T he C l erk of the C ourti s di r ect ed t o amend the capt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. * 09
- 34 13
- cr U ni t ed S t at es v. Pl aza- A nd r ades UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAV E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M EN T F I LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe 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 Y ork, on the 6 day of O ct ober , tw o thous and t en. th P RES ENT : ROGER J . M I NER,

BARRI NGTON D . P ARKER, R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges
.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel lee , v. N o. 09- 3413- cr I V A N PLA ZA
- A N D RA D ES, D ef endant

-Appel lant , J O SE PI Z A R R O , a. k. a. J uan G onzal ez, D ef endant
. *

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ A PPEA RI N G FO R A PPELL A N T: ST E PH E N L A N C E C IM IN O , E S Q . , Syr acus e, N ew Y ork. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E : W I L L I AM C. BROW N, At t o r n e y ( La n n y A. Br e u e r , As s i s t a n tAtt o rn e y Ge n e r a l , Gr e g D. A ndr es , A ct i ng D eputy A s s i s t antA tt orneyP la z a -A n d ra d e s d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e h is c o n v ic tio n o n th e a tte m p t c o u n t. 1 2 G e n e ra l, on the br i ef

) , U ni t ed St at es D epartm ent o f J u s tic e , C ri m in a l D iv is io n , W a s h in g to n , D .C ., f orR i char d S. H artuni an, U ni t ed St at es A tt orney f orthe N orthern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y ork, Syr acus e, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l from th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (D a v id N . H u rd , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n Au g u s t1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED . Ivan P l aza-A nd rades w as conv i ct ed, fol l ow i ng a j ury tri al , of con spi racy t o p ossess wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d t o d i s tr i b u t e o v e rf i v e k i l o g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e , s e e 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) , 8 4 6 , a n d a tt e mp t e d p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e o v e r5 0 0 g r a ms of cocaine, see i d. §§ 84 1(b)( 1)( B )( i i ), 84 6. S entenced p ri ncipal l y to 121 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , Pl aza - A ndr ades now chal l enges ( 1) the s uf f i ci ency of

the tr i al evi dence
su p p o rtin g h is c o n v ictio n o n the co n sp ira c y c o u n t, a n d (2 ) th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is 1
m ot i on f ora new tr i al
. W e as s um e the part i es ’ fa m i l i ar i ty w i th the f act s and r ecor d of

pr i or p r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l y a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1. Suf

f i ci ency Chal l enge A l thou gh w e r e vi e w the s uf f i c i e nc y o f

the e vi de nc e de no vo , s e e U ni t e d St a t e s v. Sabhnani , 599 F. 3d 215, 241 ( 2d C i r . 2010) , def endant“bea r s a hea vy bur den bec aus e a r evi ew i ng courtm us tconsi derthe evi dence ‘ i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on’
a n d u p h o ldth e c o n v ictio n if ‘a n y ra tio n a l trie r o f f a c t c o u ldh a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n tsPl aza - A ndr ades ’ s r el i ance on U ni t ed St at es v. H aw ki ns , N o. 3: 05cr 58, 2007 W L 2 1 7 3 2 7 6 7 (D . C o n n . Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 ), to su p p o rt h is e x p a n siv e b u y e r-s e ller a rg u m e n t is m i s pl ace d i n l i ghtof

ourr ever s al of

thatdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. H aw ki ns , 547 F. 3d 66. S ee also U n it ed S tat es v . P ark er, 55 4 F . 3 d at 2 3 6 (discu ssing H aw k ins in n o ti n g ap p ell an t’ s “fa il [ure] t o ap p rec iat e h o w li m it ed is th e ap p li ca ti o n o f th e b u y er-sell er e x ce p ti o n ”). 3 of the cr i m e beyond ar eas onabl e doubt , ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. A gui l ar , 585 F. 3d 652, 656 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Jac k so n v . V ir g inia, 4 4 3 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (19 7 9 ) (em p h asis in Ja ck so n )). Pl aza - A ndr ades does notdi s put e thatthe tri al evi dence es t abl i s hed that , on el even o c c a sio n s f

ro m Ju ly to N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , h e p a idJo se P iza rro to re c e iv e E x p re ss M a il
s h i p me n t s o f

c o c a i n e f

r o m P u e rt o Ri c o a tv a r i o u s a d d r e s s e s i n S y r a c u s e , Ne w Yo rk
. He
m ai nt ai ns , how ever , thatthi s evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o convi cthi m of the cha r ged
cons pi r acy be caus e ( a) hi s deal i ngs w i th Pi zarr o f i tw i thi n the buyer
- s el l erexce pt i on f or con spi rac y, a n d (b ) th e ju ry c o u ldo n ly sp e c u late a s to th e d ru g q u a n tity . W e re jec t b o th argum ents . a. B uyer - Sel l erE xcept i on A l though “[ a] tr ans f

