence i s rel evant i f : ( a) i t has any t endency t o

make a f act more or l ess probabl e t han i t woul d be wi t hout t he

evi dence; and ( b) t he f act i s of consequence i n det er mi ni ng t he

act i on. " ) . The t est i mony hel ped est abl i sh a connect i on bet ween

Def endant s - - J uan, act i ng on Chr i st opher ' s or der s, used Cummi ngs' s

car - - and bet ween Def endant s and the dr ug conspi r acy - - t he

r ounds, bei ng conduct ed by J uan on Chr i st opher ' s behal f , wer e i n

connect i on t o t he dr ug or gani zat i on. I t al so hel ped t o pr ove at

l east t wo al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct ment - - t hat t he r ol es of

Chr i st opher and J uan wer e l eader and enf or cer , r espect i vel y, and

t hat t he l eader s of t he or gani zat i on woul d use f or ce, vi ol ence, and

i nt i mi dat i on i n or der t o pr ot ect t he conspi r acy and mai nt ai n

cont r ol . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der ón, 578 F. 3d 78, 95- 96

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hat evi dence of mur der s was r el evant t o

-27-



show t he exi st ence of a si ngl e, over ar chi ng dr ug conspi r acy and t o

pr ove t he def endant ' s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy) .

As a f al l back posi t i on, Def endant s cont end t hat even i f

t he evi dence was r el evant , i t shoul d st i l l have been excl uded as

unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al under Rul e 403 of t he Feder al Rul es of

Evi dence. Def endant s never r ai sed t hi s obj ect i on bel ow, and t hus

we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . I d. at 95; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d 19, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Under any st andar d,

however , t hi s ar gument f ai l s. Evi dence i s onl y excl uded under Rul e

403 "i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by ' t he

danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Var oudaki s, 233

F. 3d 113, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 403) . And

"unf ai r pr ej udi ce" i s of t en r eser ved f or "evi dence t hat i nvi t es t he

j ur y t o r ender a ver di ct on an i mpr oper emot i onal basi s" or f or

evi dence t hat i s "shocki ng or hei nous" and " l i kel y t o i nf l ame t he

j ur y. " I d. at 122 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) . Dí az' s t est i mony does none of t hese t hi ngs, and t hus i t s

admi ssi on was not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al .

2. Rivas


Li ke Dí az, Ri vas was al so a member of t he conspi r acy who

chose t o cooper ate wi t h t he gover nment . Ri vas' s t est i mony f ocused

most l y on Chr i st opher . Fi r st , Ri vas descr i bed an i nci dent wher e

Chr i st opher had a "probl em" because "some peopl e . . . shot at hi s

-28-



car wi t h hi s ki ds i n i t " whi l e t hey wer e t r avel i ng near a baker y.

Accor di ng t o Ri vas, i n r esponse to t hi s at t ack, Chr i st opher and

"Coqui t o" and "Monchi " - - t wo of t he dr ug conspi r acy' s " t r i gger men"

- - went i n sear ch of t he shoot er s. Ri vas t est i f i ed t hat he knew

al l t hree were ar med because " [ h] e was al ways ar med every t i me t hat

t hey woul d go out t o sol ve a pr obl em" and " t hey weren' t goi ng out

t o t he shoppi ng mal l t o l ook f or cl ot hi ng. They wer e goi ng out t o

l ook f or t he enemy. "


Li ke wi t h Dí az' s t est i mony, Def endant s al l ege t hat

Ri vas' s t est i mony i s bot h i r r el evant and unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al .

However , nei t her of t hese obj ect i ons was r ai sed bel ow, so we revi ew

f or pl ai n er r or . 19 See Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d at 26. Once agai n, we f i nd

no er r or . Ri vas' s t est i mony i s r el evant because i t hel ps t o

est abl i sh t hat Chr i st opher was a l eader of t he or gani zat i on - - he

was t ar get ed shor t l y af t er anot her l eader was mur der ed and i t i s

unl i kel y that a l ow- l evel member of t he or gani zat i on woul d be

t ar get ed f or assassi nat i on - - and t hat t he dr ug or gani zat i on

r esor t ed t o vi ol ence t o pr ot ect i t s t er r i t or y. Mor eover , t he f act

t hat Chr i st opher and hi s men were armed pr ovi des pr oof of t he

19 Chr i st opher di d obj ect t o Ri vas' s st at ement t hat t he men wer ear med and hi s subsequent expl anat i on as t o how he knew t hi s, butt he obj ect i on was based on a di f f er ent gr ound. See Uni t ed St atesv. Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d 15, 35 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "Because t hatobj ect i on was on di f f er ent gr ounds, however , we deem t hedef endant ' s pr esent ar gument of er r or , r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me onappeal , as unpr eser ved. " ) .

-29-



conspi r acy char ged i n Count Ni ne - - conspi r acy t o possess f i r ear ms

i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. See Fed. R. Evi d. 401;

Ri ver a Cal derón, 578 F. 3d at 95- 96. And because t he t est i mony was

nei t her shocki ng, hei nous, nor l i kel y t o i nf l ame t he j ur y, i t need

not have been excl uded under Rul e 403. See Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at

122.

3. Officer Vázquez

a. The Contested Testimony20

Dur i ng Of f i cer Vázquez' s t est i mony, a vi deo was pl ayed

showi ng Chr i st opher and ot her s at t endi ng t he f uner al of Mi guel Rui z

Sánchez ( "Mi guel " ) at t he Housi ng Pr oj ect . Of f i cer Vázquez

comment ed on t he vi deo, expl ai ni ng t hat " [ a] ccor di ng t o [hi s]

i nvest i gat i on, Mi guel Rui z Sánchez was one of t he l eader s" of t he

conspi r acy and t hat t he r eason some of t he i ndi vi dual s wer e seen i n

t he vi deo pi cki ng up shel l casi ngs f r omt he basket bal l cour t at t he

Housi ng Pr oj ect was because "accor di ng t o [ t hei r ] i nvest i gat i on,

t he pr evi ous day they wer e havi ng a wake . . . f or Mi guel Rui z

Sánchez i nsi de t he pr oj ect . " The of f i cer t hen pr oceeded t o

i dent i f y one of t he i ndi vi dual s i n t he vi deo as Ant er o Ri ver o

Mar r er o ( "Ri ver o") .

On cr oss- exami nat i on, Of f i cer Vázquez t est i f i ed t hat

accor di ng t o hi s i nvest i gat i on, Ri ver o "was ser vi ng as an escor t "

20 Def endant s al so chal l enge par t s of Of f i cer Vázquez' s t est i monyas over vi ew t est i mony. That i s addr essed i n Par t I I I . B. 1, i nf r a.

-30-



f or Chr i st opher because Chr i st opher "f ear ed f or hi s l i f e, and . . .

was hot i n t he st r eet . " On r e- di r ect exami nat i on, t he gover nment

asked Of f i cer Vázquez about Ri ver o' s escor t ser vi ces. Of f i cer

Vázquez t est i f i ed t hat Ri ver o had a f i ct i t i ous l i cense t o escor t

di gni t ar i es and agr eed wi t h t he st at ement t hat no l i cense woul d

per mi t possessi on of t he t wo AK- 47 r i f l es t hat wer e sei zed f r om

Ri ver o because i t i s not l egal "t o car r y f i r ear ms t o pr ot ect a dr ug

t r af f i cker . "


Def endants once agai n chal l enge t he r el evance and undue

pr ej udi ce of t hi s t est i mony. Once agai n, our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n

er r or , and, once agai n, t hei r chal l enge f ai l s. See Ci r esi , 697

F. 3d at 26. Bot h pi eces of evi dence - - t he pi cki ng up of t he shel l

casi ngs and t he quest i oni ng i nt o Ri ver o' s escor t ser vi ces - - ar e

r el evant .

Regar di ng t he shel l casi ngs, t he evi dence i s r el evant f or

t wo r easons. Fi r st , t he t est i mony connect s Chr i st opher wi t h

Mi guel , who was known t o be a l eader of t he dr ug organi zat i on. By

est abl i shi ng t hat Chr i st opher was suf f i ci ent l y connect ed t o Mi guel

t o at t end hi s f uner al , t he evi dence suppor t ed t he concl usi on t hat

t he t wo wer e par t of t he same or gani zat i on. Second, t he col l ect i on

of t he shel l casi ngs hel ps suppor t t he al l egat i on t hat t he

organi zat i on used weapons ( t hus pr ovi di ng evi dence of t he gun-

r el at ed conspi r acy char ge) and t hat t he conspi r at or s wer e f ami l i ar

-31-



wi t h t he f i r ear ms. See Fed. R. Evi d. 401; Ri ver a Cal der ón, 578

F. 3d at 95- 96. Once agai n, nothi ng about t hi s t est i mony was

unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . See Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at 122.

As t o t he t est i mony r egar di ng Ri ver o, t he maj or i t y of

t hi s t est i mony was r el evant f or much the same reason as t he

t est i moni es al r eady di scussed: i t hel ped est abl i sh Chr i st opher ' s

r ol e as a l eader i n t he or gani zat i on si nce a l ow- l evel conspi r at or

woul d l i kel y not need t he l evel of pr ot ect i on t hat Chr i st opher

needed. And t hough t he di st r i ct cour t coul d have i n i t s di scr et i on

appl i ed Rul e 403 t o excl ude Of f i cer Vázquez' s agr eement t hat i t was

not l egal f or Ri ver o t o "car r y f i r ear ms t o pr ot ect a dr ug

t r af f i cker , " i t s f ai l ur e t o do so does not const i t ut e pl ai n er r or ,

especi al l y gi ven our "great def er ence" t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s 403

r ul i ngs. See i d. I n any event , t hi s one comment was harml ess

gi ven al l of t he other evi dence pr esent ed. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Landr ón- Cl ass, 696 F. 3d 62, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

4. The Recorded Phone Calls

a. The Contested Portions of the Calls

As ment i oned above whi l e di scussi ng t he di squal i f i cat i on

of Cummi ngs' s counsel , t wo conver sat i ons i nvol vi ng Cummi ngs were

r ecorded whi l e he was det ai ned at t he Met r opol i t an Det ent i on Cent er

( "MDC") , Guaynabo. I n both cal l s - - one on J une 5, 2012, and one

on J ul y 14, 2012 - - Cummi ngs spoke wi t h Chr i st opher , who had not

yet been ar r est ed. Besi des di scussi ng t he payment s t o Cummi ngs' s

-32-



counsel , t he t wo al so di scussed whet her J uan was l ooki ng f or

"Gor do" - - r ecal l , t hi s i s Ri vas' s al i as. Cummi ngs i nf or med

Chr i st opher t hat J uan was wor ki ng i n t he ki t chen at MDC, Guaynabo

and had been l ooki ng f or Ri vas but was unabl e t o f i nd hi m. I n

addi t i on, Cummi ngs and Chr i st opher spoke about t he at t ack on

Chr i st opher and hi s f ami l y out si de t he baker y, speci f i cal l y

f ocusi ng on t he f act t hat ot her member s of t hei r or gani zat i on had

advance knowl edge of t he at t ack and t hat t her e woul d be r et al i at i on

agai nst t hose who shi f t ed l oyal t i es.

b. The Recordings Were Properly Admitted

J uan obj ect s t o t he admi ssi on of t he t wo phone cal l s on

hear say grounds. Because he f ai l ed t o obj ect when t he st at ement s

wer e f i r st admi t t ed and at t he cl ose of evi dence, we r evi ew f or

pl ai n er r or . 21 See Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d at 25- 26 ( hol di ng t hat t o

pr eserve a chal l enge t o the admi ssi on of coconspi r at or st at ement s,

"a def endant must obj ect on hear say gr ounds when hi s or her

coconspi r at or ' s st at ement i s pr ovi si onal l y admi t t ed and must r enew

t he obj ect i on at t he cl ose of evi dence") . We r ej ect t hi s

chal l enge, as t he cal l s wer e pr oper l y admi t t ed as coconspi r at or

st at ement s.

