FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUB LISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 9-1115 8 Non-Argum ent C al en da

r

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 04-20 446-C R-AJ UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A, Pla int iff-Appe lle e, ve rsus HER NAN PR ADA, a. k.a . Pap ito , a. k.a . El Gordo, a. k.a . Hum

be rto, a. k.a . R am az ote , De fend ant-Appe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for theSouth ern Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Nove m be r 14, 2 011) Be fore C ARN ES, PRYO R a nd KR AVITC H, C irc uit

Jud ge s.PER C URIAM :

He rnan Prada a ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s for c onsp ira cy to im port i nto the Unit ed State s fiv e kil ogram s or m ore of c oc ai ne , in vio latio n of 21 U.S.C . § 9 63, an d c onsp ira cy

to poss es s wi th i nte nt t o di stribut e five kil ogram s or m ore of co ca ine , in

vio latio n of 21 U.S.C . § 8 46. P rada wa s in dic te d on

Jul y 2, 2 004, and the sup ers ed ingind ic tm ent c ha rged tha t hee nga ge d in

thetwo c onsp ira ci es from 1989 throu gh De ce m

be r 7, 19 99. He c ont en ds t hat t he gov ernm ent pre se nte d ins uffic ie nt e vid en ce at t

ria l t o sh ow t

hat t he c onsp ira ci es c ont inu ed a fte r Jul y 2, 1999 , th e date thesta

tut e of li m ita

tio ns p eri od e xpi red. Prada c ha lle nge s th e cre dib ili ty

of four go ve rnm ent wi tne sse s who te sti fie d a bout his inv olv em ent i n co ca ine tra ffickinga fte r Jul y 2, 1 999. He a lso c ont en ds t hat hi s tri alc ouns el provi de d in effe ct ive a ssi sta nc e. I.

“ W e revi ewthesuffic ie nc y of th e ev ide nc e de nov o, t akingthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost fav orab le to the gov ernm ent a nd d rawi ng a ll rea sona

ble infe renc es in favo r of the jury ’s ve rdic t.” Uni te d State s v. La ngford, 647 F.3d 13 09, 1 319 (11th Ci r. 2011 ). “ [W] e wil l no t di stu rb theve rdic t un le ss n o re as ona ble trie r of fac t co uld find gui lt be y ond a rea sona ble dou bt.”Id. “ It is we ll es ta

bli she d th at cre dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns a

re t he e xc lus iveprovi nc e of thejury ,” Uni te d Sta te s v. 2Ca lde ron, 12 7 F.3d 1314 , 132 5 (11t h C ir. 19 97) (a lte rat ion

a nd q uot at ion m arks om itt ed), an d we a cc ep t t

hosede te rm inatio ns u

nle ss a wit ne ss’ te sti m ony

is

“ inc redible a s a

m at te r of la w.” Id. T es tim ony

a bout “ fac ts t hat t he wit ne ss phy sic al ly

c oul d no t ha

ve pos sib ly

obs erve d or e ve nts tha

t c oul d no t ha

ve oc cu rred unde r the la

ws of n at ure”is the kin d th at

is inc redible a s a

m at te r of la w. Id. (al te rat ion

and q uot at ion m arks om itt ed). The“unc orroborate d te sti m ony of a n ac co m pli ce m ay be e noug h to sup port a

c onvi ct ion

if th e te sti m ony

is not on i ts fac e inc redible or ot

he rwise ins ubst antial.” Uni te d State s v. Ga rci a, 405 F.3d 1260 , 127 0 (11t

h C ir. 20 05). The re i s a five y ea r statut e of li m ita

tio ns for t he c onsp ira ci es Prada

wa s ch arge d wi th u

nde r 21 U.S.C . §§ 846 an d 96 3. Se e 18 U. S.C. § 32 82(a ) (provid ing that a n offe nde r m

ust be prose cute d “ wit

hin five y ea rs ne xt a fte r suc h offe nse sha ll have be en c om m itt ed ”). The req

uire m ents o f the sta

tut e of li m ita

tio ns a re s atisfi ed if th e gove rnm ent prov es tha t t he c onsp ira ci es c ont inu ed int o th e limita

tio n pe riod. See Uni te d State s v. Arnold , 117 F.3d 1 308, 131 3 (11t h C ir. 19 97). “ [A] co nspi rac y

is de em ed

to co nti nue a s lo ng a s it s pu rpose s ha ve ne ith er b ee n ab an done d no r ac co m

pli she d, a nd n o a ffirm at ive sho wingha s be en m ad e that i t ha s te rm inate d.” Id. In thepre se nt c as e, to m ee t t he req uire m ents o f the sta

tut e of li m ita

tio ns, t he

3gove rnm ent ha d to prove tha t t he two c ha

rged c onsp ira ci es c ont inu ed

on o r afte r Jul y 2, 1 999. The jury

wa s in struc te d on

the sta tut e of li m ita

tio ns, a nd i t re turne d a gui lty ve rdic t on

bot h c ount s a ga ins t Prad a. The c ourt e nte red jud gm ent on the 1 ve rdic t a nd s ente nc ed

