2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-3-2010 

# U SA v . M ele nde z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3501

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M e le ndez " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 807. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/807NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 06- 3501

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ALEX M ELEND EZ a /k /a K in g A .M . A l ex M el endez , A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 06- 3614

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W I LLI A M SO SA a/k/ a K i ng H om i ci de W i l l i am S os a, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 06- 3667

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CAv. AN GEL A VI LES a/k/ a Len V ando a/k/ a K i ng C ano A ng el A vil es, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 06- 3668

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E L V IS O R T IZ a /k /a K in g E lv is E l vi s O r t i z, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 06- 4317

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANGE L S E RR ANO a/k/a K ing P leasu reA ngel Serr ano, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 07- 1370

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT O R OS ADO, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 07- 1889

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. EDWI N I RI ZARRY a /k /a K in g P e n g u in E d w i n I r i z a r r y, A ppel l ant

_____________ N o. 07- 3651

_____________UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA v. OSCA R BERM UD EZ a/k/ a K i ng FatJ oe O s carB erm udez, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D .C . C ri m . N o s . 0 5 -c r- 0 0 0 4 4 -1 , 0 5 -c r- 0 0 0 4 4 -4 , 0 5 -c r- 0 0 0 4 4 -7 , 0 5 -c r- 0 0 0 4 4 -8 , 05- cr - 00044- 10, 05- cr - 00044- 12, 05- cr - 00044- 13, 05- cr - 00044- 15)

D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G ene E. K . Pr att er

_________________________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay26, 2010 B e f o re : M c K e e , C hi ef

Judge , R e n d e ll a n d G a rt h , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t3, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ M c K e e , C hi ef

C i r cui tJudge D efe ndant s w er e convi ct ed of va r i ous char ges ar i s i ng fr om thei rpart i ci pat i on i n a d ru g d istrib u tio n rin g . E a c h m a k e s a n u m b e r o f a rg u m e n ts a s s e t f

o rth b e lo w . W e w ill affirm t he judgm ents of co nv i ct i on and sent ence in each o f t hese co nsoli dated cases. I nas m uch as w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s of2

t hi s cas e, w e nee d nots etfor t h t he pr ocedur al hi s t oryorbackgr ound. I . Th e De f

e n d a n t s ’ Cl a i ms A . W il liam S osa W ill iam S o sa a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n im p ro p e rlye x e rc ise d so m e o f its per empt or ys t r i kes bys t r i ki ng pot ent i al j ur or s bas ed on r ace orethni ci t yi n vi ol at i on of B at s on v. Kent ucky , 4 7 6 U . S . 7 9 (19 8 6 ); that the d istri ct co u rterred in elici ti n g ex p ert opi ni on and hea r s ayt es t i m onyr egar di ng the bad c har act erof the A l m i ghtyL at i n K i ng and Q ueen N at i on ( “A L K Q N ”) ; t hatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notdi s m i s s i ng count s t hr ee and fourof the i ndi ctm ent , beca us e the governm entcons t ruct i vel yamended t he i ndi ctm ent , cr eat i ng pr ej udi ci al var i ance betw een the i ndi ctm entand evi dence pr es ent ed a t trial; th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to c o n v ict h im f

o r u sin g o r c a rry in g a f

ire a rm in connec t i on w i t h t he al l eged c ons pi r acyt o m ur deran unknow n per s on i n T r ent on, N ew J er s ey ; t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove thathe cons pi r ed t o m ai m R aphae l G uzman i n ai d of r acke t eer i ng act i vi t y ; thatthe evi dence fai l ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe ca r r i ed a f i r earm dur i ng the al l eged c ons pi r acyt o m ur der G u z m a n ; th a t th e e v id e n c e f a iled to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t h e c o n sp ire d to k id n a p E len a M e rc a d o in a id o f ra c k e tee rin g , an d ; th a t th e se n ten c e s im p o se d o n h im w er e unr eas onabl e. B . E dw in Iri zarry E d w in Iriz a rrya rg u e s th a t h is lif e se n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e lya n d p ro c e d u ra lly3

unr eas onabl e, as i tw as gr eat ert han nec es s aryt o s at i s fythe purpos es of puni s hm ent p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). C . A lex Melendez A lex M e len d e z a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n s to su p p re ss a p h o to g ra p h ic id e n tific a tio n a n d f o r a b ill o f

p a rticu lar s, a n d b yre f

u sin g to g ra n t th e jo in t B at

s on m oti on . H e al so argues t hat he w as ent i t l ed to an acq uitt al becau se t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on forvi ol at i ons of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846 a n d 8 6 0 , a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 (d ). M el endez al s o as s er t s t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h t hathe comm i t t ed an ove r tactl eadi ng t o m ur derr atherthan “onl yan as s aul t ; ” thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o convi cthi m of enga gi ng “i n anyconductt endi ng t o pr ove he par t i ci pat ed i n a r acke t eer i ng ent erpr i s e; ” thatthe di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yi gnor ed evidence thata j uror had arr i ved ata gu i l t yverdi ctbased u po n co m pu l si on and du res s, and ; t hat the d i stri ctcou rtm ade u nco nst i tuti on al fi nd i ng s duri ng the sentenci ng process, re s u ltin g in a n u n re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . D . A ngel

