N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff-Appe lle e , v. JAC OB DR

UM M O NDO-FAR IAS, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10097

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00174-JM S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii J. M ic ha e l Se a

bright, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 9, 2015 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : WARDLAW , B ER ZON, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Ja c ob Drum

m ondo-Fa

ria s (“ Drum

m ondo” ) a

ppe a ls his c onvic t ion of
c onspira c y

to distribute

an d posse ss with intent to distribute m e tha m phe tam ine , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 846, 841(a )(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
AUG 05 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. The c onspira c y and distribution c o unts we re prope rly joine d a s “ offe nse s . . . of the sa

m e or sim i la

r c ha ra c te r.” Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 8(a ); Unite d State s v . Rousse au , 257 F.3d 925, 932 (9th C ir. 2001). 1 The first c ount c ha rge d Drum m ondo with c onspiring to distribute m e tha m phe tam ine in Ha

w a ii, be ginning
at a n unknown da

te an d e nding in Ja

nua ry of 2012. These c o n d c ount c ha rge d Appe l la n t with distributing m

e tha m phe tam ine in Ha

w a ii in De c e m

be r of 2010. In light of the se sim ila

ritie s, a nd be c a use R ule 8 is to be“ broa dly c onstrue d in fa vor of initia l joinde r,” id. at 573, joinder wa s not im prope r. Se e Rousse au , 257 F.3d a t 932 (holding tha

t two fire arm

offe nse s we re “ [c ] le arly ” of a “ sam e or sim ila

r
c ha ra c te r” e ve n though “the c rim e s involve d diffe re nt e vide nc e , did not involve a
c om m on sc he m e or pla

n,” and we re se pa

ra te d by m o re tha n six m onths be c a

use both c ounts c ha

rge d “ be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of a

fire a rm ” ); Unite d

State s v . Fre e , 841 F.2d 321, 324 n.1 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ It is fa irly c le ar in this c a se tha

t,
a lthough se

pa ra te d by tim e an d involving diffe

re nt vic t im s, the m

urde r c ha rge and the a ssa ult c ha rge s are of the sam e or sim i la r c ha ra c t e r.” ); c

f. Unite d State

s v . Satte rfie ld , 548 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th C ir. 1977) (Ke nne dy , J.) (“ [R ] ule 8(a )

1 Drum m ondo ha s not wa ive d his R ule 8(a ) m isjoinde r argum e n t by fa iling to re ne w his m otion to se ve r a t the c lose of e v ide nc e : “ While it is c le ar that a R ule 14 m otion to se ve r m

ust be re ne we d

at the c lose of the e vide nc e or it is wa ive d, . . . the re is no suc h re quire m e nt for a R ule 8 m otion.” Unite d State s v . Te rry , 911 F.2d 272, 277 (9th C ir. 1990). 2pe rm its joinder a ga inst onede fe nda nt of offe nse s ‘ of the sa

m e or sim ila

r
c ha ra c te r,’ e ve n whe n

those offe nse s a

rise out of wholly

se p ara te , unc onne c te d transa c tions . . . .” ). W e have uphe ld joinde r in sim ila r c i rc um sta

nc e s. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Ak ana , 210 F. App’ x 681, 682 (9th C ir. 2006) (upholding joinde r of c ounts
se pa ra te d by fifte e n m onths c ha

rging (1) c onspira c y

to distribute
m e tha m phe tam ine , a

n d (2) posse ssion of m e tha m p he tam ine with inte nt to distribute ). 2 And we have found no a uthority holding tha

t distributing a

c ontrolle d

2 Othe r c ourts ha

ve uniform ly

uphe ld joinde r unde r the s e c irc um sta nc e s, a s we ll. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Me le n de

z , 301 F.3d 27, 35-36 (1st C ir. 2002) (upholding joinde

r of c ounts sepa

ra te d by ne arly two y e a rs c h arging (1) a iding a

nd a be tting distribution of c oc a ine ba s e , a nd (2) posse ssion of c oc a ine with inte nt to distribute ); Unite d State

s v . Turne r , 93 F.3d 276, 283-84 (7th C ir. 1996) (upholding joinde

r of c ounts sepa

ra te d by m ore tha n fourte e n m onths c ha

rging (1) c onspira c y

to posse ss m e tha

m phe tam ine , a

nd (2) posse ssion of m e tha m phe t am ine with inte nt to distribute ); Unite d State s v . Rodge rs , 732 F.2d 625, 629-30 (8th C ir. 1984) (upholding joinde

r of c ounts sepa

ra te d by twe nty m onths c ha

rging (1) distribution of c oc a ine , a

nd (2) posse ssion of c oc a ine with inte nt to distribute ).

