Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14928/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14928-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Enrique Acosta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14928

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20157-KMM-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAMON ENRIQUE ACOSTA, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 23, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and VOORHEES,

*

District Judge.

 * Honorable Richard L. Voorhees, United States District Judge for the Western District of 

North Carolina, sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 1 of 19
2

PER CURIAM:

Ramon Acosta, an airplane mechanic by trade, participated in a scheme to 

smuggle cocaine into the United States by concealing it in the reserve fuel tanks of 

private airplanes. He was convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy to import cocaine 

into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963; (2) importing more than 

five kilograms of cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2; (3) conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and (4) possession of five kilograms or more of 

cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 

U.S.C. § 2. 

On appeal, Acosta challenges his convictions on numerous grounds. After 

reviewing the record and briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find 

no reversible error in the underlying proceedings. Acosta raises two issues on 

appeal that we believe worthy of further discussion, however: (1) whether the 

district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Acosta’s uncharged 

conduct because it constituted either inadmissible bad acts evidence or 

inadmissible hearsay and (2) whether the district court’s jury instructions 

constructively amended his indictment by impermissibly broadening the possible 

bases for his convictions beyond what was contained in the indictment. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 2 of 19
3

Ultimately, though, these issues do not warrant reversal of Acosta’s convictions; 

we therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

At the time of his involvement in the charged drug trafficking conspiracy, 

Acosta was a Federal Aviation Authority-certified mechanic. He performed 

general maintenance and repair work for private aircraft. Acosta’s work as an 

airplane mechanic eventually brought him into contact with Paul Cordoba, a pilot 

and drug smuggler. Cordoba was the head of a drug trafficking operation that 

smuggled drugs from Venezuela into Florida aboard his planes. 

Acosta’s first encounter with Cordoba’s drug trafficking activities occurred 

in 2007, when Cordoba and Jefferson Castillo, one of Cordoba’s associates, 

smuggled marijuana from Arizona to Florida aboard a small prop plane. While 

flying from Arizona to Florida, the two stopped in Dallas to refuel at the hanger 

where Acosta was employed. They decided to spend the night and stored the 

airplane, which still contained the smuggled marijuana, in the hanger with Acosta’s 

permission. When Castillo expressed concern about leaving the plane in the 

hanger, Cordoba assured him that Acosta was a friend and that there would not be 

any problems; however, it is unclear from the record whether Acosta was aware 

that the plane contained marijuana. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 3 of 19
4

Subsequently, Acosta became more directly involved with Cordoba’s drug 

trafficking. Sometime after Cordoba and Castillo’s visit, Acosta helped Cordoba 

modify the black box in one of Cordoba’s planes so that drugs could be hidden 

inside. Cordoba used the modified black box to smuggle drugs into the United 

States on two occasions. 

From there, Cordoba and Acosta continued to experiment with smuggling 

methods. Acosta proposed smuggling drugs in the reserve fuel tanks of Cordoba’s 

planes. When Cordoba ultimately decided to implement this proposal, he recruited 

Acosta to remove the drugs from the fuel tanks upon the planes’ arrival in the 

United States. The scheme also involved a number of other participants beyond 

Cordoba and Acosta, including Francisco Gamero Medina (“Gamero”), an airline 

mechanic in Venezuela; Cordoba’s son Marlon Cordoba (“Marlon”); and Rediel 

Rodriguez, a drug distributor in Florida.

Cordoba flew a plane to Venezuela, where Gamero loaded a shipment of 

cocaine into the plane’s reserve fuel tank, in May 2008. Cordoba flew the plane 

back to the United States and, after making several stops, brought the plane to 

Acosta in Dallas. There, Acosta removed the cocaine from the plane, placed the 

drugs in briefcases, and loaded them back onto the plane for transport to Florida, 

where Rodriguez sold the drugs. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 4 of 19
5

Cordoba organized a similar smuggling operation in November of that year. 

This time, Marlon flew with a pilot to Venezuela, where Gamero loaded a

shipment of cocaine into the plane’s reserve fuel tank. Marlon then flew the plane 

to the Bahamas, where he met with Cordoba. There, the two switched planes and 

flew both to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The next day, Cordoba, Marlon, Gamero, 

and a few others flew the plane carrying the smuggled drugs to Acosta’s hanger in 

Texas. Once the plane arrived in the hanger, Acosta and Gamero removed the 

cocaine from the plane’s reserve fuel tank. Cordoba and the other conspirators 

then repacked the cocaine in suitcases, loaded them aboard the plane, and flew 

back to Florida.

