09-5191- cr

United States v . Anto nio Miguel A rias


### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT

SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

RU LIN G S BY SUM M AR Y O RD ER

DO NO T HA VE P RE CE DE NT IAL EF F EC T. CI TA TION TO A SUM M AR Y O RD ER

F ILED ON OR

AF TER JA NU AR

Y 1 , 2 00 7, IS P ERMI T T E D AND IS GOVERN ED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND F EDERAL RULE OF AP P EL L AT E PRO CEDURE 32.1. WHEN CITING A SUM MARY OR DE R I N A DO CU M EN T F ILED WI TH THI S CO UR T, A P AR TY M UST CI TE EI THER THE F ED ER

AL AP P EN DI X O R A N E L E C T R O N I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H THE NO TA TIO N “SU M M AR

Y O RD ER ”) . A P AR TY CI TIN GA SU M M AR Y O RD ER

M UST SER

VE A COP Y OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RESENT ED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 7 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. th

Present: AMAL YA L . KEARSE,

J OHN M. WAL KER, J R., RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee ,

-v.- 09-5191-c r
ANTON I O MI GUEL

ARI AS, also known as GI L BERTO MI RANDA,
a l s o kn o w na s M IG U E L, Defendant- Appellant

.

For Appellant: Gar

y A. Mastrona

rdi, Br idge port, CT.

For Appellee : H. Gordon H all and Sandra S. Glover ( on the brief

), Assistant United States Attorney s, for

David B . Fe in, United States Attorney , District of Conne c tic ut. Appea l f rom the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J. ).

O N C O N S I D E R

A T I O N W HEREOF , IT I S HEREBYOR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id d ist ri c t c ourt be and he re by is AF F IRM ED

.2

An ton io M ig ue l A ri a s a

pp e a ls f ro m c on vic tio ns of

c on sp ir a c y , a

nd a tte mpt , to po sse ss w ith intent to dist ribute 5 kilog rams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1), 841(b)( 1)(A) (ii). Arias was sentenc ed principally to 30 y ear s in prison, with 10 y ear s of supervise d rele ase. A rias’s c onvictions arise fr om a sche me to import coca ine from Colombi a in s hipments of banana s. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the under ly ing f acts, proc edura l history , and issues pr e se nte d o n a

pp e a l.

F ir s t, A r ia s ar g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c le ar ly

e r r e d b y a d mi tt in g c e rta in

o u t- o f

- c o u rt statements pre sented at trial as coc onspirator stateme nts within t he scope o f Fe d er al Rule of Evidence 801(d)( 2)(E)

. We r e vie w f

or c le ar e rr or

a dis tr ic t co urt ’s find ing s r e g ard ing“ wh e the r t he re wa s a conspirac y

involving the de clar ant and the nonoffe ring party , and whe ther the state ment was made during the course and in further ance of the c onspiracy .” In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa , 552 F.3d 93, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (bra ckets a nd internal quotation marks omitted). Havingrevie wed the r ecor d in light of the controlli ng substantive principles, we find that the district court did n o t clea rly err in finding that the decla rant’s state ments and indepe ndent
corr oborating evidenc e showed that the declara nt was a member of

the conspira cy , see Bourjaily v. United States , 483 U.S. 171, 181 (1987), and that the statements wer e made t o “provid[e]
rea ssuranc e to a c oconspirator . . . or inform[] coconspirators as to t h e p ro gre ss or status of the conspirac y ,” United States v. Tracy , 12 F.3d 1186, 1196 ( 2d Cir. 1993).
Second, Ar ias argues that the district cour t violated his Si x t h Am en d ment rig ht to have compulsory

proce ss f or obtaining witnesses in his favor w hen the district cour t denied his motion to compel the testimony

of an a lleg ed F BI

confide ntial informant.

Arias’ s defe n s e at tria l was that his brother A lex, not he, wa s involved in the coca ine conspirac y . Arias r elied on Gove rnment-disclosed F BI repor ts b y an all eg ed F BI

confide ntial informant (“CI ”), dated J uly and August 2007, t hat did not mention (Antonio) Arias but stated that Al e x Ar ia s, his br oth e r, was a me mbe r o f t

he c on sp ir a c y . T he Go ve rnme nt r e fu se d to dis c los e further information about the CI

.
B e fo re tr ia l, A nto nio Ar ia s su bp oe na e d th e CI . A ri a s wante d to sh owthat th e CI “ wa s so well place d [i n the conspira cy ] t hat if [Antonio] Migue l Arias was involved in that conspirac y , [t he CI ] would certainly

have know n about it.” Ex pectingthat the CIwould invoke the F ifth Amendment privileg e ag ainst compulsory self-inc rimination, Arias re quested a n evidentiar

y hear ing at which the district c ourt would “dete rmine

. . . whether or not [the CI ] has a privileg e in the first place .” Ar ias
s t a t e d t h a th e w o u l d

a s k o n l y a b o u t“ i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h a d b e e no b t a i n e d an d p r o v i d e d b y [ t h e C I] under the supervision of the g overnme nt and during the cour se of his coope ration.”