3substa

nc e , a nd c onspiring to distribute tha t sa m e substa nc e le ss tha

n fourte e n
m onths la te r, are not offe nse s of “ the sa m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c t e r” unde r R

u le 8(a ). 3 Give n the sim ila

ritie s be twe e n the c ha

rge d c rim e s, the substa

nc e at issue , and the loc ation of the a l le ge d c onduc t, the c ha rge s are linke d by

m ore tha n a

“ va gue the m atic c onne c t ion.” Unite d State s v . J aw ara , 474 F.3d 565, 579 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). The se c ounts a re not simila

r sim ply be c a use the y involvedrugs. Se e id. (disa p proving thehy

pothe tic a l joinde r of a
c ha rge a ga inst a pha

rm a c ist for se lling unla

wful a m ounts of pseudoe phe d

rine ove rthe -c ounte r and a

subse que nt c h arge for purc ha sing c oc a ine ). R athe r, the se c ounts

3 The disse nt’ s re lia

nc e on the te m

pora l ga p be twe e n the c ha

rge s in this c a s e is m i spla c e d. The le s s tha n fourte e n-m onth ga

p be twe e n the c o unts—

whic h doe s nothing to le sse n the othe r sim ila ritie s be twe e n the c ha

rge s, both of whic h involve distribution of the

sa m e drug in thesa

m e sta te by the sa m e de fe nda

n t— doe s not re nde r the se othe rwise sim ila r c ounts dissim

ila r. Se e , e .g. , Ak ana , 210 F. App’ x at 682 (upholding joinde

r of c ha rge s fifte e n m onths a

pa rt). The disse nt c ite s Fre e for the p roposition tha

t e ve n shorte r te m

pora l ga ps we igh a ga inst joinder, but in Fre e , we found it “ fa irly

c le ar” tha

t joinde r wa s prope r . 841 F.2d a t 324 n.1. Nothing in our disc ussion in F

re e indic ate s tha

t we would ha

ve re a c he d a

c ontra ry c onc lusion ha d the te m

pora l ga p be e n longe r. 4are s im ila

r be c a use the y both re late to de a ling m e tha m p he tam ine in Ha

wa ii within
a re l ative ly short pe riod of tim e . 4

4 W e ne e d not disc uss pre judic e be c a

use we c onc lude the re wa s no m isjoinde r, but we note our disa gre e m e n t with thedisse nt’ s c h ara c te riz ation of the prose c utor’ s c h arging de c ision. At oral a rgum e nt, the gove rnm e nt e xpla ine d its de c ision a s follows: G ove r nm e nt : B a sic a lly , a fte r the first tria l e n de d in a m istria l, we we nt ba c k— obviously we we re try ing to im prove our c a se in a

ny wa y we c ould— going ba c k

an d looking through DEA file s, the y found this one buy that ha d be e n m a de from a ta sk forc e group from

M r. Drum m o ndo tha

t we we re not a

w are of at the tim e of the first tria l
. Judge W ar dlaw : Who wa s not a w are of it, the prose c utors? G ove r nm e nt : C orre c t. Judge W ar dlaw : W e ll, I don’ t unde rsta n d. If it wa s worth prose c uting, why didn’ t the DEA bring it to you in thefirst pla c e ? G ove r nm e nt : B e c a

u se our sta

nda rd polic y is we will not a c c e p t one buy c a se s. The re are e xc e ptions to tha t. B ut norm a lly we e xpe c t— Judge B e r z on : Not a c c e pt wha t c a se s ? G ove r nm e nt : One buy

c a se s, m e aning the re hav e to be m ultiplebuy s to avoid issue s of e ntra

pm e nt, to e nsure c re dibility of the C I, if the re is one , a ll of those sorts of issue s. B e c a use the re ha d

ne ve r be e n m o re tha

n one buy , the y ne ve r brought it to our offic e for c onside ration. It is possible , a s the disse nt a s se rts, tha t the prose c ution file d the distribution c ha rge in orde r to im

prove its c ha

nc e s of se c uring a

c onvic t ion on thec o n spira c y c ount. B ut the gove rnm e nt ne ve r sa id the ne w c ha rge wa s file d for this purpose
. W e se e no re a son to a ssum e the prose c utor ha d suc h a n ille gitim ate m otive whe n it is a lso possible

the prose c ut or, upon disc ove ring e v ide nc e tha t Drum m ondo c om m itte d m ultiplec rim e s , de viate d from ordina ry polic y in a le gitim ate e ffort to inc re a se the odds of se c uring a c onvic tion for distribution so tha t Drum m ondo would not e ntire ly

