Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02108/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Corrales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

No. 88-2108 

FILED 

United Stares C.OUrc of Appeals 

Tenth Cirroit 

OCT 15 1990 

:&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2108 

v. (D.C. No. CR 87-404-3) 

(D. New Mexico) 

LUIS CORRALES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before HOLLOWAY' Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and KANE, 

District Judge. * 

After this case was set for oral argument, counsel waived 

oral argument and asked that the case be submitted for final 

disposition on the briefs. Our examination of the briefs and appellate record also indicates that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable John L. Kane, United States District Judge for the 

District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Luis Corrales, the appellant, and six other defendants were 

jointly charged in a multicount indictment with various drug offenses. In the first count, all seven defendants were charged 

with unlawfully conspiring from on or about March 3, 1987, to and 

including September 16, 1987, to possess and distribute cocaine in 

an amount in excess of five kilos of cocaine, contrary to 21 

u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) and 21 u.s.c. § 841(b)(l)(A) and in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In count two, Corrales was charged with 

unlawfully distributing cocaine, in an amount less than five 

hundred grams on March 3, 

84l(a)(l) and 21 u.s.c. 

1987, in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 

§ 841(b)(l)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In 

count three, Corrales was charged with unlawfully distributing 

cocaine in an amount less than five hundred grams on May 5, 1987, 

in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 841(b)(l)(C) and 18 u.s.c. S 2. 

In a joint trial of all seven defendants, a jury convicted 

Corrales on all three counts. On count one, the conspiracy 

charge, Corrales was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On 

counts two and three, Corrales was sentenced to a prison term of 

five years on each count, with three years of the five being 

suspended, and the sentences on those counts to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on count one. Corrales appeals 

his three convictions and the sentences imposed thereon. 

On appeal, Corrales urges two grounds for reversal: (1) the 

evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction on the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 2 
conspiracy count; and (2) improper closing argument by the government prosecutor denied Corrales a fair trial and because of that 

all three convictions should be reversed. A bit of background 

will place these two matters in focus. 

In February 1987, the United States Border Patrol AntiSmuggling Unit commenced an undercover drug investigation in the 

small community of Vado, New Mexico. On February 17, 1987, 

undercover Agents Acosta and Carrillo met with Corrales, the 

defendant-appellant, in Vado. The purpose of this initial contact 

was to negotiate an undercover purchase of cocaine. Agent 

Carrillo informed Corrales that he wanted to purchase a quantity 

of cocaine and in connection therewith was interested in meeting 

one Jose Luis Castillo. Corrales stated to the agents that he 

would act as their intermediary with Jose Castillo since Castillo, 

whom he described as his good friend, only dealt . directly with 

"friends." Corrales indicated that he expected to be paid for his 

"intermediary" service at the rate of $125 per ounce for each 

delivery. 

Corrales left the agents to speak to Jose Castillo and told 

the agents to wait for him at the Malibu Club in Vado. Corrales 

later that same day returned to the Malibu Club and informed the 

agents that a purchase of cocaine from Castillo would be possible. 

The agents were told by Corrales that they could purchase cocaine 

in kilogram quantities at a cost of $28,000 per kilogram, but that 

if they purchased cocaine by the ounce they must purchase a 

minimum of six ounces at a rate of $1,500 per ounce. Corrales 

indicated that it was Castillo's preference to deal in kilogram 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 3 
quantities, but that Castillo would sell the undercover agents in 

lesser quantities because of his long friendship with Corrales. 

On March 3, 1987, the undercover agents traveled to Vado to 

purchase six ounces of cocaine from Corrales. On this trip they 

were accompanied by an agent from the New Mexico State Police. 

The three agents met with Corrales in his car and showed him 

$10,000 in currency which was to be used to pay for the cocaine. 

After some discussion, it was agreed that Corrales would arrange 

with Castillo for delivery of the cocaine to the Malibu Club and 

the cocaine was later delivered by Antonio Torres, who served as 

Castillo's messenger. Corrales was given $700 as a conunission. 

After the delivery, Corrales advised the agents to leave the area. 