erof drugs f r om a s el l ert o a buyernece s s ar i l y i nvol ves a g re e m e n t, ho w e v e r b rie f, o n th e d is tr ib u tio n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e fro m th e fo rm e r to the l att er , ” U ni t ed St at es v. H aw ki ns , 547 F. 3d 66, 71 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ), th e law d e e m s s u c h a n a g re e m e n t in su ffic ien t b y itse lf to su p p o rt a
cons pi r acy c onvi ct i on, U ni t ed St at es v. Parker , 554 F. 3d 230, 234 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. Pl aza A ndr ades att empt s t o f

i thi m s el f

w i thi n thi s “narrow ” exc ept i on, i d. , by i ns i s t i ng thathe 2
s i m pl y pur chas ed drugs f r om Pi zarr o. T he tr i al evi den ce d oes nots upportthi s as s ert i on.U ni t ed St at es v. C ar s on, 702 F . 2d 3 51 (2d C i r . 1983) , on w hi ch Pl aza - A ndr ades 3 r el i es , does notcompel a di f f er entconcl us i on. T her e, w e i dent i f i ed s uf f i ci entci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o s upp orta drug cons pi r acy c onvi ct i on w her e def endant ’ s “f

urt i ve s tr eet - corner act i vi t i es ” al l ow ed the j ury t o i nf erdrug tr ans act i ons and the cont extof thos e ac t i vi t i es perm i t t ed a n i nf

e r e nc e tha td e f

e nd a ntwas k no w i ng l y f a c i l i t a t i ng ah e r oi n s a l e . Se e i d. at 3 6 1 -6 2 . P laz a -A n d ra d e s a ss e rts th a t n o s im ilar c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e e sta b lish e d h is know i ng j oi nderi n the cha r ged cons pi r acy, s peci fi cal l y, no evi dence i ndi cat i ng thathe r ece i ved p ayment s f

r om Pi zarr o, acc ount ed t o Pi zarr o f ordrugs s ol d orm oney r ece i ved, ackn ow l edg ed acti ng on P i zarr o’s behalf , or r ecei ved i nstruct i on s f rom P i zarr o. T hese om i s s i ons ar e i rr el evant . D i r ectevi dence , i n the f orm of Pi zarr o’ s t es t i m ony, es t abl i s hed that 4 Pi zarr o t es t i f

i ed thatPl aza - A ndr ades r ecrui t ed hi m t o w ork a s adrug runner , r ece i vi ng and d eli v ering p ac k ag es o f co ca ine th at w ere sh ipp e d fr o m P u erto R ico to u p stat e N ew Y o rk
u n d e r P laz a -A n d ra d e s’s d ire c tio n . P laz a -A n d ra d e s p a idP iza rro $ 5 0 0 p e r sh ip m e n t fo r h is
s e rv ic e s a s a d ru g ru n n e r, f a r l e s s th a n th e $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 v a lu e o f e a c h s h ip m e n t. W e assum e, as w e must , thatthe j ury cr edi t ed Pi zarr o’ s t es t i m ony det ai l i ng a di s tr i but i on agr eementbetw een a n empl oyerand an e m pl oyee r ather than o ne betw een abuyerand a
s el l er. S ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. B ur den, 600 F. 3d 204, 214 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ; U ni t ed St at es
v. Sal m ones e, 352 F. 3d 608, 619 ( 2d C i r . 20 03 ). Indee d, the document ary evi dence
c o rro b o ra ted th is a c c o u n t b y sh o w in g th a t P laz a -A n d ra d e s h im se lf se n t se v e ra l p a c k a g e s to Puert o R i co, w hi ch the j ury re as onabl y coul d have i nf err ed cont ai ned payment s t o hi s actual
coca i ne s uppl i er . M eanw hi l e, no evi dence i ndi cat ed thatPi zarr o everdeal tw i th coca i ne s our ces i n Puert o R i co, orpl ayed the r ol e of an arm s - l ength s el l er . B ecaus e the di s tr i but i on agr eementbetw een Pl aza - A ndr ades and Pi zarr o w as thatof an empl oyerand an e m pl oyee, nota buyera nd s el l er , Pl aza - A ndr ades c annotr el y on the buyer
- s el l erexce pt i on t o chal l enge his con spi racy con vict i on . T his partof the suff i ci ency chall eng e fai l s on the m eri t s. 3Pi zarr o w orked f or , t ook di r ect i on f