Prada to 342 m ont

hs i m priso nm ent a

nd 5 y ea rs sup ervi se d rel ea se . Four gov ernm ent wi tne sse s te sti fie d a bout Prada ’s a ctivi tie s in

thec oc ai ne tra ffickingc onsp ira ci es a fte r Jul y 2, 1 999: Ma

rio As ta iz a, Ale x de Cu

ba s, Al fredo De ve ngoe ch ea , a

nd B erna rdo C are ag a. The re wa s no e vid en ce tha t Prad a ha d wit hdra wn from thec oc ai ne c onsp ira ci es , se e Unit ed State s v. W es try , 524 F.3d 1198 , 121 6 (11t

h C ir. 20 08) (“ [W] ith draw alis an a ffirm at ivede fens e that t he de fend ant ha s th e burde n to prove .” ), or th at the c onsp ira ci es ha d e nde d, se e Arnold , 117 F.3d at 13 13. Asta iz a te sti fie d a

bout his role in co ordin at ingtheshipm ent of t he se co nd ha lf of a 250 0 ki log ram , two -part

shipm ent of c oc ai ne tha

t Prad a wa s su

pply ingto a Me xic an

drug t raffic ke r ca lle d ElLic en ci ad o. Ac co rdingto Asta iz a, tha t oc cu rred i n De ce m

be r 1999 . The250 0 ki log ram s of c oc ai ne Prada wa s se ndi ng for El L ic en ci ad o we re b ei ng s hip pe d a lon g wi th a bout 700 0 ki log ram s of c oc ai ne for him tha t ha d be en

obt ai ne d from

pe opl e oth er t

ha n Prad a. Ast ai za

te sti fie d th at

on At his first trial the jury

was una ble to rea ch a ve rdict, and the court de clar ed a mistrial. 1 4De ce m

be r 6, 19 99 ElLic en ci ad o to ld h im tha t t he Me xic an

Navy ha d inte rcepte d the boa t t hat wa s c arry inga

tot alof a bout 800 0 ki log ram s of c oc ai ne . Ast ai za rem em be red the e xa ct

date be ca use it wa s a Co lom bia n ho lid ay c al le d “ the da

y of the li ttl e ca

ndl es .” Prada argue s th at

Ast ai za ’s te sti m ony

wa s un be lie va ble on i ts fa cebe ca

use that ho lid ay

is ac tua lly

on D ec em

be r 8, no t De ce m

be r 6. Any

dis crepa nc y in 2 tho sedate s, ho we ve r, doe s no t c ha nge thefac t t

hat t he jury c oul d ha ve c hose n to cre dit Ast ai za ’s te sti m ony

tha t he c ont inu ed

to be inv olv ed

in drug t raffic kin g co nspi rac ie s wi th Pra da

in De ce m

be r 1999 , pa

rtic ula rly giv en tha t Prad a did

not as k th e dis tric t c ourt t o ta ke jud ic ia l no tic e of thedate of th e rel igi ous hol ida y and did not argue to the jury

thedis crepa

nc y tha t he poi nts out

to thi s C ourt. Eve n if Prada wa s c onfus ed

a bout thee xa ct date , th at doe s no t m ak e his te sti m ony inc redible a s a

m at te r of la w. Se e Ca lde ron, 12 7 F.3d at 132 5. De Cu ba s te sti fie d th at

he m an ag ed

drug s m uggl ingtrip s. Hete sti fie d th at he m et wit h Prad a in e arl y

Jul y 199 9 re ga

rdingthetra

nspo rtatio n of 15 00

Prada f iled a motion in this Court askingus to take judicial notice of the fa ct that 2 Dec ember

8 is a Catholic Holy

Day that is widely

celebrate d in Colombia. For the sake of argument, we grant Prada ’s motion and notice that fa ct. See F ed. R. Evid. 201(b)( 2) (statingthat judicial notice may

be take n when the f

act in question is “one not subjec t to reasona ble dispute in that it is . . . capa

ble of a ccur ate a

nd rea dy deter mination by

resor t to sources whose acc urac y cannot r easona

bly be questioned” ); cf. L evan v. Ca pital Cit ies/ABC, Inc., 190 F .3d 1230, 1235 (11th Cir. 1999) (takingjudicial notice of the Prime Rate on Februar y 14, 1989 beca

use it could not rea sonably

be disputed). 5kil ogram s of c oc ai ne , a nd a ga in i n Nov em

be r 1999 he c he ck ed

on t he sta tus of th e de al . Ac co rdingto de Cu ba s’ te sti m ony , he wa s on sta nd-by to transpo rt a

loa d of co ca ine for Prada , a

nd t hat a gree m ent l as te d untilNove m be r 1999 . De ve ngoe ch ea

te sti fie d th at

he pre pa red boats fo r Prada

be twe en 199 9 a nd 2001 . He ide nti fie d Prad a’ s a sso ci at es in the drug t raffic kin g tra de and Pra da ’s hous e an d it s lo ca