On March 10, 1987 and April 30, 1989, the two undercover 

agents returned to Vado where they met again with Corrales, first 

at his residence and then at the Malibu Club. On March 10, 

Corrales pointed out and · identified Castillo to the undercover 

agents in the Malibu Club. At the April 30, 1987 meeting, 

Corrales took the agents to meet Castillo at his residence. 

Following the introduction on April 30, Agent Carrillo 

negotiated with Castillo for the purchase of cocaine. Castillo 

indicated that he would need at least a day's notice because he 

did not keep any cocaine at his home. 

On May 4, 1987, Agents Acosta and Carrillo again traveled to 

Vado, where, after picking up Corrales, they proceeded to 

Castillo's residence in order to make arrangements to purchase six 

ounces of cocaine. Castillo told the agents to return the following day and he would deliver six ounces of cocaine to them and 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 4 
would expect immediate payment of at least one-half the total 

purchase price of $9,000. 

On May 5, 1987, the agents were driven by 

Castillo residence. On this occasion Agent 

Corrales 

Carrillo 

to the 

handed 

Castillo $4,500 and Castillo gave Carrillo six ounces of cocaine. 

Corrales was paid a commission on the sale by the agents, who then 

left the area. 

In their various meetings with Corrales, the agents were 

informed by Corrales that Castillo and Reuben Reyes were associates and the chief suppliers of cocaine in that area. It was 

through Corrales' efforts that Carrillo was later able to 

infiltrate the Castillo-Reyes association. On June 18, 1987, 

Agent Carrillo met with Castillo and complained that the cocaine 

delivered on May 5 was "substandard" in quality. On June 26, 

1987, Carrillo met with Corrales and discussed the possibility of 

finding another source for cocaine. 

Following the June meetings with Corrales and Castillo, the 

agents did not meet with either Corrales or Castillo for nearly 

two months. The reason for the hiatus was that funds with which 

to purchase cocaine were not available. On July 31, 1987, Agent 

Carrillo met with Castillo and negotiated for the purchase of one 

kilogram of cocaine for $28,000. The delivery was set for August 

8, 1987. On that date, the agents gave Castillo $14,000, one-half 

of the purchase price and received in return one kilogram of 

cocaine. 

On August 18, 1987, the agents again met with Castillo and 

introduced him to another agent who was held out to be a wealthy 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 5 
financier who desired to purchase a multi-kilo quantity of 

cocaine. The conversation at this meeting was recorded. 

Ultimately, four samples of ten kilograms of cocaine were 

delivered to the agents. The purchase money was to be delivered 

by the agents when the ten kilograms of cocaine were delivered to 

them. However, at the time of the proposed delivery of the ten 

kilograms of cocaine on September 16, 1987, the authorities moved 

in and arrested several of the defendants and seized the ten 

kilograms of cocaine. Corrales was not at the arrest scene on 

September 16,· 1987, but was arrested thereafter at his residence. 

Although Corrales himself did not testify, his defense to 

counts two and three was entrapment. That issue was submitted to 

the jury, which rejected the defense and convicted him on counts 

two and three. On appeal, counsel does not pursue the entrapment 

argument. However, as above stated, counsel does argue that 

improper closing argument by the government prosecutor requires 

reversal on counts two and three, as well as count one. We will 

get to that matter later. 

Counsel's main argument in this court is that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction on count one. Count one 

charged Corrales and the other defendants with conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine in excess of five kilograms. In this 

regard, counsel points out that the deliveries of cocaine on March 

3, 1987 and May 5, 1987, when Corrales was present and participating, were for only six ounces of cocaine, and that he was not 

present at the delivery of one kilogram on August 14, 1987, or the 

attempted delivery of ten kilograms on September 16, 1987. The 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 6 
statute provides for an enhanced penalty where five kilograms, or 

more, of cocaine is involved. Counsel's reasoning is that since 

Corrales was not physically present at the attempted delivery of 

ten kilograms of cocaine on September 16, 1987, he could not be 

convicted of conspiring with the other defendants to possess and 

distribute "more than five kilograms" of cocaine. We are not in 

accord with this reasoning. 