e va de punishm e nt if the jury a g a i n fa ile d to c onvic t on the c onspira c y

c ha rge . W e note a lso tha

t the distric t c ourt instruc te d the jury to c onside r the c ha

rge s se pa ra te ly , dim inishing the

risk of pre

judic e . Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Fiorillo , (c ontinue d...) 52. W e a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in pre c luding thede fe nse from c ross-e xam ining Offic e r Tha yne C osta a bout a prior inc i de nt of untruthfulne ss, but wefind the e rror harm l e ss. Se e Unite d State s v . Moran , 493 F.3d 1002, 1014 (9th C ir. 2007). Eve n a bse nt C osta ’ s te stim ony , the re
wa s a m ple e vide nc e from

whic h the jury c ould re a sona bly have c onc l ude d be y ond
a re a sona ble doubt tha

t Drum m ondo wa s guilty

of the c onspira c y

c ha rge . Se e Unite d State s v . Edw a rds , 235 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th C i r. 2000) (pe r c uriam ). Two of Drum m ondo’ s c o-c onspira

tors a nd a nothe r unc ha

rge d c o -c onspira

tor im plic ate d him a s one of the le a d e rs of the c onspira c y . C irc um sta n tia l e vide nc e
— inc luding posta l m one y

orde rs, posta l se rvic e re c ords, phone re c ords, a nd flight
re c o rds— c orroborat e d the se c o-c o nspira tors’ te stim o ny . M ore o ve r, se ve ra l othe r pe rc ipie n t la

w e nforc e m e nt witne sse s whose c re dibility wa s not in que stion te stifie d to m any

of the sa m e fa c ts re porte d by

C osta . The re fore , unde rm ining C osta ’ s c re dibility

did not go to the

he art of the de fe nse an d, inde e d, would ha ve done littleif a

nything to bolste

r it. Moran , 493 F.3d a

t 1014. Ac c ordingly , “ it is
m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t the e rror did not m ate ria lly a ffe c t the ve rdic t.” Id
.

4 (...c ontinue d) 186 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th C ir. 1999) (pe r c uriam ). That the jury in fa c t re n de re d a split ve rdic t “ shows tha

t the jury followe d the tria l c ourt’ s instruc tions.” Unite d State s v . Alv are

z , 358 F.3d 1194, 1206 (9th C ir. 2004). 6AFFIRM E D.

7USA v. Drum m ondo-Fa

ria s, 14-10097

B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt. I a gre e with them a

jority tha t a ny e rror in pre c luding thede fe nse from c rosse xam ining C osta

wa s ha rm le ss, a nd the re fore c onc ur in Se c tion 2 of the
m e m o randum d i sposition. Howe ve r, I c onc lude tha

t the c onspira c y

an d distribution c ounts we re m isjoine d unde r R ule 8(a ) an d tha

t the m isjoinde r a c tua lly pre j udic e d Drum

m ondo-Fa

ria s. I the re fore re spe c tfully disse nt from Se c tion 1. 1. Although “ R

ule 8 ha s be e n ‘ broa dly c onstrue d in fa v or of initia l joinde r,’ ” Unite d State s v . J a w ara , 474 F.3d 565, 573 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Unite d State s
v . Frie dman , 445 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th C ir. 1971)), theR u le 8 te st is not “

without
m e aningful lim

its.” Id. at 579. J

aw ara ide ntifie d six none xha ustive fa c tors, quote d by the m a jority , to c o n side r in a s se ssing whe the r the c ha rge s in a n indic tm e nt we re prope rly

joine d unde r that prong of R

ule 8(a ). In m

y vie w, the
e num e ra te d J

aw a ra e le m e nts, ta

ke n toge the r, we igh a ga inst finding the c ha rge s a re the s am e or sim i la

r. (The gove rnm e nt a dva nc e s no fa c tors othe r tha

n those
e num e ra te d in J

aw ara for c o nside ration a s to joinder.) (1) The e sse ntia l e le m e nts of the two c rim e s do not overla p. Although the offe nse s a re re lat e d, the c onspira c y

c ha rge re quire s no ove rt a c t, Unite d State s v . 