21 J uan di d i ni t i al l y obj ect on Conf r ont at i on Cl ause gr ounds, butdoes not r enew t hat obj ect i on on appeal . See Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d at35 n. 11. Even i f he had, t hat ar gument woul d f ai l as wel l , as co-conspi r at or st at ement s are "by t hei r nat ur e, not t est i moni al , " andt hus not subj ect t o t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d at31; see al so Bour j ai l y v. Uni t ed St at es, 483 U. S. 171, 182 ( 1987) .

-33-



Though hear say evi dence i s gener al l y i nadmi ssi bl e i n

cr i mi nal t r i al s, Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E) of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence

"pr ovi des t hat a st atement made by a def endant ' s coconspi r ator

' dur i ng t he cour se of and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy' may be

i nt r oduced as t he nonhearsay admi ssi on of a par t y opponent . " I d.

( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( E) ) . For a st at ement t o qual i f y,

t he decl ar ant and t he def endant must be member s of a conspi r acy

when t he st at ement was made and t he st at ement must have been made

i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. I d.

The cal l s here meet bot h r equi r ements. As t o t he f i r st ,

t he gover nment pr ovi ded si gni f i cant evi dence t hat J uan, Cummi ngs,

and Chr i st opher were al l member s of t he same dr ug organi zat i on - -

and t hus t he same conspi r acy - - and t her e i s not hi ng i n t he recor d

t o suggest t hat any Def endant af f i r mat i vel y wi t hdr ew f r om t he

conspi r acy. See Uni t ed St at es v. Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) ( "Wher e a conspi r acy cont empl ates a cont i nui t y of pur pose and

a cont i nued per f or mance of act s, i t i s presumed t o exi st unt i l

t her e has been an af f i r mat i ve showi ng t hat i t has t er mi nat ed. "

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

As t o the second r equi r ement , t he cal l s di d i n f act

f ur t her t he ends of t he conspi r acy. At t he t i me of t he cal l s,

Cummi ngs and J uan had been ar r est ed but Chr i st opher had not , and

t he evi dence showed t hat t he conspi r acy was st i l l ongoi ng at t he

Housi ng Pr oj ect . For exampl e, Of f i cer Vázquez t est i f i ed t hat

-34-



survei l l ance cont i nued unt i l November 2012, mont hs af t er t he J une

and J ul y t el ephone cal l s. Mor eover , when Chr i st opher was ar r est ed,

addi t i onal guns and dr ugs wer e sei zed, suggest i ng t hat t he

cont r aband sei zed i n t he ear l i er r ai ds had been r epl eni shed. See

Uni t ed St at es v. El wel l , 984 F. 2d 1289, 1293 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( f i ndi ng a conspi r acy t o be ongoi ng and def endant t o st i l l be a

par t of i t even af t er hi s ar r est ) .

Gi ven t hat t he or gani zat i on was st i l l oper at i ng, t he

cal l s can r easonabl y be i nt er pr et ed as promot i ng t he conspi r acy.

Cummi ngs and Chr i st opher di scussed how cer t ai n member s of t he

conspi r acy - - such as Ri vas - - knew t hat Chr i st opher was goi ng t o

be at t acked and t hat Chr i st opher was cont empl at i ng r et al i at i ng

agai nst t hose who wer e di sl oyal . Mai nt ai ni ng l oyal t y f r om ot her s

cl ear l y pr omot es the conspi r acy. See Ci r esi , 697 F. 3d at 30

( f i ndi ng t hat st at ement s "served t o pl acat e . . . and f or est al l any

di ssensi on" wer e i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy) ; El wel l , 984

F. 2d at 1293.

The cal l s, t heref or e, pr oper l y qual i f y as coconspi r at or

st at ement s and were t hus pr oper l y admi t t ed.

B. Overview Testimony

Next , Def endant s cl ai m t hat Of f i cer Vázquez and Feder al

Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( "FBI " ) Speci al Agent Davi d J ames pr ovi ded

i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony. Over vi ew t est i mony occur s, f or

exampl e, when "a gover nment wi t ness t est i f i es about t he r esul t s of

-35-



a cri mi nal i nvest i gat i on, usual l y i ncl udi ng aspect s of t he

i nvest i gat i on t he wi t ness di d not par t i ci pat e i n, bef or e t he

gover nment has pr esent ed suppor t i ng evi dence. " Uni t ed St ates v.

Rosado- Pér ez, 605 F. 3d 48, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . We have r epeatedl y

condemned t he use of such t act i cs, f i ndi ng i t " i nher ent l y

pr obl emat i c" f or a number of r easons. Uni t ed St at es v. Casas, 356

F. 3d 104, 119 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- De-

J esús, 569 F. 3d 8, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Fi r st , because i t i s

possi bl e t hat "evi dence pr omi sed by t he over vi ew wi t ness never

mat er i al i zes, " Fl or es- De- J esús, 569 F. 3d at 17, t he t est i mony

"r ai ses t he ver y r eal spect er t hat t he j ur y ver di ct coul d be

i nf l uenced by stat ement s of f act or cr edi bi l i t y assessment s" not i n

evi dence, Casas, 356 F. 3d at 119. Second, i t i s si mi l ar l y possi bl e

t hat subsequent t est i mony wi l l di f f er f r om t he assumpt i ons of t he

over vi ew wi t ness. I d. at 119- 20.

Though our concer ns wi t h over vi ew t est i mony ar e

appl i cabl e r egar dl ess of t he wi t ness i nvol ved, our skept i ci sm i s

enhanced when the wi t ness i s a l aw enf orcement of f i ci al because

" j ur i es may pl ace gr eater wei ght on evi dence per cei ved t o have the

i mpr i matur of t he gover nment . " I d. at 119. As we expl ai ned i n

Fl or es- De- J esús, "over vi ew t est i mony of a l aw enf or cement of f i ci al

i s not si mpl y a r epet i t i on ( at best ) of ot her evi dence. I t i s

al so, i n ef f ect , an endor sement of t he ver aci t y of t he t est i mony

t hat wi l l f ol l ow. " 569 F. 3d at 18. Mor eover , a l aw enf or cement

-36-



of f i ci al i s l i kel y t o "expr ess opi ni ons as t o def endant s'

cul pabi l i t y based on t he t ot al i t y of i nf or mat i on gat her ed i n t he

cour se of t hei r i nvest i gat i on, " even t hough t he of f i ci al di d not

have per sonal knowl edge. I d. at 19 ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Such t est i mony i s i nadmi ssi bl e and

ef f ect i vel y ser ves t o usur p t he r ol e of t he j ur y because t he

wi t ness' s i nf er ence i s based on t he same ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

pr esent ed t o t he j ur y. Uni t ed St at es v. Mei ses, 645 F. 3d 5, 16

( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Wi t h that backgr ound i n pl ace, we now t ur n t o t he

cont est ed t est i mony her e.

1. Officer Vázquez

Def endant s never obj ect ed t hat Of f i cer Vázquez was

pr ovi di ng over vi ew t est i mony, and t hus we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or .

Rosado- Pér ez, 605 F. 3d at 54.


Of f i cer Vázquez t est i f i ed dur i ng t he f i r st t wo days of

t r i al . I n expl ai ni ng hi s i nvol vement i n t he i nvest i gat i on, Of f i cer

Vázquez t ol d t he j ur y t hat he l ed t he Bayamón St r i ke For ce whi ch

was t asked wi t h, among ot her t hi ngs, conduct i ng vi deo sur vei l l ance.

Thi s vi deo sur vei l l ance, he expl ai ned, occur r ed over f i f t een days.

On t wel ve of t hose days, Of f i cer Vázquez was ei t her per sonal l y

oper at i ng t he camer a or assi st i ng a col l eague i n doi ng so; on t he

-37-



ot her t hr ee days, Of f i cer Vázquez was on t he gr ound sur vei l l i ng t he

Housi ng Proj ect .

I n addi t i on t o aut hent i cat i ng t he cl i ps f r omt he f i f t een-

day sur vei l l ance, Of f i cer Vázquez al so descr i bed what t he cl i ps

wer e por t r ayi ng. He t ol d t he j ur y t hat t he sur vei l l ance was

di r ect ed t owar d " t he si t e t hat we had i dent i f i ed as t he dr ug poi nt "

and t hat t he vi deo cl i ps r epr esent ed "al l per sons t hat appear [ ed]

engaged i n a cr i mi nal act i vi t y at t hat poi nt i n t i me. " For each

vi deo cl i p, he woul d poi nt out al l of t he i ndi vi dual s pr esent - -

not i ng t hei r r ol e i n t he dr ug or gani zat i on - - as wel l as t he

cont r ol l ed subst ances, f i r ear ms, and ot her obj ect s whi ch coul d be

seen. For exampl e, i n one cl i p, Of f i cer Vázquez expl ai ned t o t he

j ur y t hat t hey wer e vi ewi ng Cummi ngs hol di ng "a package wi t h a

number of baggi es i nsi de wi t h a whi t e cont ent . " The r est of t he

cl i ps cont ai ned si mi l ar comment ar y.

b. This Testimony Was Not Overview Testimony

Cont r ar y t o Def endant s' cont ent i on, t hi s was not a "new

var i at i on" of over vi ew t est i mony der i ved by t he gover nment . I n

f act , i t was not "over vi ew" t est i mony at al l . Of f i cer Vázquez was

pr esent at each and ever y sur vei l l ance - - ei t her behi nd t he camer a

or i n f r ont of i t - - and t hus was si mpl y t est i f yi ng about hi s own

obser vat i ons based on hi s per sonal knowl edge. And whi l e he di d

note t he apparent r ol es each Def endant pl ayed i n t he organi zat i on,

he never expr essed an opi ni on as t o t hei r cul pabi l i t y. Cf . Fl or es-

-38-



De- J esús, 569 F. 3d at 19 ( "When a l aw enf orcement wi t ness expr esses

opi ni ons as t o def endant s' cul pabi l i t y based on t he t ot al i t y of

i nf or mat i on gat her ed i n t he cour se of t hei r i nvest i gat i on, t hese

concl usor y st at ement s of t en i nvol ve i mpr essi bl e l ay opi ni on

t est i mony . . . . " ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) ) . Appr opr i ate t est i mony does not become

i mproper over vi ew t est i mony j ust because one l aw enf or cement

of f i ci al was pr esent t hr oughout t he ent i r e i nvest i gat i on and i s

t hen cal l ed t o wal k t he j ur y thr ough t he i nvest i gat i on f r om

begi nni ng t o end. See Uni t ed St at es v. Val di vi a, 680 F. 3d 33, 48

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "[ F] ar f r om bei ng a scr i pt ed ' over vi ew' of t he

gover nment ' s case by uni nvol ved agent s, t he t est i mony r epr esent ed

t he f r ui t s of f i r st - hand pol i ce wor k. ") ; Rosado- Pér ez, 605 F. 3d at

55- 56 ( f i ndi ng t est i mony t o be pr oper wher e agent was l ead

i nvest i gat or , par t i ci pat ed i n sur vei l l ance and cont r ol l ed dr ug

buys, and t est i f i ed onl y on t he basi s of per sonal obser vat i ons) .

Moreover , none of t he pr obl ems general l y associ ated wi t h

overvi ew t est i mony are pr esent her e. Because Of f i cer Vázquez was

pr ovi di ng a f i r st - hand account of hi s obser vat i ons, whi l e

si mul t aneousl y pl ayi ng t he vi deo cl i ps of t hose sur vei l l ances,

t her e i s no concer n t hat t he evi dence bei ng t est i f i ed t o woul d

never mat er i al i ze. Nor i s t her e a wor r y t hat Of f i cer Vázquez woul d

make assumpt i ons di sput ed by l at er t est i mony. Cf . Fl or es- De- J esús,

569 F. 3d at 17; Casas, 356 F. 3d at 119.

-39-



Accordi ngl y, t he t est i mony was pr oper .

2. Agent James

Unl i ke wi t h Of f i cer Vázquez, t her e was an obj ect i on t o

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o al l ow Agent J ames t o el abor at e and

cl ar i f y hi s t est i mony. Accor di ngl y, our r evi ew i s f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Rosado- Pér ez, 605 F. 3d at 54.