The district cour

t denied Ar ias’s motion. I t did so without holding a hear ing at which Aria s could ask the CI

questions and the district cour t could determine which, if a ny , of the que stions the CI ha d a pr ivi le g e no t to ans we r. Th e c ourt state d th a t:

De lving into whethe r [the CI ] was so “well-plac ed” in the c ocaine3 conspirac y

that he would nec essar ily have had information re g arding de fe nd ant A ri a s’ s in vo lve me nt wo uld re qu ir e [the CI ] to r e sp on d to a wide ar ra y

o f q u es t i o n s co n ce rn i n g ac t i v i t i es , u ndoubtedly including ill e g a l a c tiv iti e s, in w hic h h e e ng a g e d th a t c ou ld h ave re su lte d in him being “we ll-place d,” or not.

Given “the implications of the quest i o n i n g t o which he w ould be subjecte d on both direct
e xami na tio n b y de fe nd ant A ri a s and c ro ss- e xami natio n by the g ov e rnme nt, ” the dis tr ic t c ourt sa id it was “e asy

to see . .

. that responsive answer s could furnish a li nk in the chain of evide nce ne eded to prosecute [t he CI ] for a fe dera l crime.”

Th e Go ve rnme nt argues that th e CI ’s F if th A me ndme nt r ig ht s up e rs e de s A ri a s’ s Sixth Am e nd me nt ri g h t , an d

t h u s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o r r e c t l y p r e v e n t e d

A r i a s f r o m c o mp e l l i n g t h e C Ito te sti fy . A ri a s, by

c on tr a st, argue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t un de rt a ke a pa rt ic ula ri zed inq uir y to deter mine wh et h er t h e CI ’s Fif th Amendment asser

tion was founded on a

rea sonable fe ar of prosec ution as to the “spec ific ar eas of inquiry soug ht to be cover ed in questioning [t he CI ].” Althoug h a

v a li d F if th A me n d me n t c la im

“ p r o v id e [s ] a

ju s ti f ic a ti o nf o r c o mp r o mi s in g an acc used’s S ix th Amendment rig hts,” United States v. Rodriguez , 706 F.2d 31, 36 ( 2d Cir. 1983),

“ on ly qu e sti on s w hic h might elic it i nc ri min a tor y ans we rs are ba

rr e d b y a pr op e r [F ]if

th [A] mendment claim,” Un ited Sta te s v . B owe , 698 F.2d 560, 566 ( 2d Cir. 1983). “[A] bl anket assertion” of a F ifth Amendment privileg e is insufficient. Id. Ra the r, the dis tr ic t c ourt mus t “un d e rta k e a p arti c u la r iz e d in qu ir y to d e te r mi n e w h e th e r

th e [F if th A me n d me n t] a s s e rti o n w as founded on a re as o n ab l e fea r of pr osecution as to ea ch of the posed questions.” United States v. Zap po la , 6 46 F .2 d 4 8, 53 (2 d Ci r. 19 81 ); Rodriguez , 706 F.2d at 37 (“[O]nce a witness has cla imed [a F if th A me ndme nt] p ri vil e g e , th e dis trict cou rt mus t de te rm ine wh e the r t hat c la im i s v a lid

in
re l at i o n t o t h e s u

b j ec t ar ea ab o u twh i ch i n qu i ry i s s o u gh t

. ”)

. I n d ee d , “F i ft h Am en d m en tp ri v i l ege c la ims sh ou ld be c los e ly sc rutin ize d be c a us e a llo wi nga

wi tne ss n ot t o te sti fy

c omp ro mis e s th e Sixth Amendment rig ht of an accuse d ‘to have compulsory proce ss for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’” Un ite d S tat es v . Lu mp k

in , 1 9 2 F. 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 5 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g W

ashington v. Texas , 3 88 U. S. 14, 17 (1967))

