## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J OR GE T OR RE S - L AR ANE GA, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2302

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D. C. No . CR- 0 3 - 2 1 1 2 M V) S c o tt M . D a v id so n , A lb u q u e rq u e , N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. K enneth J . G onzal es , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efor e B RI S CO E , M c CO NNELL , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge. J or ge Torr es - L ar anega w as t he l eade rof a r atherbr aze n drug- tr aff i cki ng r i ng t hatt r ans por t ed mul t i
- t on quant i t i es of m ar ij uana i n tr act ort r ai l er s fr om t he s out hw es t ern U ni t ed St at es t o t he C hi cago a r ea. D es pi t e fourgovernm ent s ei zur es of M r . T or r es - L ar anega ’ s t r act ort r ai l er s i n a fourm onth per i od ( the- 2 -

r es ul tof a feder al i nform antw or ki ng w i thi n hi s oper at i on) , M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as act i vel ypl anni ng y etanotherdrug s hi pm entw hen the governm entarr es t ed hi m and hi s confe der at es . Fol l ow i ng a j ur ytr i al , M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as convi ct ed forengagi ng i n a cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e ( “C C E ”) underthe “drug ki ngpi n” s t atut e, as w el l as forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e 1, 000 k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f

m a riju a n a . See 21 U . S. C . §§ 848( a) , 841( a) ( 1) and 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A ). M r . T or r es - L ar anega r ai s es onl ytw o i s s ues on appea l , both s eeki ng r ever s al of hi s C C E convi ct i on. Fi r s t , he as s er t s thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s j uryi ns truct i ons i m pr oper l yl ow er ed the governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof on the “s ubs t ant i al i ncome” e lem e n t o f

th e C C E c h a rg e . S e c o n d , h e c o n ten d s in su fficie n t ev id e n c e e x ists to s ugges tt hathe per s onal l yobt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces fr om the ent erpr i s e. Forr eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e di s agr ee a nd thus aff i r m the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I T hi s cas e bega n on A pr i l 7, 2003, w hen l aw enfor cementdet ai ned Y ol anda A l ar con, a comm er ci al t ruck dr i ver , on herw ayfr om E l Pas o, T exas , t o L as C ru c e s, N e w M e x ico , su sp e c tin g th a t h e r tru c k h a d re c e n tlyb e e n in v o lv e d in t r ans por t i ng a l oad of mar ij uana. T r i al T r . 373- 75. I n the cour s e of that encount er , M s . A l ar con admi t t ed thats he w as i nvol ved i n a s i gni fi cantdrugt r aff i cki ng oper at i on and s he eve ntual l yoffe r ed t o s erve as a pai d governm entB ey o n d the fac ts r ec it ed h ere , o u r de cisi o n s o n the a p p ea ls of tw o o f M r. 1 T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a ’s c o n fe d e ra te s c o n ta in a d d itio n a l d e ta ils a b o u t th e e n te rp ri s e . See Un itedS ta tes v . Me n d ivil , N o . 0 5 -22 7 1 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 5 9 8 3 0 1 (10 th C ir . D e c . 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) (u n p u b .); Uni t ed Stat es v. D i az , N o. 05- 2348, 2007 W L 10752 (10 th C ir . Jan . 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) (un p u b . ).

- 3 - i nform ant . A n ei ght
- m ont h i nves t i gat i on l eadi ng t o the eve ntual arr es tof 14 i ndi vi dual s fol l ow ed. 1 The E nter prise Fr om 2001 unt i l J une 2002, M s . A l ar con w or ked l egi t i m at el yas a l i cens ed t ruck dr i ver . D ur i ng J une 2002, s he fi r s tm etM r . T orr es - L ar anega , t he e n te rp ri s e ’s ri n g le a d e r a n d a w e a lth ym a n w h o o w n e d tw o s ig n ific a n t h o m e s , a pl ethor a of l uxur yvehi cl es , and y etw ho, author i t i es l at erl earned, fi l ed no t ax r etur ns for2001, 2002 or2003. T r i al T r . 656, 1655- 58. A w ar e of hi s l i ne of
w or k, M s . A l ar con as ked a f r i end t o i ntr oduce he rt o M r . T or r es - L ar anega i n t he hope of be i ng offe r ed a j ob t r ans por t i ng nar cot i cs beca us e s he thoughti tw oul d be “good, eas ym oney . ” Id. at661. M r . T or r es - L ar anega pr oved r ece pt i ve and s t at ed thathe w oul d payM s . A l ar con $13, 000 - $20, 000 foreverys ucce s s ful tra c to r tra iler lo a d o f