Agent J ames was cal l ed as par t of Chr i st opher ' s case- i n-

chi ef i n an at t empt t o di scr edi t Ri vas, one of t he gover nment ' s

cooper at i ng wi t nesses. Ri vas had t est i f i ed dur i ng t he gover nment ' s

case t hat Chr i st opher was a l eader of t he or gani zat i on, but i n a

pr e- t r i al i nt er vi ew wi t h Agent J ames, Ri vas had not named

Chr i st opher when l i st i ng t he or gani zat i on' s l eader shi p.

Accor di ngl y, Chr i st opher ' s at t or ney asked t he agent t o read a

par agr aph f r om hi s i nt er vi ew r epor t whi ch had memor i al i zed t he

conver sat i on. Af t er r eadi ng t he paragr aph, Agent J ames at t empt ed

t o cl ar i f y t he r epor t . He expl ai ned ( over Chr i st opher ' s obj ect i on)

t hat whi l e t he r epor t r ef l ected Ri vas' s i ni t i al i nt er vi ew, he "of

cour se cor r obor at ed t hi s wi t h ot her i nt el l i gence. " He t hen

pr oceeded t o summar i ze thi s i nt el l i gence:

AGENT J AMES: [ Ri vas] di d not know t he

name of t hi s i ndi vi dual , but di d i dent i f y hi sni ckname as Negr o. I f I can pr ovi de somecont ext t o t he Cour t .

COURT: Sur e.

-40-



AGENT J AMES: I n t hese i ni t i ali nt er vi ews, I had a bi nder t hat showeddi f f er ent pi ctur es, and so I ' d j ust show i tand t hey woul d i dent i f y. So t hi s i s t henumber t wo of t he ones whom I showed hi m whomCar l os Ri vas i dent i f i ed.

So number t wo, he di d not know t he nameof t he i ndi vi dual , but i dent i f i ed hi s ni cknameas Negr o. Negr o i s known t o us as - - by l awenf orcement as Chr i st opher Laur eano Pér ez.Negr o i s t he ot her l eader of t he Resi dent i alVi l l as De Mont er r ey. Negr o f r equent sResi dent i al Vi l l as De Mont er r ey mor e thanMi guel . He vi si t s Vi l l as De Mont er r eyappr oxi mat el y t hr ee t i mes a week or more.Mi guel onl y vi si t s appr oxi mat el y t wo t i mes aweek. He gi ves or der s t o t he dr ug poi nt .Negr o i s ar med wi t h a . 50 cal i ber pi st ol . Hesaw hi m f i r i ng i t on New Year ' s Eve. Negr owas shoot i ng i t i nt o t he ai r .

Previ ousl y, some enemi es of Resi dent i alVi l l as De Mont er r ey t r i ed t o ki l l Negr o andhi s chi l dr en i n or der t o t ake over t heResi dent i al Vi l l as De Mont er r ey dr ug poi nt .Negr o dr i ves a bl ack Toyot a Car ol l a [ si c] , andal so r i des a gr ay and bl ack scoot er . He has ahouse pr obabl y i n Nar anj i t o or Bar r anqui t as.

b. This Testimony Was Potentially Improper but

Harmless

Unl i ke Of f i cer Vázquez' s t est i mony, t hi s t est i mony was

pot ent i al l y pr obl emat i c f or t wo r easons. Fi r st , Agent J ames made

cl ear t hat he was not t est i f yi ng about hi s per sonal knowl edge of

"Negr o" but r ather was summar i zi ng ever yt hi ng t he i nvest i gat i on had

uncovered. Second, t he "cont ext " he pr ovi ded was wel l beyond t hescope of t he quest i on asked.

Whet her t hi s qual i f i es as i mpr oper "over vi ew t est i mony, "

however , i s a det ermi nat i on we need not make because any er r or t hat

-41-



may have occur r ed was harml ess. Agent J ames t est i f i ed as par t of

Chr i st opher ' s case- i n- chi ef , wel l af t er t he gover nment had al r eady

r est ed. Thus, most - - i f not al l - - of t he evi dence Agent J ames

r ef er r ed t o had al r eady been i nt r oduced by ot her wi t nesses. At t he

ver y l east , t he gover nment had pr ovi ded evi dence t hat Chr i st opher

and "Negr o" wer e t he same per son and t hat t her e had been an at t empt

on Chr i st opher ' s l i f e. Gi ven t he t i mi ng of t hi s t est i mony and t he

f act t hat t he same evi dence had pr evi ousl y been pr oper l y

i nt r oduced, we ar e conf i dent t hat t hi s t est i mony di d not af f ect t he

ver di ct , and t hus t he er r or was harml ess. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Hal l , 434 F. 3d 42, 57 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( di st i ngui shi ng ot her cases

i nvol vi ng i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony i n par t because t he of f i cer

"di d not t est i f y unt i l near t he end of t he gover nment ' s case- i n-

chi ef " ) ; Casas, 356 F. 3d at 121 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he admi ssi on of

i mpr oper t est i mony i s "har ml ess i f i t i s hi ghl y pr obabl e t hat t he

er r or di d not i nf l uence t he ver di ct ") .

C. Judicial Bias

Def endant s next al l ege t hat numerous act i ons by t he

di st r i ct cour t show t hat i t was bi ased agai nst t hem, and t hat t hi s

bi as depr i ved t hem of a f ai r t r i al . When r evi ewi ng cl ai ms of

j udi ci al bi as, we "must eval uat e t he j udge' s act i ons ' accor di ng t o

a st andar d of f ai r ness and i mpar t i al i t y, r ecogni zi ng t hat each case

t ends t o be f act - speci f i c. ' " Logue v. Dor e, 103 F. 3d 1040, 1045

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t o, 856 F. 2d 414, 418

-42-



( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) . That bei ng sai d, i t i s i mpor t ant t o consi der

"i sol at ed i nci dent s i n l i ght of t he ent i r e t r anscr i pt so as t o

guard agai nst magni f i cat i on on appeal of i nst ances whi ch wer e of

l i t t l e i mpor t ance i n t hei r set t i ng. " Uni t ed St at es v. Candel ar i a-

Si l va, 166 F. 3d 19, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Her e t he al l egat i ons t ake t hr ee gener al f or ms: ( 1)

endorsement of government wi t nesses t hr ough addi t i onal quest i ons by

t he di st r i ct cour t ; ( 2) host i l e st at ement s made t o J uan by t he

di st r i ct cour t ; and ( 3) adver se j udi ci al r ul i ngs. These sor t s of

cl ai ms wi l l onl y be successf ul i f t he par t y al l egi ng bi as can show

"ser i ous pr ej udi ce. " Logue, 103 F. 3d at 1045. Af t er t hor oughl y

r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d, we r ej ect t he cont ent i on t hat t hese act i ons

- - ei t her t aken i ndependent l y or t oget her - - r i se t o t he l evel of

l egal l y cogni zabl e j udi ci al bi as by t he di st r i ct cour t .

1. The Bolstering of Witnesses

Def endant s f i r st ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

cont i nual l y quest i oned wi t nesses and i nt er j ect ed comment s whi ch

i mpr oper l y bol st er ed t hei r t est i mony, t hus l esseni ng t he

gover nment ' s burden and evi nci ng bi as t owar ds t hem. Because no

Def endant obj ect ed t o the di st r i ct cour t ' s pr act i ce of aski ng

quest i ons or t o any of i t s speci f i c comment s, we r evi ew f or pl ai n

er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Fer nández, 145 F. 3d 59, 63 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) .

-43-



a. Relevant Facts

Dur i ng t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t asked wi t nesses a number

of quest i ons and made a var i ety of comment s. These i ncl uded t he

f ol l owi ng:

C Dur i ng t he test i mony of cooper at i ngwi t ness Dí az, t he di st r i ct cour t asked"what ar e your obl i gat i ons?" i nr el at i on t o t he cooper at i on agr eementwi t h t he gover nment . I n r esponse, Dí azst at ed t hat hi s obl i gat i on was"cooper at i on i n t el l i ng t he t r ut h. " Heal so t est i f i ed t hat he had been of f er ed"saf et y" and "secur i t y out i n t hest r eet " i n exchange f or hi scooper at i on. When J uan obj ect ed t o t hegover nment ' s at t empt t o el aborat e, t hedi st r i ct cour t sust ai ned t he obj ect i on,stat i ng t hat " i t i s sel f - expl anat or y"t hat "he cooper ates, he needssecur i t y. "

C Dur i ng t he test i mony of cooper at i ngwi t ness Ri vas, t he di st r i ct cour ti nt er j ect ed when t he government askedwhat woul d happen i f Ri vas di d not t el l

t he t r ut h. The cour t st at ed, "Do youunder st and t hat asi de f r om t hat poi nt ,i f you ar e caught l yi ng, i nvent i ng,exagger at i ng, et cet er a, you coul d f acechar ges f or per j ur y or f or obst r uct i onof j ust i ce, t oo?" Ri vas acknowl edgedt hat " [ e] ver yt hi ng woul d t hen be i n t hehands of t he J udge" i f he was caughtl yi ng, t o whi ch t he di st r i ct cour tr esponded "on t op of t hat , you wi l lal ways be i n my hands, you under st andme?" Fi nal l y, when Ri vas r eveal ed t hat

he and t he gover nment had agr eed on asent ence r ecommendat i on of si xt ymont hs, t he di st r i ct cour t agai ni nt er r upt ed t o make cl ear t hat i t di dnot necessar i l y have t o f ol l ow t her ecommendat i on.

-44-



C When t he di st r i ct cour t over r ul ed anobj ect i on and al l owed Of f i cer Er i cRi ver a Fi guer oa ( "Of f i cer Ri ver a") t ot est i f y about how a "chi p" conver t s api st ol i nt o an aut omat i c weapon, i texpl ai ned i t s r ul i ng by st at i ng t hat

" [ t ] hi s man has been a pol i ce of f i cerdeal i ng wi t h f i r ear ms and dr ugs f oryear s. He can t el l us whet her t hi s i sa chi p or not . " Si mi l ar l y, t hedi st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat i t wasal l owi ng Ri ver a t o show t he j ur y how t ouse a magazi ne because " [ h] e' s i n t hepol i ce f or ce, i n t he Bayamón St r i keFor ce, deal s wi t h t hese i ssues ever yday of hi s l i f e. "

C When Of f i cer Mar í a Cr uz i dent i f i ed ani t em sei zed dur i ng t he sear ch as a"cl eani ng ki t , " t he di str i ct cour ti nqui r ed what t he ki t was desi gned t ocl ean.

C Dur i ng t he test i mony of f eder al Bur eauof Al cohol , Tobacco, Fi r ear ms, andExpl osi ves ( "ATF") Agent Car l osGonzál ez, t he di st r i ct cour t asked anumber of quest i ons r el at ed t o t hesei zed f i r ear ms. Fi r st , i t asked whatt he pur pose of shor t eni ng t he AK- 47was, t o whi ch Agent Gonzál ez r esponded," [ t ] he shor t er you make a f i r ear m, t heeasi er i t i s t o conceal . " Second, i tasked whether hi gh- capaci t y magazi nesl i ke t he ones sei zed wer e l egal t o buy,t o whi ch the agent r esponded t hat t heywer e. I t f ol l owed t hi s up by aski ng "acur i ous quest i on" r egar di ng t hemagazi nes: "When you guys go out on anoper at i on, i s t hi s t he ki nd of t hi ngyou use on your f i r ear ms?" When t he

agent r esponded i n t he negat i ve, t hedi str i ct cour t sai d " [ n] ot at al l ,r i ght ?"

C When Of f i cer Ri ver a descr i bed t he i t emshe r ecover ed dur i ng t he search as"cyl i ndr i cal pl ast i c t r anspar ent

-45-



bot t l es, cont ai ner s, " t he di str i ctcour t t r i ed t o cl ar i f y t hei rdescri pt i on, aski ng i f t hey wer e" [ l ] i t t l e bot t l es. I t ' s l i ke l i t t l ebot t l es, cor r ect ?"