. He re , Ar i as s o u gh tt o as k ab o u tt h e f

o l l o wi n g:
I ’m goin g to be aski ng hi m q ues ti on s ab ou t [ 1] wha t h e di d u nd er FBI supervision in cooper ation with the FB I ; [ 2] t h e thing s that he repor ted to the FB I ; [ 3] t he thing s that he kn ew ab o ut [ ] t he conspirac y

that he re ported to the F BI . And I ’m go ing to be asking him that to show how well place d he is in the conspi ra cy and how
muc h, y ou kn ow – ho w he wa s in a po sit ion that w a s o f t

ru st w iththi s co n s p ir a c y
. A n d

th e n , o n c e I ’ v e s a ti s f ie d th a t, o n c e I ’ ve acc omplished that , t h en the nex t question is: [ 4] Did y ou ever hear
a bo ut A nto nio Ar ia s?4

I n a dd iti on , A ri a s st a te d th a t: [T] he questions that I

would add re s s to [ the CI ] do not have to do with any criminal ac tivity

he mig ht have dome be fore he starte d
a ssi sti ngthe F B Ior

a ft e r h e sto pp e d a ssi sti ng the F B I . I int e nd to a sk him que stions only relating to the period of time within which he was assisting the F BI . And the cr itical period wo u l d b e from the b eg inning of

the alleg ed conspira cy

in this case, would be a round Fe bruar y or Ma rc h o f ‘07 through July or into Aug ust of ‘07, about halfwa y throug h Aug ust of ‘07.

Arias a rg ues that the district cour t failed to dete rmine whe ther the CI had “a rea sonable fe ar of prose cution,” Zap

po la , 646 F.2d at 53, as to any or all of the a

bove four questions. First, Aria s argues that the district cour t did not deter

mine whether , as Arias alleg ed, the CI had immunity

for
c e rt a i na c t i v i t i e s o r

d u r i n g a c e rt a i nt i m e f

r a m e a s a r e s u l to f

t h e C I’ s c o o p e r a t i o nw i t h t h e F B I. F ur the r, Ar ia s argue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt , havin g de nie d Ar ia s’ s re qu e st f or a he ari ngwi th t

he CI to de te rm ine the CI ’s F if

th Ame ndme nt cl a ims , misa pp re he nd e d th e sc op e of

qu e sti on ingby

Ar ia s. Th e c ourt state d that Ar ia s wo uld a sk “ a wi de arr a y of qu e sti on s c on c e rn inga c tiv iti e s, un do ub te dly inc lud ingill e g a l a c tiv iti e s, in wh ic h [the CI ] e ng a g e d that c ou ld have re su lte d in him be ing‘w e llplace d.’” A rias had stated that he would limit his i n q uiry to four ar eas of

questions, although he pr op os e d to be g in his inq

uir y in “F e br ua ry or Ma rc h of ‘0 7, ” be fo re the date of the fi rs t G ov e rn me ntdisclosed FB Irepor

t of coope ration by

the CI

. We do not decide whether the district court e rre d by failing to “closely

scrutinize” the CI ’s privileg e cla im, Lum

pk in , 192 F.3d at 285, thus “ compromis[i ng ] an acc used’s Six th Amendment rig hts,” see Rodrigue

z , 706 F.2d a t 3 6

. Nor do we dec ide whethe r the district cour t erre d by upholding the C I ’s Fifth Ame ndment privileg e not to answe r Aria s’s questions based on “ the implications of the question[s ]” that the CI might have rec eived on “ cross-e x aminati o n by the g overnme nt.”

On the fa cts of this case , we f ind that if the district court er red, the err or wa s harmless. A revie wing court may

disreg ard c onstitut ional err or if it is “a ble to decla

re a belief that [ the er

ror] was harmless bey ond a reasonable doubt.” Cha pm an v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). In this case, the coc aine importer testified t hat he had met Antonio Arias, ag ree d to Arias’ s plan to import cocaine in pallets of bananas, and the n imported hundreds of kilogr ams of coc aine, whic h Antonio Arias
rec eived. F urther, at trial Arias que stioned an F BI Special Ag ent w h o d ealt with t he CI , and the Special A gen t testified that the CInever mentioned Antonio Arias. B eca use the Spec ial Ag ent’s testimo n y s u

b s ta n ti a ll y o v e r la

p p e d w it h th e qu e s ti o n s A r ia s w an te d to a s k th e CI , an d th e jury actua lly rested its ver dict on the first-ha nd testimony

of t h e cocaine importe r, “the g uilty verdic t actua lly rende red in this trial was surely unattributable to the [alleg ed] error .” Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993) (e mphasis omitt ed).5

We have c onsidered A rias’s r emaining arguments and find them to be without merit. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk