08
- 50 35
- cr U n i t ed S t at es v . V al l o m b roso 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAVE P REC E DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY 8 FE DERA L RU LE O F AP PE LLATE PROC EDUR E 3 2 . 1 AN D TH I S CO URT’ S LO CAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 21 day of A pr i l , tw o thous and t en. st 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : G U ID O C A L A B R E S I, 1 9 RO BE RT D. S AC K,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 2 4 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel lee , 25 v. N o. 08- 5035- cr 26 27 J E NNI F E R V AL L OM BR OS O, 28 D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 29 30
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 3 1 A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : J ul i a Pamel a H ei t , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. 32 3 3 A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E : E dw ar d C hang, A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A tt orney 3 4 ( W i l l i am N ar di ni , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es 3 5 A tt o rne y , o f co u n sel, o n the b ri ef), fo r N o ra 3 6 D annehy, U ni t ed St at es A tt orney f orthe D i s tr i ct 3 7 o f C o n n e c ticu t. 3 8 A ppealf r om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtf orthe D i s tr i ctof

C onnect i cut( J anet 3 9 B o n dA rt erton , Ju d g e). 4 0 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY ORDE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND 4 1 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rtis A F F IR M E D
.2 1 A j ury convi ct ed J enni f erV al l om br os o of

cons pi r acy t o di s tr i but e f i ve gr ams or 2 m or e of

coca i ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. §§846, 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) , and 3 the d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed h er to 1 2 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t t o b e fo ll o w ed b y fi v e y ea rs 4 o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e . V a llo m b ro s o ap p e a ls b o th h e r c o n v ic tio n a n dh e r s e n te n c e . W e 5 as s um e the part i es ’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the r el evantf act s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory of thi s cas e, 6 a n dth e iss u e s p re se n ted in th is a p p e a l. 7 I . C onvi ct i on 8 V al l om br os o ar gues thatherconvi ct i on w as def ect i ve bec aus e: ( 1) the 9 G overnm entf

ai l ed t o pr ove thats he had the r equi s i t e i nt entt o j oi n the cons pi r acy; and ( 2) 1 0 th e d istric t co u rt e rro n e o u sly a llo w e da lay w itn e ss to o ffe r e x p e rt tes tim o n y . B o th 1 1 a rg u m e n ts fa il. 12 A . Suff

i ci ency of

E vi dence 1 3 “To be gui l ty of cons pi r acy, ther e mustbe s om e evi dence f r om w hi ch i tcan 1 4 r eas onabl y be i nf err ed thatthe per s on char ged w i th cons pi r acy kne w of the exi s t ence of 1 5 the s cheme al l eged i n the i ndi ctm entand know i ngl y j oi ned and part i ci pat ed i n i t . ” U ni t ed 1 6 S ta te s v . H a w k in s , 5 4 7 F .3 d6 6 , 7 1 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 1 7 V al l om br os o ar gues thatthe governm entf ai l ed t o pr ove thats he i nt ended t o j oi n or 1 8 p a rt ic ip a te in th e c o n s p ir a c y . 1 9 W e r evi ew a cl ai m of i ns uf f i ci entevi dence de novo
. U ni t ed St at es v. Y annott i , 541 2 0 F
. 3 d1 1 2 , 1 2 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e jury ’s ve rdict m u st be su stai n ed if “ any r at i onal tr i erof 2 1 f actcoul d have f

ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond ar eas onabl e doubt
. ”3 1 J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ). 2 T he tr i al evi dence s how ed thatV al l om br os o part i ci pat ed i n the cons pi r acy i n a 3 num berof

w ays : by advi s i ng herhus band dur i ng hi s conver s at i on w i th the conf i dent i al 4 i nf

orm ant , by s peaki ng on the t el ephone w i th the conf i dent i al i nf

orm ant , by t ext i ng a 5 p o te n tia l s u p p lie r, a n db y le a v in g a v o ic e m a il f o r a p o te n tia l s u p p lie r. T he ev i den ce al so 6 s h o w e dth a t d u ri n g th e re le v a n t p e ri o d s V a llo m b ro s o w a s a w a re o f h e r s u rr o u n d in g s . 7 T hi s evi dence s uf f i ced t o perm i ta j ury t o f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat 8 V a llo m b ro s o in te n tio n a lly p a rt ic ip a te din th e c o n s p ir a c y . 9 V a llo m b ro so a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e sh o w e do n ly th a t sh e w a s try in g to o b tain 1 0 drugs t o f

eed he raddi ct i on. A r eas onabl e j ury coul d eas i l y f i nd thatthe des i r e f

ordrugs 1 1 ex p lai n s h er m ot i ve f orj oi ni ng the cons pi r acy, and i s noti ncons i s t entw i th an i ntent i on to 1 2 do s o. 13 B. A dm i s s i on o f Tes t i m ony 1 4 T o p re s e rv e a c la im th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rtim p ro p e rl y a d m itte de v id e n c e a t tr ia l, a 1 5 party m us t“s t at [ e] the s peci f i c gr ound of