C I n r esponse t o Of f i cer Abi zer Cot t oAdor no (" Of f i cer Cot t o") i dent i f yi ngsei zed i t ems as "cocai ne vi al s, " t hecour t i nt er j ect ed, cl ar i f yi ng t hat t heof f i cer di d not act ual l y know what wasi nsi de t he vi al s.

b. The District Court Did Not Improperly Endorse

Witnesses

"I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat a j udge i s not a mer e

umpi r e" and accor di ngl y "has a per f ect r i ght - - al bei t a r i ght t hat

shoul d be exer ci sed wi t h car e - - t o par t i ci pat e act i vel y i n t he

t r i al pr oper . " Uni t ed St at es v. Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d 1, 33 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) . Thi s i ncl udes aski ng quest i ons "t o el i ci t f acts t o

f aci l i t at e a cl ear pr esent at i on of t he i ssues. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mel éndez- Ri vas, 566 F. 3d 41, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . St i l l , a di st r i ct cour t needs t o "be bal anced;

[ i t ] cannot become an advocat e or ot her wi se use [ i t s] j udi ci al

power s t o advant age or di sadvant age a par t y unf ai r l y. " I d.

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . So as l ong as the cour t

"preser ves an at t i t ude of i mpar t i al i t y and guar ds agai nst gi vi ng

t he j ur y an i mpr essi on t hat t he cour t bel i eves t he def endant i s

gui l t y, " i t may quest i on wi t nesses. Uni t ed St at es v. Rosar i o-

Per al t a, 199 F. 3d 552, 560 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

-46-



Her e, Def endant s poi nt t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comment s

dur i ng t he t est i moni es of Dí az, Ri vas, Of f i cer Ri ver a, Of f i cer

Cr uz, and Agent Gonzál ez t o suppor t t hei r cl ai m of bi as. However ,

Def endant s conveni ent l y i gnor e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comment s and

quest i ons t o Of f i cer Ri ver a and Of f i cer Cot t o and i t s quest i on t o

Agent Gonzál ez r egar di ng t he l egal i t y of pur chasi ng hi gh- capaci t y

magazi nes whi ch show a much mor e bal anced approach t o quest i oni ng.

Taken t oget her , t hese quest i ons and comments show t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t asked quest i ons whi ch wer e hel pf ul ( and

unhel pf ul ) t o bot h si des. For exampl e, i t asked Agent Gonzál ez

about t he pur pose of shor t eni ng f i r ear ms and whet her i t was common

l aw enf orcement pr ocedur e t o use hi gh- capaci t y magazi nes ( quest i ons

unhel pf ul t o Def endant s) , but i t al so asked hi m whet her t hose same

hi gh- capaci t y magazi nes wer e l egal t o buy ( a quest i on hel pf ul t o

Def endant s) . And whi l e i t quest i oned Of f i cer Cr uz as t o t he

pur pose of t he r ecover ed cl eani ng ki t ( a quest i on unhel pf ul t o

Def endant s) , i t al so cor r ect ed Of f i cer Cot t o' s st at ement t hat he

r ecover ed "cocai ne vi al s" by i nt er j ect i ng t hat t he of f i cer di d not

act ual l y know what was i nsi de ( a quest i on hel pf ul t o Def endant s) .

We vi ew t hese quest i ons as a l egi t i mat e at t empt t o cl ar i f y

t est i mony and f ocus t he pr esent at i on of evi dence, and not an

-47-



i ndi cat i on of a di st r i ct cour t usi ng i t s power s t o unf ai r l y

di sadvant age Def endant s. 22 See Mel éndez- Ri vas, 566 F. 3d at 50.

We al so di sagr ee wi t h Def endant s t hat r emi ndi ng t he

cooper at i ng wi t nesses of t hei r r equi r ement t o be t r ut hf ul was

"bol st er i ng t he pr osecut i on. " I f anyt hi ng, t hese war ni ng shoul d

hel p Def endant s, si nce i f t he wi t nesses had a mot i vat i on t o l i e - -

whi ch i s t he f ocus of t he t ypi cal cr oss- exami nat i on of a

cooper at i ng wi t ness - - t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comment s coul d have

scared t he wi t nesses i nt o t el l i ng t he t r ut h. The same can be sai d

f or t he di str i ct cour t ' s act i on of sustai ni ng J uan' s obj ect i on t o

t he government ' s at t empt t o f ol l ow up on Dí az' s " saf ety" comment .

Si mi l ar l y, we f ai l t o see how t he di st r i ct cour t was

bol st er i ng t he pr osecut i on by expl ai ni ng i t s r easoni ng f or f i ndi ng

Of f i cer Ri ver a and Agent Gonzál ez qual i f i ed t o answer t he

gover nment ' s quest i ons. Ther e i s a di f f er ence bet ween obj ect i vel y

st at i ng t he of f i cer ' s qual i f i cat i ons t o answer a quest i on on t he

one hand and suggest i ng t hat t he of f i cer ' s t est i mony i s t o be gi ven

enhanced wei ght and cr edi bi l i t y because of t hese qual i f i cat i ons on

t he ot her . Her e, t he di st r i ct di d t he f or mer whi l e avoi di ng t he

l at t er .

22 We al so not e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s quest i oni ng was i sol at ed,occur r i ng onl y a handf ul of t i mes over an ei ght - day t r i al . Cf .Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Vázquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 19- 20, 25 ( 1st Ci r .2014) ( f i ndi ng a di st r i ct cour t ' s quest i oni ng t o not be i mpr operwher e t her e wer e t went y- t hree comment s over f our days of anei ght een- day tr i al ) .

-48-



Whi l e al l of t hese i nt er j ect i ons may have hi ghl i ght ed

i ssues Def endant s woul d r ather t he j ur y not have f ocused on, t hat

does not mean t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper bol st er ed wi t nesses,

nor does i t i ndi cat e bi as. See Rosar i o- Per al t a, 199 F. 3d at 560.

Fi nal l y, we add t hat even i f t he quest i ons di d mi st akenl y

gi ve t he j ur y an i mpr essi on of bi as, cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a-

Rodr í guez, 761 F. 3d 105, 121 (1st Ci r . 2014) , any pr ej udi ce was

cur ed by t he di st r i ct cour t i n i t s cl osi ng i nst r ucti ons, wher e i t

speci f i cal l y i nst r ucted t he j ur y on t hi s i ssue:

I have an obl i gat i on as a j udge t o geti mmer sed i n quest i oni ng i f I t hi nk I shoul d,but you shoul d not ever t ake f r omany quest i ont hat I [ m] ake or f r om anyt hi ng t hat I say ordo an i ncl i nat i on or i ndi cat i on on my par t ast o what t he r esul t of t he case shoul d be. That i s not t he pur pose. The pur pose i s t ot r y t o gi ve you t he best qual i t y of evi dencepossi bl e. You ar e at l i ber t y t o di sr egar d anyquest i on, any comment t hat I may have made i nt he cont ext of t hi s case.

We have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat si mi l ar j ur y i nst r uct i ons wer e

suf f i ci ent t o di spel any i mpr essi ons t hat a di st r i ct cour t ' s

quest i oni ng may have caused, and we see no reason t o depar t f r om

t hose hol di ngs her e. See Ayal a- Vázquez, 751 F. 3d at 25, 26;

Ri ver a- Tor r es v. Or t i z- Vél ez, 341 F. 3d 86, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; cf .

Mel éndez- Ri vas, 566 F. 3d at 51 n. 10 ( "Ther e was, f or exampl e, no

i nst r uct i on t hat t he j ur y shoul d not assume t he cour t had any vi ew

on t he subj ect of t he cour t ' s quest i ons and t hat t he j ur y coul d

di sr egar d al l t he cour t ' s quest i ons. ") .

-49-



2. The District Court's Admonitions to Juan

J uan al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was speci f i cal l y

bi ased agai nst hi m.

a. Relevant Facts

Once dur i ng j ur y sel ect i on and agai n dur i ng t he t r i al ,

t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved J uan st ar i ng at t he j ur y. Thi nki ng

t hat t hi s was an at t empt t o i nt i mi dat e t hem, t he di st r i ct cour t

sent J uan' s counsel a not e war ni ng J uan not t o st ar e at t he j ur y.

Al so dur i ng t he t r i al , J uan al er t ed t he di st r i ct cour t t hat he

bel i eved t he pr osecut or was maki ng i mpr oper hand si gnal s t o

wi t nesses. When t he i ssue was di scussed out si de t he presence of

t he j ur y, t he di str i ct cour t r ej ect ed t he al l egat i on, t el l i ng J uan

t hat i t was observi ng t he pr osecut or and i t di d not see any

i mpr oper si gnal i ng. J uan was unconvi nced, and asked t he cour t f or

permi ss i on t o "r ai se hi s hand" when he saw t he pr osecut or maki ng

t hese si gnal s. The di st r i ct cour t was havi ng none of i t , t hough,

and chast i sed J uan f or t hi s request . I t t ol d J uan t o not even

t hi nk about i t and t hr eat ened t hat i f he "dar e[ d] t o di sr upt t h[ e]

cour t r oom, " t he di st r i ct cour t woul d "f or ce" J uan i nt o hi s chai r or

make hi m wat ch t he t r i al "i n f r ont of a TV set i n t he j ai l . " 23

23 Whi l e t he di str i ct cour t f or bade J uan f r om di srupt i ngpr oceedi ngs by r ai si ng hi s hand, i t di d of f er J uan t he oppor t uni t yt o f i l e a mot i on r egar di ng t he al l eged hand gest ur es. J uandecl i ned t o do so.

-50-



b. These Admonitions Did Not Evince Bias

"[ J ] udi ci al r emar ks dur i ng t he cour se of a t r i al t hat ar e

cri t i cal or di sappr ovi ng of , or even host i l e t o, counsel , t he

par t i es, or t hei r cases, or di nar i l y do not suppor t a bi as or

par t i al i t y chal l enge. " Li t eky v. Uni t ed St at es, 510 U. S. 540, 555

( 1994) . Ther e i s a di f f er ence "bet ween expr essi ons of i mpat i ence,

annoyance or i r e, on t he one hand, " whi ch are per mi ssi bl e, "and

bi as or par t i al i t y, on t he ot her hand, " whi ch ar e f or bi dden.

Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d at 35 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he al l egat i ons r ai sed by J uan f al l i nt o t he f or mer

cat egor y. Bot h act i ons - - war ni ng J uan not t o st ar e at t he j ur y

and pr ohi bi t i ng hi m f r om "r ai si ng hi s hand" i n t he mi ddl e of

quest i oni ng by t he gover nment - - ar e si mpl y ef f or t s at cour t r oom

admi ni st r at i on whi ch ar e wel l wi t hi n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

di screti on. Li t eky, 510 U. S. at 556. Even t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

al l eged t hr eat t hat i f J uan "dar e[ d] t o di sr upt t h[ e] cour t r oom, "

t he di st r i ct cour t coul d "f or ce" J uan i nt o hi s chai r or make hi m

wat ch t he t r i al "i n f r ont of a TV set i n t he j ai l " i s not hi ng mor e

t han an at t empt t o get J uan t o behave and not di sr upt pr oceedi ngs.

To be sur e, t hese admoni shments ar e st er n and somewhat har sh. But

t hat al one i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh bi as. See i d. ( "A j udge' s

or di nar y ef f or t s at cour t r oom admi ni st r at i on - - even a st er n and

-51-



shor t - t emper ed j udge' s ordi nar y ef f or t s at cour t r oomadmi ni st r at i on

- - r emai n i mmune. " ) ; Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d at 35.

