Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01007/USCOURTS-ca3-09-01007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harry Berroa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United *

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by

designation.

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-1007

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HARRY BERROA,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-07-cr-00243-001)

District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 8, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, ROTH, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges *

(Filed: March 11, 2010)

____

OPINION

 

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 1

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §

3742(a).

After attending two preliminary hearings, Dawson failed to 2

appear for a third. This resulted in a bench warrant for his arrest.

2

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Harry Berroa appeals his convictions of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §

1951(a), and of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1). He also asserts that “the sentence [he received

from the District Court] must be vacated.” Appellant’s Br. at 53. We will affirm in all

respects.

1

I.

In August 2006, Berroa and his half-brother, Jesse Dawson, entered a retail store

in Philadelphia called the Appliance Factory armed with a handgun and demanded money

from Frank Dush, the sole store employee. As Dush tried to escape, Berroa and Dawson

tackled and beat him, discharged a firearm, took about $1,075 which Dush carried, and

duct-taped Dush’s “whole body.” App at 407. 

 Berroa and Dawson were apprehended that same day and thereafter charged with

conspiracy to interfere with and interfering with interstate commerce by robbery, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (the “Hobbs Act”), and knowingly using and carrying,

and aiding and abetting in the use and carrying of, a firearm during and in relation to a

crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1) (Count 3).2

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
He was a fugitive until he was apprehended in November 2007. 

3

After a trial in July 2007, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and the court

declared a mistrial. Approximately two months later, Berroa was tried again for the same

charges and was convicted by the jury on two of the three charges, but the District Court

granted Berroa’s request for a new trial because it had erred in allowing the jury to have

access to impermissible evidence.

After Dawson was captured, family members of both Berroa and Dawson retained

two lawyers, Nino Tinari as counsel for Dawson and Eugene Tinari, his son, as counsel

for Berroa. Dawson pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government. 

Berroa maintained his innocence. He also sent the District Court at least two

letters stating dissatisfaction with Eugene Tinari’s representation. Ten days before the

third trial was to begin, the District Court held a pretrial conference at which Berroa

responded in the negative when asked whether he was “ready to proceed with Mr. Tinari

as [his] lawyer[.]” App. at 102. Berroa’s reluctance stemmed from disagreements with

Tinari over whether and when to file motions challenging federal jurisdiction. Despite

Berroa’s complaint that Tinari’s “heart just [wasn’t] into it,” App. at 111, the District

Court said, “I don’t think Mr. Berroa has given me any good reasons . . . not to proceed.” 

App. at 123. 

The third jury convicted Berroa of violating the Hobbs Act and of using or

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was sentenced to a

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
4

total of 180 months – fifty-four months for the Hobbs Act violation, 120 months for using

a firearm during and in furtherance of a crime of violence, and six months for criminal

contempt (arising from an outburst by Mr. Berroa during the trial). Berroa timely

appealed. 

II.

Berroa presses five principal challenges to his conviction and sentence, and makes

two other claims which he concedes are foreclosed by binding precedent.

Berroa contends that the father-son relationship between his counsel and Dawson’s

counsel led to a clear conflict of interest, and that, as a result, his conviction should be

vacated and the matter remanded to the District Court. Berroa’s conflict of interest claim

has two prongs, one being his assertion that the District Court should have inquired into a

potential conflict and the other being that there was an actual conflict of interest.

Considering first Berroa’s potential conflict of interest claim, Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S.

162 (2002), is dispositive. In Mickens, the Court addressed precisely the same question at

issue here: what remedy is available to the defendant “where the trial court fails to inquire

into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have

known.” Id. at 164. The Court held that the defendant had no remedy for failure to

inquire into the potential conflict of interest, id. at 170-73, but that such a defendant

would still have to show that an actual conflict of interest existed which adversely

affected his counsel’s performance, id. at 174 (“it was at least necessary, to void the

conviction, for petitioner to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
 Berroa misreads Mickens in arguing that “[a] failure to 3

make inquiry into a potential conflict requires that conviction be

vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.” Br. for

Appellant at 28 (citing Mickens, 535 U.S. at 171-72).