A viles A n g e l A v iles a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u to r e x e rc ise d p e re m p to rystrik e s o f ju ro rs in vi ol at i on of B at

s on . E . E lvis O rtiz E l vi s O r t i z ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on for4

i nvol vementi n a drug cons pi r acyordi s t r i but i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846 and 860, orforcomm i t t i ng vi ol entcr i m es i n ai d of a r acke t eer i ng ent erpr i s e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1959( a) ( 1) . I n a r el at ed ar gum ent , he cl ai m s that t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe part i ci pat ed in th e k id n a p p in g o f

R a f a e l G u z m a n , an d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is R u le 2 9 m o tio n f

o r j u d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l a s to c h a rg e s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 9 5 9 (a )( 5 ) a n d (6 ). H e al s o ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o al l ow a j uryt o concl ude that he comm i t t ed an ove r tactt hatw oul d l ead t o m ur derr atherthan t o as s aul t ; thatther e w as n o re a so n a b le e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t h e c o m m itt e d a n o v e rt a c t w h ich w o u ld l ead t o m ai m i ng an i ndi vi dual , ort hathe part i ci pat ed i n t he r acke t eer i ng ent erpr i s e, and; t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tm ade unc ons t i tut i onal fi ndi ngs dur i ng the s ent enci ng pr oces s and/ or i m pos ed an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . F . R ober to R os ado R ober t o R os ado ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s pr es ent ence m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea be caus e i tw as notvol unt ar i l yand know i ngl yent er ed in to , a n d th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . G. Angel

Se r r ano A ngel Ser r ano ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for j udgm entof ac qui t t al as t o t he cha r ges under18 U . S. C . §§ 1959( a) ( 1) and ( 2) , and that th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e jo in t B at s on c h a llen g e . H e a lso c laim s th a t h is5

s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le . H . O s carB erm udez O sc a r B e rm u d e z a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to a llo w h im to w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea pr i ort o s ent enci ng. II. D i s cus s i on W e have r evi ew ed the ar gum ent s m ade byeac h of the def endant s , as w el l as the r es pons es of the governm ent , and w e conc l ude that , w i t h one exc ept i on, eac h of the al l egat i ons of err ori s t ot al l ydevoi d of m er i tand ca n be di s m i s s ed w i t houtdi s cus s i on. Ind ee d , m an yo f th e issu es ra ised o n ap p ea l bo rde r on frivo li ty . W e w il l th ere fo re a ff irm th e ju d g m e n ts o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e w ith o u t f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n . T he s ol e exc ept i on t o t hi s i s t he ar gum entr ai s ed pur s uantt o B at s on v. Kentucky , 476 U . S. 79 ( 1986) . A l t hough t he B at s on claim s are also m erit less, theyw arran t very b ri e f d is c u s s io n . W e not ed i n H

ardca st l e v. H

orn , 368 F. 3d 246, 255 ( 3d. C i r . 2004) , thatdi s t r i ct cour t s s houl d under t ake a t hr ee- s t ep i nqui r yt o det erm i ne thatper empt orys t r i kes ar e not bei ng exer ci s ed i n an uncons t i tut i onal m annerw hen conf r ont ed w i t h a B at

s on c h a lle n g e . H e re , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t u n d e rta k e th e th re e -ste p in q u iryth a t w e d isc u ss e d in H a rd c a stle . N evert hel es s , even though t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r es pons e w as notas pr ocedur al l ypr eci s e as i ts houl d have be en, i ti s cl earthatthe r ecor d s uppor t s i t s deni al of th e jo in t B at

s on m ot i on, as none of the def endant s m etthei rbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thatanyof the pr os ecut or ’ s per empt or ychal l enges w as m ot i vat ed byr ace , nat i onal or i gi n, or

co n side rati o n s o f e thn ici ty , o r th at th e p rose cu tor’s pro ff ere d rea so n s fo r th e stri k es w ere a pr et extt o s ur vi ve the B at s on . I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s ent ence of ea ch of t hese de fend ants .

6