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t went out of i t s way t o

ensur e that t he j ury di d not become awar e of t hese admoni shment s - -

i t sent not es t o J uan' s counsel i nst r uct i ng J uan not t o st ar e at

t he j ur y, and t he di scussi on i nvol vi ng J uan r ai si ng hi s hand

occur r ed at a si debar . Gi ven t hi s di scr et i on, we f ai l t o see how

J uan was pr ej udi ced by t he comment s. See Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166

F. 3d at 35 ( "[ A] t r i al j udge' s f r ust r at i on di spl ayed at si debar

does not depr i ve a def endant of a f ai r t r i al . ") ; Logue, 103 F. 3d at

1046 ( hol di ng t hat a st at ement made out si de " t he pr esence of t he

j ur y does not i r r et r i evabl y t ai nt t he t r i al " ) . 24

3. The District Court's Treatment of Alleged Improper

Jury Contact

Fi nal l y, J uan and Cummi ngs ( t hr ough hi s suppl ement al pr o

se br i ef ) al so cont end t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was bi ased i n i t s

24 Unconnect ed t o any par t i cul ar concern about t hese admoni t i ons, J uan al so cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was bi ased based onst atement s t hat J uan says show i t had " f ormed an opi ni on wi t hr egar ds t o t he ul t i mat e i ssue of [ J uan' s] gui l t . " J uan bases t hatcont ent i on on st at ement s t he di st r i ct cour t made l at e i n t he t r i al- - out of t he hear i ng of t he j ur y - - i ncl udi ng t el l i ng J uan t hat J uan was " i n char ge i n Vi l l as De Mont er r ey. " Even i f t hesest at ement s coul d be t aken t o suggest t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had by

t hat poi nt f or med an opi ni on as t o Def endant s' gui l t , t he l aw i scl ear t hat a j udge who over t he cour se of t he t r i al becomes"exceedi ngl y i l l di sposed t owards t he def endant , who has been shownt o be a thor oughl y repr ehensi bl e per son, " i s " not t her eby recusabl ef or bi as or pr ej udi ce, si nce hi s knowl edge and t he opi ni on i tpr oduced wer e pr oper l y and necessar i l y acqui r ed i n t he cour se of t he pr oceedi ngs . . . . " Li t eky, 510 U. S. at 550- 51.

-52-



t r eat ment of J uan' s al l egat i on of i mpr oper cont act bet ween t he

pr osecut or and a j ur or .

a. Relevant Facts

Dur i ng t r i al , J uan' s counsel advi sed t he di st r i ct cour t

of an al l eged pr ohi bi t ed cont act bet ween t he pr osecut or and a j ur or

i n t he caf et er i a i n whi ch t he t wo di scussed t he weapons i n t he

case. I n r esponse, t he di st r i ct cour t quest i oned t he pr osecut or s

and t he cour t secur i t y of f i cer , al l of whomdeni ed t he cont act . I t

al so agr eed t o hear t he t est i mony of a wi t ness, but woul d onl y do

so i n open cour t si nce t he publ i c had a r i ght t o know what was

occur r i ng. When J uan' s counsel pr of f er ed t hat t he wi t ness was

unwi l l i ng t o do so ( but woul d t est i f y t o t he cour t i n chamber s) ,

t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on, f i ndi ng t he al l egat i on was

unsubst ant i at ed and "smel l s l i ke a r ed her r i ng. " I t added t hat "i t

i s nat ur al f or somebody who i s i n t hat ci r cumst ance t o t r y to do

what ever i t t akes t o t r y t o der ai l t he pr ocedur e" and t hat i t woul d

"bel i eve t he wor d of an of f i ci al Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney, t wo of

t hem, t hat says t hi s di d not happen. " 25

25 These comment s wer e based, at l east i n par t , on t he f act t hat

t he al l eged conver sat i on - - t hat t he j ur or al l egedl y t ol d t heAssi st ant U. S. At t or ney t hat he "woul d si gn[ ] whatever wasnecessary f or t he weapons t hat wer e i n evi dence" - - does not evenmake sense. For t hat r eason, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not cl ear l yer r i n concl udi ng t hat no i nappr opr i at e cont act had occur r ed, andso we al so r ej ect Cummi ngs' s pr o se argument t hat t hi s i nci dentdepr i ved hi m of an i mpar t i al j ur y.

-53-



b. The District Court's Treatment of the

Allegation Did Not Evince Bias

Ther e i s not hi ng here t o suggest bi as on t he par t of t he

di st r i ct cour t . The cour t t ook t he al l egat i on ser i ousl y and was

wi l l i ng t o hol d a hear i ng. I t quest i oned t he Assi st ant U. S.

At t or ney and t he cour t secur i t y of f i cer , and i t was wi l l i ng t o

quest i on anot her wi t ness as wel l . That t he di st r i ct cour t r ef used

t o cl ose t he cour t r oomt o quest i on t hi s wi t ness does not show bi as;

r at her , i t i s j ust an exampl e of t he di st r i ct cour t exer ci si ng i t s

"wi de di scr et i on t o det er mi ne t he scope of [ a] r esul t i ng i nqui r y

and t he mode and manner i n whi ch i t wi l l be conduct ed. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Pani agua- Ramos, 251 F. 3d 242, 250 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . J uan

and Cummi ngs s i mpl y di sagr ee wi t h the cour t ' s r esol ut i on of t he

i ssue, whi ch i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh bi as. See Li t eky, 510

U. S. at 555 ( "[ J ] udi ci al r ul i ngs al one al most never const i t ut e a

val i d basi s f or a bi as or par t i al i t y mot i on. ") .4. The Cumulative Effect of These Circumstances Did Not

Evince Bias

Even t hough each of t he al l egat i ons r ai sed by Def endant s

does not , on i t s own, show bi as, we must st i l l consi der whet her

t hese al l egat i ons i n t he aggr egat e demonst r at e j udi ci al bi as. See

Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d at 35; Logue, 103 F. 3d at 1045. Af t er

a t horough r evi ew of t he r ecord, we are convi nced t hat t hey do not .

These i sol at ed event s, none of whi ch showed bi as, di d not somehow

combi ne t o cr eat e such a bi ased at mosphere t hat Def endants wer e

-54-



depr i ved of a f ai r t r i al . Accor di ngl y, we r ej ect Def endant s'

ar gument s r egar di ng j udi ci al bi as. And because we f i nd no cr edi bl e

cl ai m f or j udi ci al bi as, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on i n denyi ng Def endant ' s recusal mot i on due t o bi as. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Pul i do, 566 F. 3d 52, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "We

r evi ew a r ul i ng on a mot i on t o r ecuse f or abuse of di scr et i on

. . . . [ and] wi l l sustai n t he di str i ct cour t ' s rul i ng unl ess we

f i nd t hat i t cannot be def ended as a r at i onal concl usi on suppor t ed

by [ a] r easonabl e r eadi ng of t he r ecor d. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

D. The Sufficiency of the Evidence for Cummings's Machinegun

Convictions

Count s Fi ve and Si x of t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment charged

Cummi ngs wi t h i l l egal possessi on of a machi negun and possessi on of

f i r ear ms ( i ncl udi ng machi neguns) i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng cr i me, r espect i vel y. Cummi ngs chal l enges hi sconvi ct i ons on these count s, ar gui ng that t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh hi s knowl edge t hat t he f i r ear ms wer e

machi neguns. We r evi ew t hese suf f i ci ency cl ai ms de novo. Uni t ed

St ates v. Shaw, 670 F. 3d 360, 362 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

1. Relevant Facts

On May 2, 2012, whi l e execut i ng a sear ch war r ant at t heHousi ng Pr oj ect , l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s di scover ed a cl osed r ed

and bl ack bag i n Cummi ngs' s apar t ment . The bag cont ai ned f our

f i r ear ms, t wo of whi ch wer e . 40- cal i ber Gl ock pi st ol s wi t h vi si bl e,

-55-



ext er nal chi ps whi ch conver t ed t he pi st ol s i nt o aut omat i c f i r ear ms.

Dur i ng hi s subsequent i nt er r ogat i on, Cummi ngs admi t t ed that he

of t en "st ored weapons and dr ugs f or t he or gani zat i on" and was goi ng

t o be pai d "ar ound $400" f or st or i ng t hi s par t i cul ar bag. At

t r i al , Ri vas, one of t he cooper at i ng wi t nesses, t est i f i ed t hat he

had seen Cummi ngs t est i ng f ul l y aut omat i c weapons, i ncl udi ng a

bl ack pi st ol whi ch was "ei t her a . 40 or . 45" cal i ber .

2. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Convict Cummings

I n r evi ewi ng cl ai ms of i nsuf f i ci ency, "we consi der t he

evi dence, i ncl udi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om, i n

t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct . " I d. So l ong as

"any reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd al l t he el ement s of t he cr i me

beyond a r easonabl e doubt , we must uphol d t he convi ct i on. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Here, Cummi ngs concedes t hat t he evi dence est abl i shed

t hat he possessed f i r earms and possessed f i r earms i n f ur t her ance of

a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cr i me. He ar gues, however , t hat t he evi dence

was i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he addi t i onal el ement t hat he knew

t he f i r ear ms had been modi f i ed t o f i r e aut omat i cal l y, t hus br i ngi ng

t hem under t he def i ni t i on of a machi negun. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Ni eves- Cast año, 480 F. 3d 597, 599 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

t o convi ct under 18 U. S. C. § 922( o) , t he "gover nment must . . .

prove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he def endant knew t he weapon

had t he char act er i st i cs t hat br ought i t wi t hi n t he st at ut or y

-56-



def i ni t i on of a machi negun. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Accor di ng t o Cummi ngs, t he gover nment provi ded no evi dence t hat he

opened up t he bag or was t ol d what t he bag contai ned, and thus

t her e i s no evi dence t o show t hat he knew t he guns wer e machi neguns

and not r egul ar f i r ear ms.

Though a cl ose cal l , we di sagree. Thi s case i s qui t e

si mi l ar t o a pr evi ous case, Uni t ed St at es v. Azubi ke, i n whi ch a

def endant convi ct ed of conspi r acy to possess wi t h t he i nt ent t o

di st r i but e nar cot i cs ar gued t hat whi l e the evi dence est abl i shed

t hat he knew t he sui t case he was t r anspor t i ng cont ai ned somet hi ng

i l l egal , t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t hat he knew t he sui t case cont ai ned a cont r ol l ed subst ance.

564 F. 3d 59, 61- 62, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "Azubi ke I I " ) ; 504 F. 3d 30,

32- 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( "Azubi ke I " ) . Two separ at e panel s of t hi s

cour t uphel d t he convi ct i on on suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

grounds, 26 expl ai ni ng t hat a number of f actors and i nf er ences made

i t possi bl e f or a j ur y t o concl ude t hat Azubi ke woul d l i kel y have

known t he cont ent s. These i ncl uded a r ecor ded phone conver sat i on

i n whi ch Azubi ke di d not want t o tal k about t he "st uf f " over t he

phone, t he cl ose r el at i onshi p bet ween Azubi ke and t he conspi r acy' s

26 Azubi ke' s f i r st convi ct i on was uphel d on suf f i ci ency gr ounds butr ever sed due t o pr osecut or i al mi sst at ement s dur i ng cl osi ngargument s. Azubi ke I , 504 F. 3d at 36, 40- 42. Af t er Azubi ke wasconvi ct ed a second t i me, we once agai n concl uded t hat t he evi dencewas suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i on. Azubi ke I I , 564 F. 3d at64- 66.

-57-



l eader s, t he f act t hat Azubi ke was ent r ust ed wi t h a l ar ge amount of

dr ugs ( t hus suggest i ng he was t r ust wor t hy) , and the modus oper andi

of t he cr i me. Azubi ke I I , 564 F. 3d at 64- 65; Azubi ke I , 504 F. 3d

at 37- 38.

Many of t hose same f act or s are pr esent her e. Fi r st ,

Cummi ngs admi t t ed dur i ng hi s i nt er r ogat i on t hat he of t en st or ed

guns and dr ugs f or t he or gani zat i on. The r epet i t i ve nat ur e of t hi s

pr ocess ( hi s modus oper andi ) coul d l ead a j ur y to i nf er t hat si mpl y

by bei ng handed t he bag and bei ng t ol d how much he woul d be

expect ed t o be pai d, Cummi ngs woul d under st and what t he bag

cont ai ned.

Second, t he f act t hat Cummi ngs had st or ed weapons and

dr ugs bef or e suggest s t hat he was t r ust ed by hi s coconspi r at or s,

and posi t i ons of t r ust of t en come wi t h i ncr eased access t o

i nf or mat i on. See Azubi ke I , 504 F. 3d at 37 ( " [ A] r easonabl e

i nf er ence of knowl edge ar i ses when t he def endant i s t r ust ed wi t h

possessi on of a l ar ge amount of dr ugs. Thi s i s because dr ug

or gani zat i ons do not usual l y t ake unnecessary r i sks by t r ust i ng

cri t i cal t r ansacti ons to out si der s. ") ; see al so Azubi ke I I , 564

F. 3d at 65.

Thi r d, t he evi dence est abl i shed t hat Cummi ngs and

Chr i st opher - - one of t he l eader s of t he or gani zat i on - - wer e

cl ose. Fi r st , r emember t he phone cal l s bet ween Chr i st opher and

Cummi ngs whi l e Cummi ngs was i ncarcer at ed. Not onl y di d Chr i st opher

-58-



at t empt t o pay f or Cummi ngs' s counsel , but he al so conf i ded i n

Cummi ngs t hat he bel i eved member s of t he or gani zat i on knew t hat

Chr i st opher was goi ng t o be t arget ed, and t hat r et r i but i on woul d be

t aken on t hose who wer e not l oyal . Second, Dí az t est i f i ed t hat he

woul d use Cummi ngs' s car when goi ng on r ounds f or Chr i st opher .