5

counsel’s performance”). We thus reject Berroa’s contention that the District Court’s 3

failure, sua sponte, to inquire into any potential conflict of interest entitles him to an

automatic remand without the showing of any prejudice.

We are not in a position to decide Berroa’s claim of actual conflict. See generally

Mickens, 535 U.S. at 171 (defining “‘an actual conflict of interest’” as “a conflict that

affected counsel’s performance”) (emphasis omitted). We have stated that such an issue

is “better reserved for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [habeas corpus] actions” rather than direct

appeal, because “collateral review allows for adequate factual development of the claim .

. . .” United States v. Morena, 547 F.3d 191, 198 (3d Cir. 2008). Berroa has “reserve[d]

the right to pursue his conflict-of-interest claim via a § 2255 motion . . . .” Appellant’s

Reply Br. at 3 n.1. 

Berroa next contends that his conviction must be reversed because the District

Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to have the counsel of his choosing. He relies

on the decision in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, where the Court held that a

conviction must be reversed when it occurs after a trial in which the defendant was

wrongfully denied his choice of counsel. 548 U.S. 140, 152 (2006). The Gonzalez-Lopez

Court “accept[ed] th[e] premise” that the district court in that case erroneously denied

respondent his choice of counsel. Id. There is no basis for a similar conclusion here.

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
6

In this case, Berroa’s request to change counsel came too late and was based on

too little. “A last-minute request for substitution of counsel . . . . need not be granted

unless ‘good cause’ is shown for the defendant’s dissatisfaction with his current

attorney.” United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1098 (3d Cir. 1995). “Good cause”

is defined as “a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown of communication, or an

irreconcilable conflict with the attorney.” Id. (citing United States v. Welty, 674 F.2d 185,

188 (3d Cir. 1982)). 

None of these existed here. As stated above, there was no evident conflict of

interest at the pretrial conference and Berroa did not raise that issue until his appeal. 

Further, although Berroa complained three months before trial that he was “having grave

difficulty contacting” Tinari, App. at 95, and two months before trial that Tinari was “not

responding to [his] letters,” App. at 96, the record does not show a complete breakdown

of communication. On the contrary, by the time of the pretrial conference, Berroa and

Tinari had discussed their legal strategy, albeit taking different positions. 

As to the “irreconcilable difference” consideration, Berroa’s disagreements with

Tinari did not appear insuperable at the pretrial conference, as Tinari stated unequivocally

that he could “effectively represent Mr. Berroa.” App. at 113-14. A dispute over strategy

between a defendant and counsel is not by itself “good cause” for a last-minute

substitution of counsel. Further, even though Tinari was reluctant to do so, he ultimately

did file a pretrial motion challenging federal jurisdiction in accordance with Berroa’s

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
7

wishes. Also, as this was Berroa’s third trial, the District Court’s concern for efficiency

was legitimate. See Goldberg, 67 F.3d at 1098 (noting that district courts may consider

the efficient administration of justice before substituting counsel) (citation omitted). 

Berroa next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish that his robbery

obstructed or affected interstate commerce. We must determine whether, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence supports the

jury’s guilty verdict. United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted).

The Hobbs Act extends federal jurisdiction to a robbery that “in any way or degree

obstructs, delays, or affects [interstate] commerce. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Therefore,

the evidence must show that the target of the robbery, the Appliance Factory, “engaged in

interstate commerce.” Urban, 404 F.3d at 767. Despite Berroa’s efforts to convince us

otherwise, the retail activities of the Appliance Factory were not “‘local in character.’” 

Appellant’s Br. at 40 (quoting United States v. McGuire, 178 F.3d 203, 212 (3d Cir.