Cordoba arranged a final smuggling operation in August 2009. In contrast 

to Acosta’s role in the prior two smuggling operations, however, his role in this 

final scheme was limited. Although Acosta was aware that Cordoba was planning 

to bring a load of cocaine into the United States, he was excluded from the 

operation at Rodriguez’s suggestion for charging too high a fee. Although Acosta 

did not directly participate in the final trip, Rodriguez offered to pay him $50,000 

in “hush money.” Trial Tr. at 158 (Doc. 442).1

 

Rodriguez planned to pay Acosta by selling one of the planes used in the 

conspiracy. The plane was owned, in name, by Rodriguez’s girlfriend Kimberly 

 1 “Doc.” refers to the docket entry in the district court record in this case.

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 5 of 19
6

Rosselle.2 But Rodriguez ultimately decided not to sell the plane after police 

began an investigation into the trafficking conspiracy. Police eventually arrested

Rodriguez, at which time Cordoba tried to convince Rosselle to transfer ownership 

of the plane to him. When Rosselle refused, Acosta placed a mechanic’s lien on 

the plane, presumably to encourage Rosselle to sell the plane to Cordoba and to 

secure for himself the payment Rodriguez promised. When Cordoba eventually 

acquired ownership of the plane, Acosta rescinded the lien. 

Acosta was arrested and charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, 

importation of cocaine, conspiracy to possess cocaine with an intent to distribute,

and possession of cocaine with an intent to distribute. Notably, although there was 

evidence of his involvement in several different smuggling operations, Acosta was 

indicted only for his participation in the November 2008 trip. 

At Acosta’s trial, the government presented evidence of his involvement in 

Cordoba’s trafficking operation. Both Castillo and Rodriguez testified as to

Acosta’s involvement. Their testimony covered Acosta’s participation beginning 

with Cordoba and Castillo’s layover in 2007 and through the final smuggling trip 

in August 2009. Both Castillo and Rodriguez testified in part based on their 

personal experiences and in part based on their conversations with Cordoba, who 

 2 The conspirators put the plane in Rosselle’s name because some already owned planes 

in their names, while others were not U.S. citizens and thus could not file the necessary 

paperwork to establish ownership. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 6 of 19
7

had fled the country and did not testify at trial. In addition to testimony from 

Rodriguez and Castillo, the government presented evidence that Cordoba’s flight 

records were consistent with the government’s characterization of the trafficking 

conspiracy and Acosta’s involvement. The government also introduced testimony 

that Acosta received suspicious payments consistent with compensation for drug 

trafficking. The jury ultimately found Acosta guilty on all four counts. Acosta 

filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for acquittal. The district court denied 

both motions, and Acosta filed a timely notice of appeal. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Admission of Evidence Regarding Uncharged Conduct

Acosta contends that the district court erred when it admitted testimony

about his participation in several instances of uncharged and arguably criminal 

conduct. Specifically, Acosta takes issue with the admission of evidence 

concerning: (1) his overnight housing of an airplane containing smuggled 

marijuana, (2) his assistance in modifying an airplane black box to smuggle 

cocaine, (3) his placement of a mechanic’s lien on the plane owned (at least on 

paper) by Rosselle, and (4) his receipt of suspicious payments from Cordoba. He 

contends that the district court should have refused to admit testimony about these 

events because the testimony was inadmissible either as (1) bad acts evidence 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) or (2) hearsay under Federal Rule of 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 7 of 19
8

Evidence 802. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting testimony concerning Acosta’s uncharged conduct.

1. Standard of Review

To successfully challenge a verdict based on an incorrect evidentiary ruling, 

a defendant must establish that (1) his claim was adequately preserved; (2) the 

district court abused its discretion in interpreting or applying an evidentiary rule; 

and (3) this error affected a substantial right. United States v. Stephens, 365 F.3d 

967, 974 (11th Cir. 2004). Although Acosta raised a Rule 404(b) objection at trial,

he never raised a hearsay objection. We thus review his contention that the district 

court improperly admitted hearsay testimony for plain error. United States v. 

Sorondo, 845 F.2d 945, 948 (11th Cir. 1988). “Under plain-error review, the 

defendant has the burden to show that there is (1) error (2) that is plain and (3) that 

affects substantial rights.” United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th 

Cir. 2003) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If all three 

conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a 

forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or 

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 

F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 8 of 19
9

2. Admissibility Under Rule 404(b)

Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 

admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular 

occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 

404(b)(1). Such evidence may, however, be admissible if it is inextricably 

intertwined with the evidence of the charged offense. United States v. Cancelliere, 

69 F.3d 1116, 1124 (11th Cir. 1995). Stated differently, Rule 404(b) does not 

apply where bad acts evidence concerns the “context, motive, and set-up of the 

crime” and is “linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms 

an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete 

the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 

1499 (11th Cir. 1985). Evidence of uncharged conduct may also “be admissible 

for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 

404(b)(2).