r om , a nd a ccount ed t o Pl aza - A ndr ades w i th r es pectt o the char ged coc ai ne s hi pm ent s , notthe otherw ay ar ound. T hi s evi dence s uf f i ced t o s upportthe c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n . 5 V iew ing the tri al ev iden ce i n the ligh t m o st f av o rab le t o the g o v ern m en t, w e the refo re concl ude thata r eas onabl e j ury coul d have f ound Pl aza - A ndr ades gui l ty of cons pi r acy. b
. D ru g Q u a n tity Pl aza - A ndr ades does notdi s put e thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hed thatPi zarr o r ece i ved
coca i ne s hi pm ent s on el even oc cas i ons . N ordoes he di s put e thatthe N ovember2, 2007
s h i p me n tt h a tl e d t o h i s a rr e s tc o n t a i n e d mo r e th a n th e 5 0 0 g r a ms s p e c i f i e d i n 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i )
. H e as s ert s , how ever , thatthe tr i al evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o perm i tthe j ury t o f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe t ot al quant i ty of coca i ne i nvol ved i n the
e le v e n s h ip m e n ts e x c e e d e d th e fiv e k ilo g ra m s sp e c if ie d in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A )( ii) . W e di s agr ee. Pi zarr o t es t i f i ed thateac h of

the el even pa ckage s thathe r ece i ved f orPl aza A ndr ades w ei ghed r oughl y the s ame as the s ei zed packa ge, e xceptf orone hea vi erpacka ge r ece i ved i n J ul y. T he s ei zed pac kage cont ai ned 1, 244 gra m s , i
. e. , overone ki l ogr am, of 79% pur e coc ai ne. O n s uf

f i ci ency r evi ew , w e musta s s um e the j ury c r edi t ed Pi zarr o’ s t es t i m ony and dr ew al l r eas onabl e i nf er ences i n f

avorof the governm ent . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. H er as , 609 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 2d C i r . 2010). A ppl yi ng thi s “def er ent i al st andar d, ” U ni t ed St at es
v. L om bar dozzi , 491 F. 3d 61, 67 ( 2d C i r . 2007), w e concl ude thatPi zarr o’ s t es t i m ony about
re c e iv in g ele v e n sh ip m e n ts o f ro u g h ly the sa m e w e ig h t of co c a in e tog e th e r w ith lab re su lts sh o w in g tha t th e o n e se ize d sh ip m e n t w e ig h e d m o re th a n o n e k ilo g ra m su ffic ien tly su p p o rts a f i ndi ng of the nec es s ary drug quant i ty, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. O l uw ani sol a, 605 F. 3d 124,6

134- 35 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( af f i rm i ng convi ct i on w hen evi dence w as suf f i ci entt o l i nk def

endant to “th e d rug q u an ti ty in q u esti o n ”). 2. D eni al of

M ot i on f

orN ew T r i al W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o gr anta new tr i al underFed. R . C r i m . P. 33 f or ab u se o f dis cre ti o n . S ee , e.g., U n it ed S tat es v . B ell , 5 8 4 F . 3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 2 -83 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). “I ti s w el l est abl i s hed thattr i al court s m us tdef ert o the j ury’ s re s ol ut i on of the w ei ghtof

the evi dence a nd the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es . I ti s onl y w her e exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s can be demonstr at ed thatthe tr i al j udge may i ntrude u po n the j ury f unct i on . . . . ” I d. at483 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Sanc hez, 969 F. 2d 1409, 1414 ( 2d Ci r . 1992) ( r equi r i ng s how i ng of “ m ani f es ti nj us t i ce” ) )
. Foradi s tr i ctcourtt o gr antr el i ef underR ul e 33, “‘ [ t ] her e mustbe
a r eal conce rn thatan i nnocentper s on m ay have been c onvi ct ed. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Fer gus on, 246 F. 3d 129, 134 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Sanc hez, 969 F. 2d at 1414)
. T hati s notthi s case. B ecause Pl aza - A ndr ades ’ s ar gum entthata new tr i al w as
w arr ant ed s i m ply res t at es hi s s uf f i ci ency c hal l enge, w hi ch w e have al r eady r ej ect ed as
m eri t l ess, w e i den t i fy no abuse of di scr et i on i n the d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on that the m anif est i nj us t i ce s t andar d w as notm ether e. W e have cons i der ed Pl aza - A ndr ades ’ s otherar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude that they lack m eri t . A ccor di ngl y, w e A FFIRM the A ugus t10, 2009 j udgm entof the di s tr i ct
c o u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: 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