We reject the suggestion that simply because Corrales was not 

present at the time of the attempted delivery of ten kilograms of 

cocaine on September 16, 1987, he could not be a part of a 

conspiracy on that date to possess and distribute cocaine in 

excess of five kilograms, as he was charged with in count one. 

Certainly the evidence shows that he was conspiring with Castillo 

from March through June 1987 to possess and distribute cocaine. 

Once a conspiracy has been established a conspirator who seeks to 

withdraw from the conspiracy has the burden of establishing that 

he did in fact withdraw therefrom, "either making a clean breast 

to the authorities or communicating his withdrawal in a manner 

reasonably calculated to reach [his] co-conspirators." United 

States v. Fox, 902 F.2d 1508, 1516 (10th Cir. 1990): quoting 

United States v. Parnell, 581 F.2d 1374, 1384 (10th Cir. 1978), 

cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1076 (1978): United States v. Record, 873 

F.2d 1363 (10th Cir. 1989): United States v. Gonzales, 797 F.2d 

915 (10th Cir. 1986). Corrales did not make a "clean breast" by 

either calling the authorities or telling Castillo that he was 

withdrawing from the conspiracy. Not having withdrawn from a 

conspiracy which he was indisputably a part of, Corrales remained 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 7 
• 

a member of the conspiracy when on September 16, 1987, there was 

the attempted delivery of ten kilograms of cocaine. 

Counsel's reliance on United States v. Hernandez, 625 F.2d 2 

(1st Cir. 1980) is misplaced. In Hernandez, the defendant found a 

supplier who sold one ounce of cocaine to an undercover agent. 

The supplier thereafter sold eight pounds of cocaine to a different purchaser at a different place and at a later time. The 

defendant and the supplier were charged with conspiracy to 

distribute the eight pounds of cocaine. Defendant was convicted 

in the district court, but, on appeal, the First Circuit reversed. 

In reversing, the First Circuit emphasized that the sale of the 

eight pounds of cocaine was to a different person than the 

undercover agent whom the defendant had introduced to the supplier 

and held that defendant was not a part of any conspiracy to sell 

the eight pounds of cocaine. That is not our case. Here the attempted delivery of ten kilograms of cocaine was to Carrillo whom 

Corrales had introduced to Castillo and in a real sense he was the 

catalyst who not only brought Carrillo and Castillo together, but 

thereafter stayed in the picture, expecting a "commission" on all 

deliveries. Even though he was not present at the attempted 

delivery of ten kilograms of cocaine on September 16, 1987, he was 

definitely "in the wings." 

As stated, counsel also asserts that because of the 

prosecutor's improper comment in closing argument, all three 

convictions should be set aside. In his final closing argument 

the prosecutor made the following statement: 

The other thing that Mr. Allred doesn't mention to you but I'm sure you observed over the 

-8-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 8 
• seven days that Mr. Carrillo was on the stand, 

unlike the defendants Mr. Carrillo took the 

time and effort and is required by his job, 

the mundane parts of the job to write 

everything down. 

The "Mr. Allred" referred to was the attorney for a codefendant who, unlike Corrales, did testify at trial. Be that as 

it may, counsel for Corrales argues that the statement made by the 

prosecutor was improper comment on the fact that Corrales elected 

not to testify. Counsel ingeniously points out that the jury in 

listening to closing argument could not "see" the comma which appears in the middle of the quote, and that without the comma the 

prosecutor said, in part, "that Mr. Carrillo was on the stand unlike the defendants." 

Comma, or no comma, the statement of the prosecutor must be 

read in context. In his closing argument, Mr. Allred, counsel for 

co-defendant Luis Sanchez, Jr., suggested that Agent Carrillo had 

"lied" in his testimony. In attempting to bolster Carrillo's 

testimony, the prosecutor pointed out that Carrillo had made notes 

and reports during the course of his investigation, and that he 

had reviewed his notes and reports before testifying. We do not 

regard the prosecutor's closing argument to be improper comment on 

Corrales' failure to testify. 