The bad acts evidence Acosta highlights was admissible because it was 

inextricably intertwined with the evidence of his charged offense. To begin with, 

testimony concerning the marijuana smuggling and the black box modification was 

necessary to help the jury “understand[] . . . the context of the government’s case” 

against Acosta because the evidence “explained the relationship” between Acosta 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 9 of 19
10

and his co-conspirators as well as “the goal of the conspiracy.” United States v. 

McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998). These two activities showed how 

Acosta met many of the participants in the trafficking operation, how he was 

integrated into the conspiracy, and the evolving sophistication of the trafficking 

operation as time passed.3

 See United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1132 (11th 

Cir. 2013) (evidence admissible because it “established the method by which 

Appellants obtained drugs to distribute”); United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 

1510, 1516 (11th Cir. 1992) (evidence was intrinsic when it concerned “the 

formation of the conspiracy” and “basic ‘structural’ evidence” concerning the roles 

and motives of the participants in the conspiracy). 

Evidence concerning the other two acts at issue—Acosta’s placement of a 

mechanic’s lien on the plane and his receipt of suspicious payments—was also 

inextricably intertwined with the charged conspiracy. That evidence helped 

explain how Acosta was remunerated for his participation in the conspiracy. 

 3 Acosta also asserts that evidence concerning the marijuana smuggling and black box 

modification was inadmissible because there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that he 

participated in those incidents with knowledge of their criminal nature. But even granting that 

point, the evidence was nonetheless admissible because it concerned the actions of Acosta’s coconspirators. See United States v. Meester, 762 F.2d 867, 877 (11th Cir. 1985) (finding that 

evidence that “documented crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy” was 

“intertwined with the evidence of the ongoing conspiracies and so [could not] be labeled 

‘extrinsic’”); see also United States v. US Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195, 1210 (11th Cir. 

2009) (observing that “evidence that an unindicted co-conspirator had engaged in crimes similar 

to those charged against the defendants was admissible because it served to establish a 

background for the later substantive acts charged in the indictment and was therefore relevant to 

prove the existence and purpose of the ongoing conspiracies” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 10 of 19
11

Acosta’s placement of the lien and his receipt of suspicious payments “arose out of 

the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense” and, as such, 

evidence concerning them did not constitute extrinsic evidence and was admissible 

under Rule 404(b). United States v. Collins, 779 F.2d 1520, 1532 (11th Cir. 1986). 

Nor does it matter that this conduct arguably occurred after the conclusion of the 

conspiracy. “Carefully circumscribed evidence of criminal activity after the 

conclusion of the conspiracy may be admissible to ‘complete the story’ of the 

conspiracy.” Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d at 1516.

Even if the evidence at issue was not inextricably intertwined with the 

offenses charged in Acosta’s indictment, it was probative of something other than 

Acosta’s criminal propensity, and thus admissible nonetheless. For evidence of 

other crimes or acts to be admissible under such a theory, the evidence must meet 

three requirements: “(1) it must be relevant to an issue other than [the] defendant’s 

character; (2) there must be sufficient proof to enable a jury to find by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act(s) in question; 

and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be substantially outweighed by 

undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy [Federal Rule of Evidence] 403.” 

United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007).

Evidence concerning all four of the acts at issue here passes muster under 

this test. First, the evidence was probative of something other than Acosta’s 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 11 of 19
12

criminal propensity—namely, his criminal intent. Acosta’s principal defense at 

trial was that he was unaware of and uninvolved in any of Cordoba’s criminal 

ventures. He argued that his transactions with Cordoba were strictly above-board. 

Thus, at trial the government bore the burden of proving that Acosta knowingly 

participated in the trafficking conspiracy. See id. at 1345 (“A defendant who 

enters a not guilty plea makes intent a material issue which imposes a substantial 

burden on the government to prove intent, which it may prove by qualifying Rule 

404(b) evidence absent affirmative steps by the defendant to remove intent as an 

issue.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And evidence that Acosta willingly

participated in a prior criminal activity makes it more likely that he intended to 

participate in the charged conspiracy. See United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357, 

1365 (11th Cir. 1995) (“[B]ecause the defendant had unlawful intent in the 

extrinsic offense, it is less likely that he had lawful intent in the present offense.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 

1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (describing the relevancy element of the Rule 404(b) 

test as a “rule of inclusion”).