That Cummi ngs was wi l l i ng t o gi ve up hi s car so t hat Chr i st opher

coul d or der t hese act i vi t i es f ur t her suppor t s a cl ose r el at i onshi p

bet ween t he t wo. Gi ven t hi s appar ent cl oseness, a j ur y coul d

r at i onal l y concl ude t hat Chr i st opher woul d have conf i ded i n hi m

r egar di ng t he det ai l s of t he bag. See Azubi ke I I , 564 F. 3d at 64-

65; see al so Azubi ke I , 504 F. 3d at 37.

Fi nal l y, Ri vas t est i f i ed t hat Cummi ngs had t est ed t he

organi zat i on' s weapons i n t he past and had been seen f i r i ng . 40 or

. 45 cal i ber bl ack pi st ol s whi ch had been modi f i ed t o f i r e

aut omat i cal l y shor t l y bef ore Cummi ngs was gi ven t he bag sei zed

dur i ng t he May 2 search. Gi ven t hat Cummi ngs had been seen wi t h

machi neguns pr evi ousl y, a reasonabl e j ur y coul d i nf er t hat Cummi ngs

knew t hat t hese were t he t ypes of guns he was bei ng asked t o

saf eguard. 27

27 Thi s l ast poi nt i s t he key di f f er ence bet ween t he pr esent caseand Ni eves- Cast año, t he case r el i ed upon by Cummi ngs. I n Ni eves-

Cast año, we f ound i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence of knowl edge because t hemodi f i cat i ons t o make t he gun f i r e aut omat i cal l y wer e al l i nt er naland t her e was no evi dence t hat t he def endant was knowl edgeabl eabout f i r ear ms or had f i r ed t he AK- 47 r i f l e pr evi ousl y. 480 F. 3dat 600- 02. Her e, by cont r ast , t he gover nment pr esent ed evi dencet hat Cummi ngs had a pr act i ce of st or i ng f i r ear ms f or t heorgani zat i on and had been seen t est i ng aut omat i c weapons shor t l y

-59-



Though f ar f r om t he st r ongest of cases, we bel i eve t hat

t he cumul at i on of al l of t hi s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s j ust

enough t o sust ai n t he j ur y' s ver di ct . See Shaw, 670 F. 3d at 362

( " I ndi vi dual pi eces of evi dence vi ewed i n i sol at i on may be

i nsuf f i ci ent i n t hemsel ves t o pr ove a poi nt , but i n cumul at i on may

i ndeed meet t he mark. " ) . Accordi ngl y, we r ej ect Cummi ngs' s

chal l enge.

E. The Courtroom Closings

Chr i st opher , meanwhi l e, al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al when i t

r emoved hi s wi f e and chi l dr en f r om t he cour t r oom. We r evi ew t hi s

al l egat i on de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. DeLuca, 137 F. 3d 24, 32- 33

( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

1. Relevant Facts

Dur i ng t he f our t h day of t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t

or der ed t hat Chr i st opher ' s wi f e and t wo mi nor chi l dr en - - aged t en

and f our t een - - be r emoved f r om t he cour t r oom. Chr i st opher ' s

counsel l ear ned of t hi s excl usi on af t er t he day had ended, so he

br ought t he i ssue t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s at t ent i on at t he st ar t of

day f i ve. Upon r ai si ng t he i ssue, t he di st r i ct cour t acknowl edged

t hat i t had order ed al l t hr ee f ami l y member s r emoved, st at i ng t hat

t hey had been di sr upt i ve. Regar di ng Chr i st opher ' s wi f e, t he

bef or e t he sear ch. Thus, whi l e t her e was no evi dence f r omwhi ch t oi nf er knowl edge i n Ni eves- Cast año, t her e was her e.

-60-



di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat i t had obser ved her "movi ng her l i ps"

at t he wi t ness wi t h "gr eat di st ast e" and t hat t he wi t ness had seen

her doi ng so. As to t he chi l dr en, t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned

t hat t hey "wer e di sr upt i ng a l i t t l e bi t . " I t added t hat i t

"d[ i d] n' t want t he chi l dr en her e, because t hi s i s not a pl ace f or

chi l dr en . . . . [ t o] l i st en t o t h[ ese] ki nd of conver sat i ons t hat

ar e r ecor ded, nor t o see dr ugs di st r i but ed at a dr ug poi nt . . . .

[ b] ecause I don' t t hi nk t hat - - nobody shoul d val i dat e or l et

chi l dr en be exposed t o t hat t o begi n wi t h. " I t went on t o not e

t hat i t woul d "never l et a chi l d of mi ne l i st en t o t hi s t hi ng, nor

hear t he l anguage spoken on t hi s t ape. "

Af t er hear i ng t hi s expl anat i on, Chr i st opher ' s counsel

asked i f Chr i st opher ' s wi f e was bar r ed f r omr et ur ni ng, t o whi ch t he

di st r i ct cour t r esponded i n t he negat i ve. The cour t i nst r uct ed

Chr i st opher ' s counsel t hat i f Chr i st opher ' s wi f e "want s t o come i n

and behave l i ke a per son shoul d . . . and st ay seat ed and put , "

t hen she coul d come back. However , i t warned t hat a cour t of f i cer

woul d be seat ed behi nd Chr i st opher ' s wi f e and " i f t hi s happens

agai n, [ t he cour t wi l l ] get her out , and she wi l l be banned

f or ever . " Chr i st opher ' s counsel never asked i f t he chi l dr en coul d

r et ur n, nor di d he obj ect t o t hei r cont i nued excl usi on.

2. Christopher's Sixth Amendment Right Was Not Violated

The Si xt h Amendment guar ant ees 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 a speedy and

-61-



publ i c t r i al . " U. S. Const . amend. VI . Thi s r i ght was "' creat ed

f or t he benef i t of t he def endant , ' as openness i n cr i mi nal

pr oceedi ngs ' encour ages wi t nesses t o come f orwar d, ' ' di scour ages

per j ur y, ' and ' ensur e[ s] t hat j udge and pr osecut or car r y out t hei r

dut i es r esponsi bl y. ' " Bucci v. Uni t ed St at es, 662 F. 3d 18, 22 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Wal l er v. Geor gi a, 467 U. S. 39, 46 ( 1984) ) .

Accor di ngl y, cl osi ng a cri mi nal t r i al t o t he publ i c i s

r ar e, and bef or e a cl osur e i s per mi t t ed, a f our - par t i nqui r y must

be sat i sf i ed:

[ 1] t he par t y seeki ng t o cl ose t he hear i ngmust advance an over r i di ng i nt er est t hat i sl i kel y to be pr ej udi ced, [ 2] t he cl osur e mustbe no br oader t han necessary t o pr otect t hati nt er est , [ 3] t he t r i al cour t must consi derr easonabl e al t er nat i ves t o cl osi ng t hepr oceedi ng, and [ 4] i t must make f i ndi ngsadequate t o suppor t t he cl osur e.

I d. ( ci t i ng Wal l er , 467 U. S. at 48) .

Thi s t est , however , appl i es t o t ot al cl osur es - - where

al l members of t he publ i c are excl uded dur i ng some por t i on of t he

t r i al . I d. " I n par t i al cl osur es - - i . e. , wher e cour t r oom access

i s r est r i ct ed but some member s of t he publ i c ar e per mi t t ed t o

at t end - - t hi s cour t and sever al of our si st er ci r cui t s have hel d

t hat a ' subst ant i al ' i nt er est , r at her t han a ' compel l i ng' one, wi l l

j ust i f y [ a] par t i al cl osur e. " I d. Because onl y Chr i st opher ' s wi f eand chi l dr en wer e removed f r om t he cour t r oom, we anal yze t he

-62-



excl usi ons under t he modi f i ed Wal l er t est f or par t i al cl osur es. 28

I d. at 27.

a. Christopher's Wife

The excl usi on of Chr i st opher ' s wi f e compl i ed wi t h t he

modi f i ed Wal l er t est . Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat i t

obser ved Chr i st opher ' s wi f e maki ng f aces and mout hi ng words of

di sappr oval at t he wi t ness, and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t bel i eved

t hat t he wi t ness saw t hese act i ons. We agr ee t hat such act i ons

coul d be seen as an at t empt at wi t ness i nt i mi dat i on, and t he

pr event i on of wi t ness i nt i mi dat i on i s cl ear l y a "subst ant i al "

i nt er est . See Mar t i n v. Bi ssonet t e, 118 F. 3d 871, 873 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) ( uphol di ng t he excl usi on of def endant ' s f ami l y member s dur i ng

t he reopeni ng of a wi t ness' s t est i mony wher e t he wi t ness st at ed

t hat her i ni t i al t est i mony had been unt r ue because she had been

gi ven l ooks by def endant ' s f ami l y and f el t i nt i mi dat ed) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Br azel , 102 F. 3d 1120, 1155- 56 ( 11t h Ci r . 1997)

( r equi r i ng t hat t he publ i c i dent i f y themsel ves bef or e ent er i ng t he

cour t r oomconst i t ut ed a par t i al cl osur e but was per mi ssi bl e because

t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved i ndi vi dual s comi ng i nt o t he cour t r oom

and st ar i ng at wi t nesses) ; Woods v. Kuhl mann, 977 F. 2d 74, 77- 78

( 2d Ci r . 1992) ( uphol di ng a par t i al , t empor ar y cl osur e wher e

28 We r ej ect t he gover nment ' s ar gument t hat t her e was never acl osur e of any ki nd. Chr i st opher ' s wi f e and chi l dr en wer e r emovedf r om t he cour t r oom and f or bi dden f r om r et ur ni ng on t hat day. Thecour t r oom was cl osed t o t hem, and t hus a par t i al cl osur e exi st ed.

-63-



def endant ' s f ami l y was excl uded because, af t er observi ng t he f ami l y

member s and t he wi t ness and havi ng a br i ef exchange wi t h the

wi t ness, t he di st r i ct cour t bel i eved f ami l y member s wer e

i nt i mi dat i ng wi t nesses) .

Second, we bel i eve t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r equi r ement

t hat Chr i st opher ' s wi f e l eave unt i l she pr omi sed t o behave her sel f

was " no br oader t han necessar y" t o pr ot ect t hi s subst ant i al

i nt er est . As soon as Chr i st opher ' s wi f e st opped mout hi ng wor ds and

st ar i ng at wi t nesses, she was t o be al l owed back i n, and t hus, t he

r emoval was "nei t her br oader nor l onger t han was r easonabl y

necessar y t o end t hi s . . . har assment and secur e t he wi t ness' s

accur at e t est i mony. " Mar t i n, 118 F. 3d at 875.