# FIL ED
AUG 05 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALSShabani , 513 U.S. 10, 11 (1994), a nd the distribution cha

rge re quire s no
a gre e m e nt. Thus, the e le m e nts fa c tor m ay tilt (a bit) in fa vor of finding the

c ha rge s
are “ of the sa

m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c te r,” but not strongly
. (2) The c ha

rge s in Drum

m ondo-Fa

ria s’ indic tm e nt a

re se pa ra t e d by ne arly fourte e n m onths. I c an

find only one (unpublishe d) c a s e in this C irc uit a pproving the j oinde r unde r the “ sam e or sim ila r c ha ra c te r” prong of c ha

rge s se pa ra te d by a pe riod of fourte e n m onths or m ore , Unite d State s v . Ak ana , 210 F. App’ x 681, 682 (9th C ir. 2006) (unpublishe d ). Two of thec ha rge s in tha

t c a se a lle ge d ide ntic a l sta tutory viola t ions a n d the re fore ide ntic a l e sse ntia l e le m e nts. M ost of our c a se s
a pproving joinde

r of c ha rge s a s “ offe nse s . . . of the sa m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c te r”
e ithe r involve te m

p ora l ly ove rla pping c h arge s, or te m

pora l se pa

ra tions of signific antly shorte r dura

tion tha n the one in this c a se . W e have a lso sugge ste d tha t
e ve n shorte r te m

pora l dista

nc e s we igh against finding joinder wa s prope r. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Fre e , 841 F.2d 321, 323, 324 n.1 (9th C ir. 1988). I the re fore
c onc lude the te m

pora l proxim ity

fa c tor we ighs a ga i nst finding the c ha rge s a re of the s am e or sim i la

r c ha ra c te r. (3) As to thethird fa c tor, “ the like lihood a nd e xte nt of e vide n tia

ry ove rla p” be twe e n the c ha

rge s, the indic tm e n t m ake s no sugge stion tha t the e vide nc e on the two c ounts wa s like ly

to ove rla p. Additionally , the ra the r pre c ise figure s of

2m e tha

m phe tam ine de sc ribe d

in e a c h c ount a

re m a rke dly diffe re nt, indic ating tha

t the p hy sic a l e vide n c e would be prove d by two se pa ra te l y se iz e d batc he s of drugs. This fa c tor the re fore a l so we ighs a g a inst finding the c ha rge s a re of the “ sam e or sim ila r c ha ra c te r.” (4) As to thefourth fa c tor, “ the phy sic a l loc ation of thea c ts,” the c om pla i nt
a lle ge s tha

t the c onspira c y

oc c urre d “ in the Distric t of Ha wa ii a nd e lse whe re ,” and that the distribution oc c urre d “ i n the Distric t of Ha wa i i.” The Distric t c ove rs the
e ntire s tat e , c om

prise d of se ve n

inha bite d isla nds. Also, a s the c onspira c y is
a lle ge d a l so to ha

ve oc c urre d

“ e lse w he re ,” the indic tm e nt indic ate s the phy sic a l loc ation of thea c ts is pa

rtly dissimila r. I the re fore c onc lude this fa c tor we i ghs
a ga inst finding tha

t the c rim e s a

re of the sa

m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c te r. (5) As to thefifth fa c tor, “ m odus ope randi,” the indic tm e nt is silent a s to the
m odus ope randi of e ithe r c rim e . I the re fore c onc l ude the m o dus ope randi fa c tor
we ighs a ga inst finding the offe nse s a

re of the sa

m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c te r. Se e J aw ara , 474 F.3d a

t 579 (6) As to thefina l fa c tor, “ the ide ntity of the vic tim s,” the indic tm e n t doe s not ide ntify

any vic t im s of e ithe r c rim e . I the re fore c onc lude this fa c tor we ighs
a ga inst finding the

offe nse s a

re “ of the sa

m e or sim i la

r c ha ra c te r.”

3Whe n so m a ny of the fa c tors J

aw ara ide ntifie d a s re le va nt to the“ sam e or sim ila r c ha ra c te r” inquiry

we igh a ga inst suc h a

finding, the

fa c e of the c om

pla int doe s not e sta

blish tha t the offe nse s a

re of the sa

m e or sim ila

r c ha ra c te r. I the re fore
c onc lude the c ounts we re m i sjoine d. b. “ Aviola

tion of R ule 8 ‘ re q uire s re ve rsa l only if the m isjoinde r re sults in
a c tua l pre judic e be c a

use it ha d a

substa ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t

or influe nc e in de te rm i ning thejury ’ s ve rdic t .’ ” J aw ara , 474 F.3d a

t 579 (quoting Te rry , 911 F.2d
at 277). In de te rm ining whe the r the m isjoinde r ha d a “ ‘ substa ntia l a nd injurious’
e ffe c t on the jury ’ s ve rdic t ,” id ., a va rie ty of fa c tors a