Second, there was sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find that Acosta 

performed all four of the acts in question. Generally speaking, “the uncorroborated 

word of an accomplice . . . provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the 

defendant committed extrinsic acts admissible under Rule 404(b).” United States 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 12 of 19
13

v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036, 1047 (11th Cir. 2001) (alteration in original) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Castillo and Rodriguez testified as to Acosta’s role in 

Cordoba and Castillo’s 2007 layover and the modification of the black box in 

2007. The government also presented testimony and documentary evidence of 

Acosta’s placement of a lien on Rosselle’s plane and his receipt of suspicious 

payments. 

Third, and finally, the probative value of the contested evidence outweighed 

its prejudicial impact. In determining whether the probative value of evidence 

outweighs its prejudicial impact, a district court must apply “a common sense 

assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including 

prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged 

offense, as well as temporal remoteness.” Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1282 (internal 

marks omitted). We consider the evidence “in a light most favorable to its 

admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial 

impact.” Id. at 1284 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have explained 

that, even when this balancing test is close, “it is precisely these close questions 

that give rise to the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review.” Id. at 1285. 

As described above, Acosta’s principal defense at trial was the lack of 

criminal intent, and the evidence concerning Acosta’s uncharged conduct spoke to 

his criminal intent. As such, the evidence was highly probative. See Delgado, 56 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 13 of 19
14

F.3d at 1366 (observing that “[t]he greater the government’s need for evidence of 

intent, the more likely that the probative value will outweigh any possible 

prejudice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). There was also minimal risk that 

its admission would unduly prejudice Acosta. The evidence all concerned the 

charged conspiracy in one way or another, either because it established the modus 

operandi of the conspirators or the conspiracy’s fallout and aftermath. Thus, it 

seems more likely that the jury used it for its proper purpose of establishing 

Acosta’s knowing participation in the drug conspiracy and less likely that the jury 

used it to draw an improper inference about Acosta’s general propensity to engage 

in criminal conduct. In fact, Acosta himself presents no compelling reason why 

testimony concerning these acts substantially prejudiced him. And, even if there 

was some risk that the jury could have drawn improper inferences from the 

evidence presented, “any unfair prejudice . . was mitigated by the district court’s

limiting instruction to the jury.” Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346. The district court 

therefore committed no abuse of discretion in declining to exclude the evidence

under Rule 404(b).

3. Admissibility under Rule 802

Concluding that evidence of Acosta’s bad acts was admissible under Rule 

404(b) is insufficient to end our inquiry, however, because Acosta also contends 

that the evidence was inadmissible for a different reason: it was hearsay. He points 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 14 of 19
15

to portions of Castillo and Rodriguez’s testimony where they each described 

statements made by Cordoba about Acosta’s involvement in various stages of the

trafficking conspiracy. A statement constitutes hearsay if it was made out of court 

and a party offers it in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the 

statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). And such hearsay is generally inadmissible. 

See Fed. R. Evid. 802. 

Even were we to agree that the testimony Acosta identifies constituted 

inadmissible hearsay and that the district court plainly erred in admitting it for that 

reason (or, for that matter, any other reason), we would nonetheless affirm his 

convictions because Acosta has failed to demonstrate the admission of that 

testimony affected a substantial right. Stephens, 365 F.3d at 974. “[W]here an 

[evidentiary] error had no substantial influence on the outcome, and sufficient 

evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict, reversal is not warranted.” 

United States v. Hawkins, 905 F.2d 1489, 1493 (11th Cir. 1990).

Had the district court excluded the evidence Acosta identifies, there was

ample other evidence supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.4

 Rodriguez testified 

based on his personal knowledge of Acosta’s involvement in the November 2008 

trafficking operation and recounted personally observing Acosta remove cocaine 

from the reserve tank of Cordoba’s plane. Beyond that testimony, the government

 4 Remember, Acosta was only charged and convicted of involvement in the November 

2008 smuggling operation. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 15 of 19
16

presented evidence of the suspicious flight patterns of Cordoba’s planes and how 

those flight patterns lined up with descriptions of the trafficking scheme in 

testimony provided by Rodriguez and Castillo. This evidence, which was 

uninfected by the purported errors Acosta identifies, is sufficient to support the 

jury’s verdict. We cannot conclude that the evidentiary errors Acosta highlights on 

appeal, to the extent they are in fact errors, had a substantial effect on the verdict. 

