2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-3-2010

USA v. Melendez

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3501

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Melendez" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 807.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/807
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3501

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ALEX MELENDEZ

a/k/a King A.M.

 Alex Melendez,

 Appellant

____________

No. 06-3614

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

WILLIAM SOSA

a/k/a King Homicide

William Sosa,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 06-3667

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 v.

ANGEL AVILES

a/k/a Len Vando

a/k/a King Cano

Angel Aviles,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 06-3668

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ELVIS ORTIZ

a/k/a King Elvis

Elvis Ortiz,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 06-4317

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ANGEL SERRANO

a/k/a King Pleasure
Angel Serrano,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 07-1370

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ROBERTO ROSADO,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 07-1889

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

EDWIN IRIZARRY

a/k/a King Penguin

Edwin Irizarry,

 Appellant

_____________

No. 07-3651

_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

OSCAR BERMUDEZ

a/k/a King Fat Joe

Oscar Bermudez,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. Nos. 05-cr-00044-1, 05-cr-00044-4, 05-cr-00044-7, 05-cr-00044-8, 

05-cr-00044-10, 05-cr-00044-12, 05-cr-00044-13, 05-cr-00044-15)

District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter

_________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 26, 2010

Before: McKee, Chief Judge, Rendell and Garth, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 3, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

McKee, Chief Circuit Judge

Defendants were convicted of various charges arising from their participation in a

drug distribution ring. Each makes a number of arguments as set forth below. We will

affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in each of these consolidated cases.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts of
2

this case, we need not set forth the procedural history or background.

I. The Defendants’ Claims

A. William Sosa

William Sosa argues that the prosecution improperly exercised some of its

peremptory strikes by striking potential jurors based on race or ethnicity in violation of

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); that the district court erred in eliciting expert

opinion and hearsay testimony regarding the bad character of the Almighty Latin King

and Queen Nation (“ALKQN”); that the district court erred in not dismissing counts three

and four of the indictment, because the government constructively amended the

indictment, creating prejudicial variance between the indictment and evidence presented

at trial; that the evidence was insufficient to convict him for using or carrying a firearm in

connection with the alleged conspiracy to murder an unknown person in Trenton, New

Jersey; that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he conspired to maim Raphael

Guzman in aid of racketeering activity; that the evidence failed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he carried a firearm during the alleged conspiracy to murder

Guzman; that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to

kidnap Elena Mercado in aid of racketeering, and; that the sentences imposed on him

were unreasonable.

B. Edwin Irizarry

Edwin Irizarry argues that his life sentence was substantively and procedurally
3

unreasonable, as it was greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of punishment

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

C. Alex Melendez

Alex Melendez argues that the district court erred by denying his motions to

suppress a photographic identification and for a bill of particulars, and by refusing to

grant the joint Batson motion. He also argues that he was entitled to an acquittal because

the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846

and 860, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). 

Melendez also asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he

committed an overt act leading to murder rather than “only an assault;” that there was

insufficient evidence to convict him of engaging “in any conduct tending to prove he

participated in a racketeering enterprise;” that the district court improperly ignored

evidence that a juror had arrived at a guilty verdict based upon compulsion and duress,

and; that the district court made unconstitutional findings during the sentencing process,

resulting in an unreasonable sentence. 

D. Angel Aviles

Angel Aviles argues that the prosecutor exercised peremptory strikes of jurors in

violation of Batson.

E. Elvis Ortiz

Elvis Ortiz argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for
4

involvement in a drug conspiracy or distribution of a controlled substance in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 860, or for committing violent crimes in aid of a racketeering

enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). In a related argument, he claims that

the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated

in the kidnapping of Rafael Guzman, and that the district court erred in denying his Rule

29 motion for judgment of acquittal as to charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(5) and (6). 

He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to allow a jury to conclude that

he committed an overt act that would lead to murder rather than to assault; that there was

no reasonable evidence to support a finding that he committed an overt act which would

lead to maiming an individual, or that he participated in the racketeering enterprise, and;

that the district court made unconstitutional findings during the sentencing process and/or

imposed an unreasonable sentence.

F. Roberto Rosado

Roberto Rosado argues that the district court erred in denying his presentence

motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not voluntarily and knowingly entered

into, and that his counsel was ineffective. 

G. Angel Serrano

Angel Serrano argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for

judgment of acquittal as to the charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and (2), and that

the district court erred in denying the joint Batson challenge. He also claims that his
5

sentence was unreasonable. 

H. Oscar Bermudez

Oscar Bermudez argues that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to

withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing.

II. Discussion

 We have reviewed the arguments made by each of the defendants, as well as the

responses of the government, and we conclude that, with one exception, each of the

allegations of error is totally devoid of merit and can be dismissed without discussion.

Indeed, many of the issues raised on appeal border on frivolity. We will therefore affirm

the judgments of conviction and sentence without further discussion. 

The sole exception to this is the argument raised pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky,

476 U.S. 79 (1986). Although the Batson claims are also meritless, they warrant very

brief discussion. 

We noted in Hardcastle v. Horn, 368 F.3d 246, 255 (3d. Cir. 2004), that district

courts should undertake a three-step inquiry to determine that peremptory strikes are not

being exercised in an unconstitutional manner when confronted with a Batson challenge. 

Here, the district court did not undertake the three-step inquiry that we discussed in

Hardcastle. Nevertheless, even though the district court’s response was not as

procedurally precise as it should have been, it is clear that the record supports its denial of

the joint Batson motion, as none of the defendants met their burden of establishing that
any of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges was motivated by race, national origin, or

considerations of ethnicity, or that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for the strikes were

a pretext to survive the Batson. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence of each of

these defendants.

6