Thi r d, whi l e i t woul d have been bet t er f or t he di st r i ct

cour t t o have expl i ci t l y stat ed t hat i t had consi der ed r easonabl e

al t er nat i ves t o r emovi ng Chr i st opher ' s wi f e, we have pr evi ousl y

hel d t hat such a consi der at i on can be i mpl i ci t . See i d. at 875 &

n. 4. Thi s i s especi al l y t r ue her e, wher e no r easonabl e and l ess-

br oad al t er nat i ve exi st ed. Chr i st opher suggest s t hat t he cour t

shoul d have publ i cl y admoni shed hi s wi f e and warned her t o st op

bef ore removi ng her , as opposed t o maki ng t hat a condi t i on f or

r eent r y, and t hat i t shoul d have quest i oned t he wi t ness t o

det er mi ne whet her he had seen Chr i st opher ' s wi f e' s act i ons and been

i nt i mi dated by t hem. However , we bel i eve nei t her of t hese

al t er nat i ves t o be r easonabl e under t he ci r cumst ances. The

-64-



di st r i ct cour t was concer ned t hat t he wi t ness was bei ng i nt i mi dat ed

and want ed t o t ake act i on t o ensure t hat t hat di d not happen. Had

t he cour t st opped the pr oceedi ngs, quest i oned the wi t ness, and

scol ded Chr i st opher ' s wi f e, al l t hi s woul d have done i s di sr upt t he

pr oceedi ngs, dr aw at t ent i on t o t he si t uat i on, and possi bl y even

enhance t he i nt i mi dat i on f el t by t he wi t ness. "Not hi ng i n Wal l er

or i n any ot her case ci t ed by [ Chr i st opher ] suggest s t hat a t r i al

j udge, pr esent ed wi t h evi dence of . . . wi t ness i nt i mi dat i on . . .

must under t ake an assessment of t he exact l evel of af f r i ght ment

. . . bef or e cl osi ng a cour t r oom. " I d. at 875. I n f act, t he l aw

i s t o t he cont r ar y. See i d.

Fi nal l y, as al r eady expl ai ned, t he di st r i ct cour t

i nf or med Chr i st opher ' s counsel t hat Chr i st opher ' s wi f e was r emoved

because she was s t ar i ng at t he wi t ness "movi ng her l i ps" wi t h

"gr eat di st ast e" and t hat t he wi t ness had seen her doi ng so. Thi s

i s an adequat e f i ndi ng t o suppor t t he par t i al cl osur e. See Mar t i n,

118 F. 3d at 873; Br azel , 102 F. 3d at 1155- 56; Kuhl mann, 977 F. 2d at

77- 78.

Accor di ngl y, t he excl usi on of Chr i st opher ' s wi f e dur i ng

t he f our t h day of t r i al met t he modi f i ed Wal l er t est and di d not

vi ol at e Chr i st opher ' s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al .

b. Christopher's Children

I n st ar k cont r ast t o hi s wi f e' s excl usi on, wher e

Chr i st opher ' s counsel asked speci f i cal l y whet her she was bar r ed and

-65-



i f she coul d r et ur n, Chr i st opher ' s counsel r emai ned si l ent wi t h

r egar ds t o Chr i st opher ' s chi l dr en and never sought t o have t hem

r eadmi t t ed. Thi s si l ence i s f at al t o Chr i st opher ' s cl ai m. When

t he "subj ect mat t er [ i s] unmi st akabl y on t he t abl e, and t he

def ense' s si l ence i s r easonabl y under st ood onl y as si gni f yi ng

agr eement t hat t her e was not hi ng obj ect i onabl e, " t he i ssue i s

wai ved on appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Chr i st i , 682 F. 3d 138, 142 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col ón, 741 F. 3d 179,

187 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "The j udge put t he excl usi on mat t er squar el y

on t he t abl e f or al l t he def endant s' l awyer s at si debar . . . .

Each at t or ney had t he chance t o speak up. . . . So [ def endant ' s

counsel ' s] si l ence const i t ut es cl assi c wai ver . . . . ") ; Mar t i neau

v. Per r i n, 601 F. 2d 1196, 1199- 1200 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) . Gi ven t hat

t he cl osur e i ssue was f r ont - and- cent er - - i ndeed, i t was t he ent i r e

poi nt of t he col l oquy - - Chr i st opher ' s counsel ' s si l ence as t o

Chr i st opher ' s chi l dr en can onl y be under st ood as i mpl i ci t agr eement

t hat t hey shoul d r emai n bar r ed f r om t he cour t r oom. Accor di ngl y,

t hi s ar gument i s not hi ng but an "af t er t hought on appeal , " and t hus

wai ved. See Levi ne v. Uni t ed St ates, 362 U. S. 610, 619- 20 ( 1960)

( "Due r egar d gener al l y f or t he publ i c nat ur e of t he j udi ci al

pr ocess does not r equi r e di sr egar d of t he sol i d demands of t he f ai r

admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce i n f avor of a par t y who, at t he

appr opr i at e t i me and act i ng under advi ce of counsel , saw no

-66-



di sr egar d of a r i ght , but r ai ses an abst r act cl ai m onl y as an

af t er t hought on appeal . " ) .

We pause f or a moment , however , t o sound a not e of

caut i on. A def endant has a cl ear r i ght t o have hi s f ami l y pr esent

dur i ng pr oceedi ngs - - and we know of no except i on f or mi nor

chi l dr en. See Uni t ed St at es v. Negr ón- Sost r e, - - - F. 3d - - - , Nos.

10- 1974, 10- 2042, 10- 2055, 10- 2057, 10- 2129, 2015 WL 3898794, at *1

( 1st Ci r . J un. 25, 2015) ( "[ W] i t hout except i on al l cour t s have hel d

t hat an accused i s at t he ver y l east ent i t l ed t o have hi s f r i ends,

r el at i ves and counsel pr esent , no mat t er wi t h what of f ense he may

be char ged. " ( quot i ng I n r e Ol i ver , 333 U. S. 257, 271- 72 ( 1948)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri ver a, 602 F. App' x 372, 377 ( 9t h Ci r . 2015) ; Downs v. Lape, 657

F. 3d 97, 108 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( Chi n, J . , di ssent i ng) . Whet her any

i ndi vi dual chi l d shoul d be al l owed t o observe pr oceedi ngs and

possi bl y be exposed t o harsh l anguage, vi ol ence, and ot her unt oward

si t uat i ons i s a deci si on f or t hat chi l d' s par ent s, not f or t he

di s t r i ct cour t . 29 The cour t ' s t r oubl i ng bl anket vi ew t hat t he

cour t r oom was "not a pl ace f or chi l dr en" i s not onl y over l y

pat er nal i st i c, but al so pot ent i al l y i n cont r adi cti on wi t h t he Si xt h

Amendment .

29 I ndeed, t he chi l d' s par ent s may f i nd such observat i on t o haveeducat i onal benef i t s despi t e t he adul t t hemes. Observi ng t he j udi ci al syst em i n act i on can be a val uabl e ci vi cs l esson f or aper son of any age, and especi al l y f or an adol escent .

-67-



F. Cumulative Error

Fi nal l y, Def endant s ar gue t hat even i f no si ngl e er r or

war r ant s r ever sal , t he cumul at i ve ef f ect of t hese er r or s f or m an

" i nt er connect ed web of unf ai r ness. " Whi l e we agr ee t hat

"[ i ] ndi vi dual er r or s, i nsuf f i ci ent i n t hemsel ves t o necessi t at e a

new t r i al , may i n t he aggr egat e have a mor e debi l i t at i ng ef f ect , "

Uni t ed St at es v. Sepúl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1195- 96 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ,

t hat i s not t he si t uat i on pr esent l y bef or e us.

Def endant s al l ege a host of er r or s, but onl y one has any

pot ent i al mer i t : Agent J ames' s t est i mony as t o Chr i st opher ' s

i nvol vement i n the conspi r acy whi ch was bot h beyond hi s per sonal

knowl edge and beyond t he scope of t he quest i on asked. But as we

di scussed above, any er r or was har ml ess. And t here can be no

"cumul at i ve" er r or when mul t i pl e er r or s do not exi st . See Uni t ed

St ates v. DeSi mone, 699 F. 3d 113, 128 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "The

cumul at i ve er r or doct r i ne i s of no use t o [ def endant ] because t he

onl y i dent i f i ed er r or was har ml ess. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. St okes, 124

F. 3d 39, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( "By def i ni t i on, cumul at i ve- er r or

anal ysi s i s i nappr opr i at e when a par t y compl ai ns of t he cumul at i ve

ef f ect of non- er r or s. ") .

IV. Sentencing Issues

I n addi t i on t o at t acki ng t hei r convi ct i ons, Cummi ngs and

Chr i st opher al so chal l enge t hei r sent ences. We r evi ew t hese

chal l enges under a def er ent i al abuseof - di scr et i on st andar d, t he

-68-



goal bei ng t o ensur e t hat t he sent ence " i s bot h pr ocedur al l y sound

and subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Tr i ni dad- Acost a,

773 F. 3d 298, 308 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Dávi l a-

Gonzál ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mai sonet - Gonzál ez, 785

F. 3d 757, 762 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Because both Def endant s onl y

chal l enge t he pr ocedur es by whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t ar r i ved at

t hei r r espect i ve sent ences, t hat i s wher e we f ocus our di scussi on.

A sent ence i s pr ocedur al l y sound so l ong as t he di st r i ct

cour t compl i es wi t h t he "' speci f i cal l y del i neat ed r oadmap' " we have

pr evi ousl y l ai d out . Uni t ed St at es v. Ser unj ogi , 767 F. 3d 132, 142

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d

26, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) . Thi s ent ai l s cal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e

Gui del i nes Sent enci ng Range ( "GSR") , addr essi ng any obj ect i ons t o

t he pr obat i on depar t ment ' s Pr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t

( "PSR") , gi vi ng bot h par t i es an oppor t uni t y t o ar gue f or what ever

sent ence t hey deemappr opr i at e, consi der i ng the 18 U. S. C. § 3553( a)

sent enci ng f act or s, and expl ai ni ng t he reasoni ng behi nd t he chosen

sent ence. See Gal l v. Uni t ed St ates, 552 U. S. 38, 49- 50 ( 2007) .

Devi at i ons f r om t hi s r oadmap - - 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 sect i on 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" - - const i t ut e

-69-



pr ocedur al er r or . Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 309 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Gal l , 552 U. S. at 51. Though

our over al l r evi ew of a sent enci ng i s f or abuse of di screti on, t hi s

st andar d i s act ual l y mul t i f acet ed: "[ W] e r evi ew f act ual f i ndi ngs

f or cl ear er r or , ar gument s t hat t he sent enci ng cour t er r ed i n

i nt er pr et i ng or appl yi ng t he gui del i nes de novo, and j udgment cal l s

f or abuse of di scret i on si mpl i ci t er . " Ser unj ogi , 767 F. 3d at 142

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . Not abl y, when a def endant i s convi ct ed

of mor e t han one count , a di st r i ct cour t i s expect ed t o render a

separ ate sent ence on each count . Uni t ed St at es v. Zaval a- Mar t í ,

715 F. 3d 44, 51 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

A. Cummings's Sentence

I n hi s suppl ement al pr o se br i ef , Cummi ngs ar gues t hat

hi s sent ence was pr ocedur al l y f l awed because t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n cal cul at i ng t he Base Of f ense Level f or Count Seven ( t he

dr ug conspi r acy convi ct i on) . Speci f i cal l y, Cummi ngs cont ends t hat

he was not aut omat i cal l y r esponsi bl e f or al l of t he dr ugs i nvol ved

i n t he conspi r acy si mpl y because he was convi ct ed as a co-

conspi r at or , and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o make an

i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o t he amount speci f i cal l y at t r i but abl e

t o hi m was er r or . Thi s ar gument , whi l e r i ght on t he l aw, i s wr ong

on t he f act s.

Under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, a def endant ' s Base

Of f ense Level f or dr ug of f enses depends most l y on t he quant i t y of

-70-



t he dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he of f ense. U. S. S. G. § 2D1. 1( c) .