obj ect i on, i f

the s peci f

i c gr ound w as not 1 6 ap p a re n t fro m th e c o n tex t.” F e d . R . E v id . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ). “I f . . . th e p a rty c o n sc io u sly 1 7 re fr a in s fr o m o b je c tin g a s a ta c tic a l m a tte r, th e n th a t a c tio n c o n s titu te s a tru e ‘w a iv e r,’ 1 8 w hi ch w i l l negat e eve n pl ai n err orr evi ew . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y u- L eung, 51 F. 3d 1116, 1 9 1 1 2 2 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). 2 0 V al l om br os o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed by al l ow i ng the conf i dent i al 2 1 i nf

orm antt o t es t i f

y as an expe rton the ef f ect s of m ethadone. B utV al l om br os o w ai vedD ef

ens e couns el obj ect ed t o port i ons of the i nf orm ant ’ s t es t i m ony on the bas es of , i nt er 1 al i a, l ack of

per s onal know l edge and l ack of f oundat i on. B utnone of thes e obj ect i ons s u g g e s te dth a t th e in fo rm a n t’ s te s tim o n y w a s im p ro p e r e x p e rtte s tim o n y . 4 1 th is a rg u m e n t b y a g re e in g to a llo w th e in fo rm a n t to te s tif y o n th is to p ic
. 2 O n the s ec o n dd ay o f tri al, d efe n se c o u n sel t o ld the co u rtthat itw o u ld o ffer a 3 p o rtio n o f V a llo m b ro so ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s th a t sh o w e db o th th a t sh e w a s a d d icte dto 4 d rug s an dthat sh e w as tak ing m etha d o n e d u ri n g the c o n sp ir ac y . W h en the d istri ct co u rt 5 j udge admi tt ed thos e r ecor ds , the f ol l ow i ng col l oquy ens ued: 6 T he C ourt : A nd the under s t andi ng her e i s thatw hen thos e go 7 in, th en the g o v ern m en t’ s en ti tl ed o n reb u tt al t o rec all M r. 8 C obb f orhi s vas texpert i s e i n drug ef f ect s and he w i l l be 9 a sk e dab o u t m e th a d o n e , if h e k n o w s a n y th in g ab o u t th a t. 10 1 1 D efe n se c o u n sel: C ertainly, yo u r H o n o r. 12 1 3 T he C ourt : So does thats at i s f y you, M r . C hang? 14 1 5 G o v ern m en t: Y es, i t w o u ld. T h an ky o u , y o u r H o n o r. 16 1 7 T h e C o u rt: W e h a v e o u r la y p h a rm a c o lo g ica l ex p e rt. 18 1 9 G overnm ent : I t ’ s al l w e can do atthe l as ts econd, your 2 0 H onor . W e j us tgotthes e r ecor ds t oday. 21 2 2 D e fe n s e c o u n s e l d id n o t o b je c t. 2 3 W e conc l ude thatbecaus e def ens e couns el af

f i rm at i vel y agr eed t o perm i tthe 2 4 i nf

orm antt o t es t i f

y aboutm ethadone’ s ef f ect s , V al l om br os o w ai ved the ar gum ents he 2 5 m a k e s o n ap p e a l, an dw e n e e dn o t re a c h it. 2 6 E ven i f

V al l om br os o di d notw ai ve thi s ar gum ent , s he f or f ei t ed i tbecaus e s he 2 7 f ai l ed t o obj ectt o the t es t i m ony attr i al on the gr ound s he now r ai s es on appea l
. See Y u- 1 2 8 L eung, 51 F. 3d at1122 ( w her e party’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ectt o evi dence i s “a matt erof5 1 o v e r s i g h t , th e n s u c h o v e r s i g h tq u a l i f i e s a s a c o rr e c t ab l e ‘ f

o r f e i tu r e ’ )
. I n th a tc a s e , we 2 w oul d r evi ew herar gum entf orpl ai n err or . See U ni t ed St at es v. D ukagj i ni , 326 F. 3d 45, 3 60- 61 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( appl yi ng “pl ai n err or ” t es tw her e def ens e couns el obj ect ed t o the 4 a d m iss io n o f te stim o n y o n ap p e a l b u t d idn o t cle a rly o b jec t at tria l). T o d e m o n stra te p lain
err or , V al l om br os o m us ts how : “( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, and ( 3) thataf f ect s s ubs t ant i al 5 6 r i ght s . I f

al l thr ee c ondi t i ons ar e met , an appe l l at e courtm ay then exe r ci s e i t s di s cr et i on 7 t o not i ce af

or f ei t ed err or , butonl y i f

( 4) the err ors er i ous l y af f ect s the f ai rnes s , i nt egr i ty,
orpubl i c r eput at i on of