tio n. C are ag a al so t es tifi ed a bout Prada ’s role a s a

sup pli er o f co ca ine to oth ers who sol d it . Ac co rdingto Ca rea ga , fivekil ogra

m s of c oc ai ne tha

t Prada ha d su ppl ie d in Nove m be r 1999 we re s ei ze d by

pol ic e, and t

he drugs we re m arke d wi th t

he num be rs “ 1061 .” Tho senum be rs a dd u

p to 8— the“ luc ky ” num be r Prada a lwa y s us ed in som e form

on h is c oc ai ne shipm ents b as ed on h is be lie f in n

um erol ogy . Al tho ugh the te sti m ony giv en by the se four wi tne sse s co nta ine d num erou s in co nsi ste nc ie s, wh ic h Prad a ca ta log s in de ta il, a rea sona ble jury c oul d ha ve c hose n to c redi t t

he pa rts o f the ir te sti m ony

sho wingtha

t Prad a rem ai ne d invol ve d in

thec ha rged c onsp ira ci es a fte r Jul y

2, 1 999. The gov ernm ent pre se nte d su ffici ent e vid en ce tha t Prad a ha d a

lon g-te rm drug t raffic kin g re latio nship wi th E l Li ce nc ia do, who s hip pe d c oc ai ne int o th e Unit ed State s. Se e Unit ed

State s v. Me rce r, 165 F.3d 13 31, 1 335 (11th Ci r. 1999 ) (exp la ini ng t

hat a c onsp ira cy

c an be sho wn ba se d on

a c ont inu ingrel ation ship be twe en a buy er a nd s el le r of drugs or a

c ont inu ingc ourse of c ondu ct); Uni te d

6State s v. Be as le y , 2 F.3d 155 1, 15 60–6 1 (11t

h C ir. 19 93) (“ [T]h e jury

c oul d ha ve rea sona bly infe rred a

c ont inu ingc ourseof c ondu ct be twe en Christ ophe r an d Stanbe rry de sig ne d to res ult

in the dis tributio n of c oc ai ne . . . .” ). Whe n th e dis tric t c ourt d en ie d Prad a’ s m oti on for a jud gm ent of a cq

uitta l, i t rec ogni ze d th e inc onsi ste nc ie s in som e of thewit

ne sse s’ te sti m ony

and c om m ente d that i f it w ere thefac tfind er, i t wo uld a cq uit . Thec ourt a ck

nowl ed ge d, ho we ve r, that i t wa s no t t

he fac tfind er a

nd t hat t he re wa s e noug h e vid en ce for a rea sona ble jury to co nvi ct . W e ag ree . Thec redibil ity de te rm inatio ns b as ed

on t he te sti m ony pres ente d we re for t

he jury , a nd we c annot

sa y tha t no rea sona

ble trie r of fac t c oul d find guil t be y ond a rea sona bledou bt b as ed on t he e vid en ce tha

t t he c onsp ira ci es co nti nue d be y ond Jul y

2, 1 999. II. Prada a lso c ont en ds t

hat hi s tri alc ouns elprovi de d in effe ct ivea ssi sta nc e. W e ge ne ral ly

do n ot “ co nsi de r cl ai m s of i ne ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns elrai se d on dire ct a ppe alwhe re t

he dis tric t c ourt d id n ot e nte rta in t he c la im nor de ve lop a fac tua l re co rd.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Be nde r, 290 F.3d 12 79, 1 284 (11th Ci r. 2002 ). The Supre m e Co urt ha s in struc te d th at “ ine ffec tiv e-a ssi sta

nc e cl ai m s ordi na

rily wil l beli tig at ed

in the first ins ta

nc e in t he dis tric t c ourt, the forum be st s uit ed

to de ve lop ingthefac ts n ec es sa ry to de te rm ini ng t

he a de qua cy

of rep res entatio n 7durin g a

n e nti re t ria l.” Ma ssa

ro v. Un ite d Sta

te s, 53 8 U.S. 5 00, 5 05, 1 23 S.C t. 1690 , 169 4 (200 3). Th at

is be ca use , e ve n th ough

the rec ord m ay

refle ct spe ci fic ac tio ns t ak en

by c ouns el , it

doe s no t re fle ct

therea sons und erl y ingtho se a ct ion s. Id. Th e prefe rred wa

y to bringa

c la im of in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns elis throu gh a 28 U .S.C. § 22 55 m oti on. Id. at 50 4, 12 3 S.C t. at 16 94. Be ca use thedis tric t c ourt d id n ot c onsi de r the iss ue and d ev el op a fac tua l rec ord wi th re spe ct

to the pe rform an ce of tri alc ouns el , we de cl ine to co nsi de r Prada ’s ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e cl ai m for the first tim e on d ire ct a ppe al . AFFIRM ED.

8