Reversal is therefore unwarranted on that basis. Hawkins, 705 F.2d at 1493. 

B. Jury Instructions

The second issue we address also concerns the evidence of Acosta’s 

uncharged conduct, albeit tangentially so. Acosta contends that the district court 

instructed the jury that it could consider the bad acts evidence to convict him of 

crimes that had not been charged in the indictment. In doing so, Acosta argues, the 

district court’s jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. 

“A fundamental principle stemming from [the Fifth A]mendment is that a 

defendant can only be convicted for a crime charged in the indictment.” United 

States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628, 633 (11th Cir. 1990). Altering or expanding the 

essential elements of an offense “to broaden the possible bases for conviction 

beyond what is contained in the indictment” constructively amends the indictment 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 16 of 19
17

and constitutes per se reversible error.5 Id. at 633-34. “[S]uch an instruction 

violates a defendant’s constitutional right to be tried on only those charges 

presented in a grand jury indictment and creates the possibility that the defendant 

may have been convicted on grounds not alleged in the indictment.” Cancelliere, 

69 F.3d at 1121. “In determining whether an indictment was constructively 

amended, we must assess . . . the court’s instructions ‘in context’ to see whether 

the indictment was expanded either literally or in effect.” United States v. Castro, 

89 F.3d 1443, 1453 (11th Cir. 1996). 

When instructing the jury on how it could consider evidence of Acosta’s 

uncharged conduct, the district court stated:

With respect to the conspiracy counts, the [bad acts] evidence 

that you have heard relates to and may be considered by you as 

evidence of whether the defendant—whether there was a conspiracy 

and whether this defendant willfully participated in that conspiracy. 

. . . .

With respect to the conspiracy count, you may consider this 

evidence to establish, one, the existence of any conspiracy, whether it 

be the conspiracy to import with intent to distribute or the conspiracy 

to possess—conspiracy to import or the conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute, and whether the defendant was a willful 

participant in that conspiracy.

 5 The government contends that any error arising out of the constructive amendment of 

Acosta’s indictment is not per se reversible because Acosta never raised that issue before the 

district court; thus, plain error review applies. See United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 

1319 (11th Cir. 2013). Acosta responds that he objected to the jury instructions as a whole and 

that this general objection was sufficient to preserve the constructive amendment issue for 

appeal. We need not resolve the question of whether Acosta properly preserved an objection to 

the constructive amendment of his indictment, however, because we conclude that no 

constructive amendment occurred.

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 17 of 19
18

Trial Tr. at 189-91 (Doc. 443). Acosta reads the final quoted paragraph of the

instruction as informing the jurors that they could use evidence of his uncharged 

conduct to convict him of “any conspiracy,” presumably even those not charged in 

his indictment. Id. at 191 (emphasis added). But Acosta’s narrow focus on that 

single phrase largely ignores the context in which it was used. 

When we consider that context, it becomes clear that the district court was 

not instructing the jury that it could convict Acosta of any conspiracy under the 

sun; rather, the court was instructing the jury that it could use evidence of Acosta’s 

uncharged conduct to convict him of any conspiracy charged in the indictment. 

The district court began the sentence in question with the qualifying phrase, 

“[w]ith respect to the conspiracy count”—that is, the conspiracy charged. Then, 

the court did not state that Acosta’s bad acts could be used to establish his 

participation in “any conspiracy,” it stated that the evidence could be used to 

establish Acosta’s participation in “any conspiracy, whether it be the . . . 

conspiracy to import or the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute.” Id.

(emphasis added). Thus, despite the breadth of the words “any conspiracy” when 

read in a vacuum, the district court narrowed the universe of possible conspiracies 

to two: conspiracy to import cocaine and conspiracy to possess cocaine with the 

intent to distribute it, both of which were charged in Acosta’s indictment. And, 

lest there be any doubt that this interpretation is correct, the court clarified that the 

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 18 of 19
19

jury could only convict Acosta of charges included in the indictment, stating, “I 

caution you that [Acosta] is on trial only for the specific crimes charged in the 

indictment. You’re here to determine from the evidence in this case whether 

[Acosta] is guilty or not guilty of those specific crimes.” Jury Instr. at 21 (Doc. 

402). After considering the district court’s instruction as a whole, “we do not 

believe the jury could have convicted [Acosta] based upon a charge not contained 

in the indictment” and thus conclude that the district court’s jury instructions did 

not constructively amend his indictment. Castro, 89 F.3d at 1453.

III. CONCLUSION

We find no reversible error in the underlying proceedings and therefore 

affirm the judgment of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-14928 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 19 of 19