In his final closing argument, the prosecutor also made the 

following comment: 

And Manny Castillo's counsel said that he read an 

article in the Albuquerque Journal of a Harvard law 

professor, Mr. Dursovich [sic] wrote about an indictment. Indictment -- if you have an indictment it's 

nothing more than gossip, so we just get it and we can 

toss it aside because it's nothing more than gossip. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 9 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't take a 

Harvard law professor to tell you and this Court has 

told you the effect of an indictment. An indictment 

what an indictment does, ladies and gentlemen, is the 

charge based on probable cause. At that stage probable 

cause 

THE COURT: Just a moment. Please come forward. 

Manuel Castillo, Jose Castillo's brother, was one of the 

seven defendants. As indicated, the district judge stopped the 

prosecutor from going further with the comment that he, i.e., the 

judge, had already instructed the jury "concerning the function of 

the indictment." As indicated, the prosecutor's comment was made 

in response to a statement made by counsel for Manuel Castillo, a 

co-defendant of Corrales, to the effect that a Harvard Law School 

professor had said that a grand jury's indictment was mere "gossip." Certainly this incident does not require reversal of 

Corrales' convictions. The evidence against him ·was overwhelming. 

It should be remembered that this was a three-week trial involving 

seven defendants, each represented by his own counsel. Objections 

from all sides were constantly flying around the courtroom. This 

argument over the effect of a grand jury indictment is a tempest 

in a teapot. 

As indicated at the outset, Corrales was sentenced to ten 

years imprisonment on count 1 (conspiracy) and five years 

imprisonment on counts 2 and 3 (unlawful distributions) to be 

served concurrently with the ten-year sentence on count 1. 

In a companion case involving the appeals of Jose Luis 

Castillo, No. 88-2106, and Manuel Castillo, No. 88-2107, the 

government and defense counsel agree that in imposing ten-year 

-10-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 10 
sentences on the conspiracy conviction for all defendants, the 

district court and all concerned were of the mistaken belief that 

there was a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment 

on that count. Under the statute in effect on the dates appearing 

in the present indictment (21 U.S.C. § 846), one convicted of 

conspiracy to commit a drug offense could not be sentenced to a 

term exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the 

"target offense," which, for the possession of more than five 

kilograms of cocaine with an intent to distribute, was life 

imprisonment. 21 u.s.c. S 841(b) (1) (A) (ii). The "target offense," i.e., possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine 

with an intent to distribute, also imposed a mandatory minimum of 

ten years. 21 u.s.c. S 841(b)(l)(A)(ii). From this the district 

court, and all of counsel and the probation department, concluded 

that there was a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with an intent 

to distribute. 

Counsel in the Castillo appeals agreed that under Bifulco v. 

United States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980), the mandatory minimum provided 

for in 21 u.s.c. S 841(b)(l)(A)(ii) did not attach to 21 u.s.c. S 

846, to the end that the imprisonment for conspiring to possess 

more than five kilograms of cocaine with an intent to distribute 

was a sentence somewhere between one year and life, not a sentence 

of somewhere between ten years and life. In Bifulco, the Supreme 

Court held that 21 u.s.c. S 846 does not permit the imposition of 

a special parole term permitted by 21 u.s.c. S 841(b) as punishment for one convicted of the "target offense." 

-11-

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 11 
In the present case, Corrales has not argued that the tenyear sentence imposed under count 1 should be vacated and that he 

be resentenced on count 1. However, in its brief in the Castillo 

appeals the government states that Corrales, as well as Jose 

Castillo, should be resentenced on count 1, since the district 

court, and all concerned, believed that there was a mandatory 

minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment on the conspiracy 

conviction. 

Accordingly, the sentence imposed on count 1 is vacated and 

the case is remanded with direction that Corrales be resentenced 

on count 1. In all other respects, the judgments of conviction 

and the sentences imposed thereon are affirmed. 

-12-

Entered for the Court, 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2108 Document: 010110059627 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 12