Accor di ngl y, i n or der t o pr oper l y cal cul at e t he GSR, t he di st r i ct

cour t must f i r st make "an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o dr ug amount s

at t r i but abl e t o, or f or eseeabl e by, t hat def endant . " Uni t ed St at es

v. Vázquez- Lar r aur i , 778 F. 3d 276, 291 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Dr ug amount s are f oreseeabl e t o a co-

conspi r at or so l ong as he or she "coul d r easonabl y have ant i ci pat ed

[ t he dr ugs] woul d be wi t hi n t he ambi t of t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Sant os, 357 F. 3d 136, 140 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng

U. S. S. G. § 1B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) cmt . 2) .

Her e, t he PSR at t r i but ed over 538, 000 ki l ogr ams of

mar i j uana equi val ent 30 t o Cummi ngs, qual i f yi ng hi m f or t he hi ghest

Base Of f ense Level - - Level 38. U. S. S. G. § 2D1. 1( c) . When

Cummi ngs obj ect ed t o t hi s cal cul at i on, t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed

hi s ar gument , r espondi ng t hat "no mat t er how you l ook at t hi s, i n

t he cont ext of what t he conspi r acy r ul es ar e and f or eseeabi l i t y and

al l of t hat , he' s a[ n of f ense] l evel [ of ] 38. " Though per haps not

t he cl ear est or most det ai l ed of expl anat i ons, t hi s st at ement shows

t hat , cont r ar y t o Cummi ngs' s cont ent i on, t he di st r i ct cour t di d

30 Under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, when mul t i pl e dr ugs arei nvol ved, t he quant i t y of each dr ug i s conver t ed i nt o i t s mar i j uanaequi val ent and t hen added t oget her t o obt ai n t he tot al dr ugquant i t y. See U. S. S. G. § 2D1. 1; Uni t ed St at es v. Vent ur a, 353 F. 3d84, 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

-71-



consi der whet her or not t he ent i r e dr ug amount was i ndi vi dual l y

at t r i but abl e t o Cummi ngs, and t he cour t concl uded t hat i t was. 31

Because t he di st r i ct cour t di d addr ess t he dr ug quant i t y

at t r i but ed t o Cummi ngs, we ar e l ef t t o det er mi ne whet her t he cour t

commi t t ed cl ear er r or i n adopt i ng t he PSR' s f i ndi ng. I t di d not .

The evi dence showed t hat Cummi ngs was an enf or cer i n t he

or gani zat i on, somet i mes del i ver ed dr ugs, and woul d of t en st or e

dr ugs f or t he conspi r acy. Wi t h al l of t hese r ol es, Cummi ngs coul d

r easonabl y have ant i ci pat ed t hat such a l ar ge quant i t y of dr ugs

woul d be i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy, and t hus t her e i s no er r or i n

concl udi ng t hat t hat ent i r e amount was f oreseeabl e t o hi m. See

Sant os, 357 F. 3d at 140.

I n any event , even i f t he di st r i ct cour t had f ai l ed t o

make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng, t he er r or woul d have been har ml ess.

See Vázquez- Lar r aur i , 778 F. 3d at 291 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i n or der t o

vacat e a sent ence, a def endant must show t hat an er r or occur r ed and

31 At t he ver y l east , t he st at ement suggest s t he di st r i ct cour tbel i eved the amount t o be a f ai r appr oxi mat i on of t he dr ug quant i t ygi ven the huge di scr epancy bet ween the t hreshol d amount of mar i j uana equi val ency and t he amount at t r i but ed t o Cummi ngs i n t hePSR. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mul l i ns, 778 F. 3d 37, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2015)( expl ai ni ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t need not make an exact f i ndi ng ast o dr ug quant i t y but r at her may base i t s cal cul at i on on

"appr oxi mat i ons, " so l ong as t hose appr oxi mat i ons " r epr esentr easoned est i mat es of dr ug quant i t y. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) ) . Cummi ngs' s counsel seemed t o concede t hi s poi nt dur i ngt he sent enci ng hear i ng, agr eei ng t hat si nce t he PSR at t r i but ed538, 000 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana equi val ent t o Cummi ngs and t het hr eshol d f or t he Base Of f ense Level of 38 was 30, 000 ki l ogr ams,t her e was no poi nt "qui bbl i ng at t he mar gi ns. "

-72-



t hat i t af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s) . The ver di ct

f or m convi ct i ng Cummi ngs expl i ci t l y f ound t hat at l east 280 gr ams

of nar cot i cs wer e i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy, t hus t r i gger i ng a

t en- year mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence. See 21 U. S. C. § 841( b)

( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) . Si nce Cummi ngs was onl y sent enced t o 120 mont hs ( or

t en years) on t hi s count , hi s sent ence woul d have been t he same

r egar dl ess of t he i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug f i ndi ng.

Accor di ngl y, Cummi ngs' s sent ence was pr ocedur al l y sound.

B. Christopher's Sentence

Chr i st opher was convi ct ed on Count Seven - - t he dr ug

conspi r acy - - and Count Ni ne - - conspi r acy t o possess f i r ear ms i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me - - of t he super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment , and t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a j oi nt "l i f e sent ence. "

Chr i st opher ar gues t hat t hi s sent ence was pr ocedur al l y f l awed f or

a number of r easons.

Fi r st , he cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he

PSR f or a di f f er ent def endant , and t hus t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

sent ence was t ai l ored t owards another def endant , and not

Chr i st opher . Thi s ar gument i s easi l y di spensed wi t h. Though t he

di st r i ct cour t di d i ni t i al l y have t he wr ong PSR i n f r ont of i t ,

t hi s mi st ake was qui ckl y cor r ect ed. By t he t i me t he di st r i ct cour t

made i t s comment s r egardi ng the Gui del i nes cal cul at i on and

i mposi t i on of sent ence, i t had been gi ven and had r evi ewed t he

-73-



cor r ect PSR. Thus, t he sent ence was i ndi vi dual l y t ai l or ed t o

Chr i st opher .

Second, Chr i st opher ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed

t o consi der hi s obj ect i ons t o t he GSR cal cul at i on on hi s dr ug

conspi r acy convi ct i on ( Count Seven) , and t hat t hi s f ai l ur e r esul t ed

i n an i ncor r ect cal cul at i on. At t he out set of t he sent enci ng

pr oceedi ngs, t he di st r i ct cour t asked i f t her e was "any obj ect i on

t hat sur vi ves, " t o whi ch Chr i st opher r esponded t hat he had f i l ed a

sent enci ng memor andum cont ai ni ng al l of hi s ar gument s f or an

ei ght een- t o- t went y- year sent ence. The di st r i ct cour t repl i ed,

"Okay. Ver y wel l " and made no ot her speci f i c ref er ence t o t he

memorandum. Lat er i n t he pr oceedi ngs, however , t he di st r i ct cour t

st at ed "t he cal cul at i ons r egar di ng dr ugs ar e t ot al l y cor r ect , and

t her e' s no obj ect i on about t hat . " Thi s l at t er st at ement was

cl ear l y er r oneous, as Chr i st opher had i ndeed obj ect ed t o t he

cal cul at i on i n hi s sent enci ng memor andum and had t ol d t he di st r i ct

cour t as much ear l i er i n t he pr oceedi ng.

Thi s mi sst at ement , however , was har ml ess because

Chr i st opher ' s obj ect i on was l egal l y i ncor r ect . Chr i st opher

cont ended t hat under Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151

( 2013) , t he j ur y was r equi r ed t o f i nd t he speci f i c dr ug quant i t y he

was r esponsi bl e f or , so any dr ug f i ndi ngs by t he di st r i ct cour t ( or

i n t he PSR) coul d not be consi der ed. However , al l Al l eyne r equi r es

i s f or t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he amount of dr ugs i s gr eat er t han

-74-



t hat necessar y f or t he mandat or y mi ni mum i n or der f or t hat

mandat or y mi ni mum t o be i mposed. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Razo, 782

F. 3d 31, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( "[ Al l eyne] hel d t hat a j ur y f i ndi ng

was r equi r ed t o t r i gger a mandat ory mi ni mum. " ) .

The j ur y f ound t hat Chr i st opher possessed at l east f i ve

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, so t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat t he PSR

was cor r ect i n i t s cal cul at i on of a dr ug quant i t y si gni f i cant l y

mor e t han t hat 32 i s ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h t he j ur y f i ndi ng - - and

ent i r el y appr opr i at e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Gonzál ez, 775

F. 3d 483, 508- 09 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Ther e was t hus no er r or i n t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s cal cul at i on of a Tot al Of f ense Level of 43, 33

cor r espondi ng t o a GSR of l i f e i mpr i sonment .

I n addi t i on t o chal l engi ng t he GSR cal cul at i on f or Count

Seven, Chr i st opher al so al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

i gnor ed t he § 3553( a) f act or s and consi der ed t he l i f e sent ence t o

be mandat or y. He bases thi s cont ent i on on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

st at ement t hat i t was " i mposi ng t he mandat or y l i f e sent ence. "

However , i mmedi at el y f ol l owi ng t hi s st at ement , t he di st r i ct cour t

cl ar i f i ed t hat t he sent ence was " [ m] andator y i n t he sense that

32 The PSR concl uded t hat Chr i st opher was r esponsi bl e f or

1, 076, 248. 4 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana equi val ent over t he l i f e of t heconspi r acy. Of t hat amount , 1, 053, 580. 4 ki l ogr ams was at t r i but abl et o some f or m of cocai ne.

33 Techni cal l y, Chr i st opher was at a Tot al Of f ense Level of 48, butbecause t he hi ghest Tot al Of f ense Level i s 43 t he Gui del i nes cal lf or r educi ng i t t o 43.

-75-



t hat ' s what t he gui del i nes cal l f or . " I ndeed, t he cour t went on t o

st ate t hat t her e was "not hi ng bef ore me t hat woul d t el l me t hat I

shoul d do anythi ng di f f er ent by depar t ur e or by var i ance, and I

wi l l not . " Thus, t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d use t he t er m

"mandat or y, " i t i s cl ear f r omi t s cl ar i f i cat i on and deci si on not t o

i mpose a var i ance t hat t hi s was si mpl y a mi sst atement , and t hat t he

cour t was wel l aware t hat t he l i f e sent ence was not mandatory.

Moreover , t he cour t ' s comment t hat t here was "not hi ng

bef or e me t hat woul d t el l me t hat I shoul d do anyt hi ng di f f er ent "

was most l i kel y a r ef er ence t o, and r ej ect i on of , t he § 3553( a)

sent enci ng f act or ar gument s cont ai ned i n Chr i st opher ' s sent enci ng

memor andum. Whi l e we wi sh t hi s st at ement was cl earer and mor e

expl i ci t , i t was suf f i ci ent . See Uni t ed St at es v. Savoi e, 985 F. 2d

612, 621 n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( r ej ect i ng def endant ' s ar gument t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o addr ess t he § 3553( a) f act or s gi ven

"t he poi nt ed comment s del i ver ed by t he di st r i ct cour t at

sent enci ng" ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ocasi o- Cancel , 727 F. 3d 85,

91 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " [ A] wi t hi n- t he- r ange sent ence usual l y demands

a l ess det ai l ed expl anat i on t han a var i ant sent ence. " ) .

Fi nal l y, Chr i st opher ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e t he appl i cabl e GSR f or Count Ni ne, i nst ead

choosi ng t o "group[ ] " t he t wo count s t oget her si nce ther e was " no

poi nt " i n cal cul at i ng t he sent ence f or each count separ at el y. We

agr ee t hi s was er r or . " [ T] he pr oper procedur e" dur i ng sent enci ng

-76-



" i s t o r ender a separ at e sent ence on each count . " Zaval a- Mar t í ,

715 F. 3d at 51 n. 6 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s i s

especi al l y t r ue her e wher e Count Ni ne di d not aut hor i ze a l i f e

sent ence; r at her , i t car r i es a t went y- year maxi mum penal t y. 34 See

Al mont e- Núñez, 771 F. 3d at 92 ( " [ C] ol l ater al consequences may ar i se

as a r esul t of an above- t he- maxi mum sent ence i mposed on a

par t i cul ar count . . . . I t st r i kes us as bot h unwi se and unf ai r t o

pl ace t he r i sk of such har m on t he def endant wher e, as her e, t he

excessi ve sent ence i s easy t o cor r ect . " ) .

Accordi ngl y, we vacat e Chr i st opher ' s sent ence and r emand

so that t he di st r i ct cour t may i mpose an i ndi vi dual sent ence on

each of t he t wo count s of convi ct i on.

V. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m t he convi ct i ons of

al l t hr ee Def endant s. We al so af f i r m Cummi ngs' s sent ence, but we

vacat e and r emand Chr i st opher ' s sent ence so t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

can i mpose an i ndi vi dual sent ence on each count .

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

34 To t he ext ent t he di st r i ct cour t was at t empt i ng t o appl yU. S. S. G. § 3D1, whi ch al l ows di f f er ent count s t o be gr oupedt oget her f or det er mi ni ng t he Tot al Of f ense Level , t hat woul d not

united states v. laureano-perez, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents