Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02480/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosemary Quiroz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2480

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Rosemary Quiroz, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 10, 2004

 Filed: July 9, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

After serving concurrent sixty-month sentences imposed after she pleaded

guilty to two conspiracy charges, Rosemary Quiroz began a five-year term of

supervised release on June 12, 1998. On March 10, 2003, the District Court1

 revoked

this term of supervised release and sentenced Quiroz to a further prison term of thirtysix months. Quiroz appeals.

Appellate Case: 03-2480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2004 Entry ID: 1786212 
-2-

In February 1995, Quiroz pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine and conspiracy to unlawfully acquire and possess food stamps. In late

August 1995, Quiroz received a downward departure for her substantial cooperation

and was sentenced to concurrent sixty-month terms of imprisonment for both

offenses, followed by three years of supervised release for the food-stamp offense and

five years of supervised release for the cocaine offense. Among the various

conditions of release, Quiroz was prohibited from committing further federal, state

or local crimes and from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages and controlled

substances. Quiroz was further required to satisfactorily participate in a community

treatment center program. 

On November 9, 2002, Quiroz was arrested for driving under the influence of

alcohol. On November 20, 2002, Quiroz's probation officer filed a Violation Report

with the District Court and alleged that Quiroz had violated the conditions of her

supervised release by committing a further criminal offense, by consuming alcoholic

beverages, and by failing to satisfactorily participate in a community treatment center

program. In response to the Violation Report, the District Court issued an arrest

warrant and Quiroz was arrested on November 26, 2002. After her arrest, Quiroz was

interviewed by United States Customs Service Agent James Cheatham about her

involvement in a cocaine-distribution ring. On December 5, 2002, the government

filed a motion to revoke Quiroz's supervised release. The next day, the government

filed a supplemental Violation Report with the Court and alleged that Quiroz had

further violated the conditions of her supervised release by possessing and

distributing cocaine. After numerous continuances, the District Court held a

revocation hearing on March 10, 2003. 

At the hearing, Quiroz admitted that she had consumed alcohol during her

release, that she had returned to her community treatment center while under the

influence of alcohol, and that she had gone to unauthorized locations during the three

months that preceded her arrest. She denied illegally possessing or distributing

Appellate Case: 03-2480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2004 Entry ID: 1786212 
-3-

cocaine during her term of supervised release. The government's sole witness at the

revocation hearing was Agent Cheatham. He testified that after he provided Quiroz

with Miranda warnings, she waived her rights, admitted to the possession and

distribution of cocaine, and identified numerous individuals as customers or

suppliers. He also testified that he discovered cocaine in Quiroz's wallet, which he

had searched while conducting an inventory search after her arrest. Cheatham

prepared an arrest report that was provided to Quiroz's probation officer, and the

information set forth in this report formed the basis for the December Violation

Report provided to the Court. Cheatham sent the powder discovered in the wallet to

the Independence Crime Laboratory, which analyzed the substance and prepared a

report that concluded the substance was indeed cocaine. The cocaine and the

laboratory report were admitted into evidence at the revocation hearing. Quiroz's

attorney moved to continue the revocation hearing in order to review Cheatham's

arrest report, the laboratory report and the December Violation Report, all of which

he claimed not to have seen prior to the hearing. He never sought the December

Violation Report from the attorney who previously represented Quiroz nor did he ask

the government for any materials prior to the hearing. The District Court denied the

motion to continue, found the United States had proved Quiroz had possessed and

distributed cocaine during her supervised release, revoked her release, and imposed

a further prison term of thirty-six months.

Quiroz argues that the District Court erred in denying her motion to continue

the revocation hearing. Trial courts are to be given "broad discretion when ruling on

requests for continuances," which "should be granted only when the party requesting

one has shown a compelling reason." United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 514

(8th Cir.), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1018 (1996). Quiroz has failed to show a compelling

reason why the hearing should have been continued. The District Court did not abuse

its broad discretion when it refused to continue Quiroz's revocation hearing.

Appellate Case: 03-2480 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2004 Entry ID: 1786212 
-4-

Quiroz argues that she had a compelling reason for requesting the continuance

because she had not been provided with the three reports and needed additional time

to review these reports for potentially exculpatory or impeachment materials. See

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,

87 (1963). Quiroz asserts that the government's failure to provide the reports prior

to her revocation hearing was a Brady violation. Because the Brady claim that is

argued in this appeal was not presented to the District Court, our review is only for

plain error. United States v. Greatwalker, 356 F.3d 908, 911 (8th Cir. 2004) (per

curiam). We may reverse on a forfeited point of error such as this only if the error

was plain and it affected the defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (b). Under plain error review,

reversal is appropriate only if the error "'seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or

public reputation of [the hearing].'" Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 (quoting United States

v. Atkinson, 291 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)). Quiroz has failed to meet this high threshold.

To establish a Brady violation, Quiroz must show that the prosecution suppressed

material evidence that was favorable to her. See Greatwalker, 356 F.3d at 911.

Quiroz fails to come even close to meeting these requirements. Cheatham personally

testified to, and was cross-examined on, the matters detailed in the reports, the

contents of which include admissions by Quiroz that she was involved in the

distribution of cocaine. These reports appear to have no exculpatory value

whatsoever, and, in fact, include inculpatory evidence in the form of multiple

admissions by Quiroz of violations of the conditions of her supervised release. There

being no evidence whatsoever of a Brady violation, much less any plain error

regarding a Brady violation, Quiroz's attempt to show a compelling reason for the

requested continuance fails.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2480 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/09/2004 Entry ID: 1786212