re re le va nt, “ inc luding ‘ the
ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e of guilt shown,’ the provision of a ‘ prope r lim i ting instruc tion . . . a dm o nish[ing] the jury to c o nside r e a c h c o unt . . . sepa rate l y , ’ and the l ike lihood tha

t e vide nc e a dm itte d on the m isjoine d c ount would ha

v e be e n
a dm issiblein a

se pa ra te tria l a s e vide n c e of inte nt unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 404(b).” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Lane , 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986)). The e vide nc e a dduc e d at Drum m ondo-Fa

ria s’ se c ond tria l wa s c e rta i nly suffic ie nt for a

re a sona ble juror to c onc lude be y ond a re a s ona b le doubt tha

t he wa s guilty of c onspira c y , but it wa s not “ ove rwhe lm ing.” Lane , 474 U.S. a t 450. The
c oope ra t ing witne sse s ha d strong inc e n tive to lie . The othe r e vide nc e on the
c onspira c y

c ha rge wa s prim arily

c irc um s ta

ntia l. Tha

t the first tria l of C ount 1 4e nde d in a

m istria l a lso te nds to sugge st the e vide nc e wa s not “ o ve rwhe lm ing.” As to the ove rla

p in e vide n c e , “ it is ge ne ra lly ‘ m uc h m ore diffic ult for jurors to
c om pa rtm e nta l iz e dam a ging inform ation a bout one de fe nda

nt de rive d from

joine d
c ounts, tha

n it is to c o m

pa rtm e nta liz e e vide nc e a ga inst sepa ra te de fe nda

nts joine d for tria l.’ ” J

aw ara , 474 F.3d a

t 581 (quoting Se e Unite d State s v . Le w is , 787 F.2d 1318, 1322 (9th C ir.) opinion amende d on de nial of re h’g , 798 F.2d 1250 (9th C ir. 1986)). He re , e vide n c e a dm itte d sole ly for C o unt 2–theta

pe re c ording of “ Jake ” disc ussing m e tha

m phe tam ine purc ha se s with Fua –c ould ha ve e nha nc e d the jury ’ s im pre ssion of thede fe nda

nt’ s guilt of C ount 1. If thec o nspira c y ha d be e n c ha

rge d
se pa ra te ly , tha t a udio re c ording would like ly not ha ve be e n a d

m itte d. The split ve rdic t is not dispositive of the pre judic e que stion, be c a

u se of the possibility

of a n illic it c om

prom ise ve rdic t. Se e Unite d State s v . Te rry , 911 F.2d 272, 280 n.3 (1990) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gre y Be ar , 863 F.2d 572, 579 (8th C ir. 1988)) (som e a lte ra tions in origina l); se e also Le w is , 787 F.2d a t 1322 (noting psy c hologic a l studie s sugge s ting tha t e vide nc e of a

we ak c ha rge c an im

prope rly
e nha nc e the jury ’ s pe rc e ption of thestre ngth of thee vide nc e of a n othe r c ha

rge ). Furthe r, the e vide nc e a dduc e d re ga rding the distribution cha rge wa s signific antly “ m ore e xte n sive , and thus m ore dam a ging, tha n tha t whic h [c ] ould [hav e ] be [e n] a dduc e d to e sta blish a prior c rim e a s proof of suc h m atte rs a s m otive 5or inte nt” in a se pa ra te se c ond tria l of the c onspira c y c ha rge . Satte r

fie ld , 548 F.2d
at 1346. Thebulk of the180 pa ge s of te stim ony introduc e d in support of C ount 2 would not ha

ve be e n a dm issibleunde r R

ule 404(b), be c a

u se it would ha

ve be e n
e ithe r unne c e ssa

rily c um ulative or pre

judic ia l or both. Fina lly , the gove rnm e nt a dde d C ount 2 a fte r the first tria l e nde d in a hung jury , be c a use “ obviously , we we re try ing to im prove our c a se any

wa y we c ould;”
a fte r “ l ooking through DEA file s, [we ] found this one buy [in 2010] by

. . . M r. Drum m ondo,” whic h wa s the n a dde d to the indic tm e nt, de spite a polic y of not prose c uting “ one buy ” c a se s. In othe r words, the gove rnm e nt joine d the distribution cha

rge to im p rove its c ha

nc e s of pre va iling on the

c o nspira c y c ha

rge . Joinde r did not se rve judic ia l e c onom y he re . It only

se rve d to pre

judic e the de fe nda n t by pre se nting thejury

with thete m

p tation of a

n illic it c o m

prom ise
ve rdic t. I the re fore re spe c tfully disse nt.

6