j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pol oui zzi , 564 F. 3d 142, 8 9 1 5 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s, cit ati o n s, an db rac k ets o m itted). A n y erro r, 1 0 i f ther e w as one, di d notaf f ectV al l om br os o’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s becaus e the di s put ed 1 1 tes tim o n y w a s a t b e st ta n g e n tial to th e m a in iss u e o f w h e th e r V a llo m b ro so in ten d e dto 1 2 j oi n the cons pi r acy. T hus the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notpl ai nl y errby admi tt i ng the 1 3 i nf

orm ant ’ s t es t i m ony. 14 I I . Sent ence 1 5 W e r evi ew s ent ence s undera “de f er ent i al abus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” U ni t ed 1 6 St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) , quot i ng G al l v. U ni t ed 1 7 S ta te s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 4 1 (2 0 0 7 ). I n c o m in g to a p ro c e d u ra lly re a s o n ab le s e n te n c e , a 1 8 di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i derthe f act or s l i s t ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng the 1 9 advi s ory Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange, and “c onducti t s ow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the 2 0 se n ten c in g fa c to rs, a id e db y th e a rg u m e n ts o f th e p ro se c u tio n a n dd e fe n se ,” in o rd e r to 2 1 r eac h “an i nf

orm ed and i ndi vi dual i zed j udgm ent. . . as t o w hati s ‘ s uf f i ci ent , butnot6 1 g re a te r th a n n e c e s s a ry ’ t o fu lf ill th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g .” Id ., q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 3 5 5 3 (a ). 3 V al l om br os o ar gues thathers ent ence w as pr ocedur al l y unr eas onabl e f orthr ee 4 r eas ons . Fi r s t , s he s ays the courti ncorr ect l y pr es um ed thatthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes 5 s houl d appl y. B utthe courtm ade no s uch pr es um pt i on. I tr ecogni zed thatthe G ui del i nes 6 are “only the ad vis ory st art i ng po i nt f or the C ou rt ’s analysi s, ” and sai d thatthe co urt“i s . 7
. . notbound beyond the poi ntof cons i der i ng them. ” 8 Second, V al l om br os o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtf ai l ed t o cons i derthe s ent enci ng 9 d is p a ri ty b e tw e e n c ra c kc o c a in e a n dp o w d e r c o c a in e . B u t th e re c o rd s h o w s th e o p p o s ite
. 1 0 T he j udge ca l cul at ed w hatV al l om br os o’ s of f ens e l eveland G ui del i nes r ange w oul d have 1 1 been f

orthe equi val entamountof pow dercoca i ne, and s he as ked the G overnm entf or 1 2 gui dance on how t o exer ci s e herdi s cr et i on t o cons i derthe di s par i ty. U l t i m at el y, the 1 3 j udge s ai d s he w as “dee pl y tr oubl ed” by the di s par i ty and thats he w as “aw ar e thatI can 1 4 tak e th a t in to c o n sid e ra tio n ,” b u t sh e “ n o n e th e les s . . . re a c h e dth e c o n c lu sio n th a t a 1 5 s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s is th e ap p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e .” 1 6 T hi r d, V al l om br os o ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtm i s cal cul at ed the quant i ty of 1 7 d rug s b ec au se itinco rrectl y inclu d ed d rug s inten d ed for h er p erso n al us e. B u t th e c o u rt 1 8 onl y cons i der ed drugs thatthe conf i dent i al i nf

orm antpur chas ed and thatthe G overnm ent 1 9 then kepti n cus t ody. T hos e drugs w er e notavai l abl e f orherper s onal us e. H ers ent ence 2 0 w as theref

ore not procedu ral l y u nreasonab l e on any of the ab ov e groun ds.7 1 N o r w a s it su b sta n tiv e ly u n re a so n ab le. T h e d istric t co u rt e x p licitly sta ted th a t it 2 had cons i der ed the § 3553( a) f act or s , and not ed thatthe s ent ence s houl d pr om ot e r es pect 3 f orthe l aw , af

f or d adequa t e det err ence , and pr ot ectthe publ i c bef or e s ent enci ng 4 V al l om br os o t o the bott om of the uncha l l enged gui del i nes r ange of 120 t o 150 m onths 5 im p riso n m e n t. G iv e n V a llo m b ro so ’s e x ten siv e c rim in a l h isto ry , this se n ten c e w a s w e ll 6 w i thi n the l i m i t s of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on. See i d. ( “W e w i l l
. . . s etas i de a 7 d istri ct co u rt ’s su b stan ti v e d eterm ination o n ly in e x ce p ti o n al ca ses w h ere the tri al co u rt ’s 8 deci s i on cannotbe l ocat ed w i thi n the r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” ( emphasi s and 9 in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s m a rk s o m itte d ))
. 1 0 F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED
. 11 1 2 FOR TH E CO UR T: 1 3 C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt 14 15 16