1999)). Rather, some of the Appliance Factory’s inventory had been purchased in New

Jersey. Also, the robbery impacted the ordinary operations of the Appliance Factory by

forcing the store to close for the remainder of the day on which the robbery occurred. See

United States v. Jimenez-Torres, 435 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 2006) (Government may

demonstrate an effect on commerce by proving that a robbery resulted in the closing of a

business). Such evidence is sufficient. See Urban, 404 F.3d at 766 (“‘[I]n any individual

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
8

case, proof of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is all that is required’ . . . [a]nd,

. . . such a ‘de minimis effect’ in a[ ] Hobbs Act case need only be ‘potential.’” (quoting

United States v. Clausen, 328 F.3d 708, 711 (3d Cir. 2003) and United States v.

Haywood, 363 F.3d 200, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2004))). 

We next address Berroa’s claim that his conviction must be reversed because the

District Court admitted the testimony of an FBI agent that it was “very common” for “the

FBI [to] investigate robberies of businesses in the City of Philadelphia . . . .” App. at 474. 

Immediately after this statement, the District Court cautioned the jury that the agent’s

testimony was “submitted just for background” and that the jurors “must decide this case

based on the elements of the federal crime as [the District Court] . . . define[s] it . . . at the

end of the case.” App. at 475. 

Berroa argues that the agent’s testimony was inadmissible because its probative

value was “‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

issues, or misleading the jury.’” Appellant’s Br. at 48 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403). We

owe the District Court “very substantial discretion” in its ruling on whether to admit

testimony under Rule 403. United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978). A

district court’s decision under Rule 403 will only be reversed if its analysis and

conclusions are “arbitrary or irrational.” United States v. Universal Rehab. Servs. (PA),

Inc., 205 F.3d 657, 665 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotation and citation omitted). 

Admitting the testimony was neither arbitrary nor irrational. The District Court

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
9

found that the testimony was necessary to disabuse the jurors of the “suggestion that

[Berroa] ha[d] been singled out or discriminated against” through prosecution in federal

court. App. at 466. Although the probative value of this testimony was low, we cannot

concur that it “could well have led the jury to believe that the federal government’s

involvement, in and of itself, demonstrated” federal jurisdiction over Berroa’s robbery,

particularly in light of the District Court’s limiting instruction. Appellant’s Br. at 51. 

Finally, Berroa contends that the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence the

District Court imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) was “constitutionally infirm”

as neither the jury nor the court made an “express finding” that Berroa had discharged a

firearm. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 28. Berroa correctly concedes that his claim that the

jury had to find that Berroa discharged the firearm before the court could impose the tenyear mandatory minimum is foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v.

Williams, 464 F.3d 443, 449 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545,

568 (2002), for the proposition that district courts (as opposed to juries) may find that a

firearm was discharged and sentence defendants to the ten-year mandatory minimum). 

Nor can we accept Berroa’s claim that the “[D]istrict [C]ourt failed to render the

finding of fact required before subjecting Mr. Berroa to a ten-year consecutive term. . . .” 

Appellant’s Reply Br. at 26. Although the District Court referred to the crime as “an

armed robbery,” it did not state at sentencing that the gun was discharged during the

robbery. App. at 769. However, Berroa does not cite and we have not discovered

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
authority supporting his assertion that an express finding on the record is required. 

Moreover, the District Court had ample support for its sentence from evidence adduced at

trial and the PSR, which said “[Berroa] discharged the firearm into a refrigerator located

in the store.” PSR ¶ 22. Berroa reviewed the PSR and did not dispute the finding that he

had discharged a firearm during the robbery. See United States v. Siegel, 477 F.3d 87, 

93-94 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that defendant adopted facts found in the PSR by not

objecting). Under these circumstances, the District Court’s failure explicitly to state that

Berroa discharged a firearm was not error.

III.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court.

10

Case: 09-1007 Document: 003110054584 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/11/2010