n a rc o tics d e liv e re d f ro m th e so u th w e ste rn U n ited S tate s to th e C h ic a g o a re a . Id. at662. T hatveryday , M s . A l ar con agr eed t o dr i ve a t r act ort r ai l erforM r . T or r es - L ar anega fr om E l Pas o t o L as C ruces i n r etur n for $ 8 0 0 . Id
. a t 6 6 3 -6 7 .- 4 -

A few m ont hs l at er , i n A ugus torSept emberof 2002, M r . T or r es - L ar anega as ked M s . A l ar con t o t r ans por ta tr act ortr ai l erthathe ow ned fr om E l Pas o t o a ra n c h h o u s e in L a s C ru c e s (t h e “ ra n c h h o u s e ” ). Id. at670- 72. A tthe r anch h o u s e , M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a a n d h is a s s o c ia te s lo a d e d th e tru c k w ith d ru g s . Id. at 676- 77. A tM r . T or r es - L ar anega ’ s i ns truct i on, M s . A l ar con then moved t he truck f ro m th e ra n c h h o u s e to a tru c k s to p a ls o in L a s C ru c e s . Id. a t 6 7 7 . A confe der at e t ol d M s . A l ar con thatthe l oaded truck w as ther eaf t erdr i ven fr om L as C ruces t o C hi cago, and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthi s tr act ortr ai l er , and the l oad o f d ru g s it h e ld , fa ile d to re a c h its in te n d e d d e s tin a tio n . Id. a t 6 8 0 . A round M arch of 2 00 3, M s. A l arcon w as asked to ass i stM r. T orr esL ar anega ’ s oper at i on w i t h anotherdrug run, thi s t i m e s t ar t i ng ata s t as h hous e on Par kerR oad i n L as C ruces ( t he “Parkers t as h hous e”) . T he Parkers t as h hous e, forw hi ch M r . T or r es - L ar anega pai d the r ent , s erved as a s t agi ng poi ntfor
m a riju a n a o ri g in a tin g in J u a re z , M e x ic o . Id. a t 6 8 0 -9 0 . C a rs f ro m Ju a re z w o u ld d e liv e r d ru g s to th e P a rk e r sta sh h o u se ; th e n , ins id e th e h o u se , co n sp ira to rs w o u ld packa ge the mar ij uana i nt o bundl es and l oad them i nt o tr act ortr ai l er s heade d for C h ic a g o . Id. at687- 88. I n m i d- M ar ch of 2003, M s . A l ar con per s onal l yobs erved a t rai l er s he h ad p revi ou sl ydri ven being l oad ed w i th b un dles atthe P arkerst ash h o u s e . Id. at689. W i t hi n a coupl e of da y s , M s . A l ar con’ s s on M emo, an ac t i ve p a rticip a n t in th e e n terp rise , told h e r th a t h e a n d M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a to o k th is
v e ry tru c k to C h ic a g o . Id. at 69 5 -96 . M em o rem aine d in C h icag o w ith M r.- 5 -

T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a fo r a w e e k . Id. A gai n, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatanyof the d ru g s tr a n s p o rt e d w e re s e iz e d b ya u th o ri tie s . M s . A l ar con w as har dl yt he onl ydr i verempl oy ed byM r . T or r es - L ar anega . Ju a n A n to n io B a rra z a e x p lain e d to M s. A lar c o n in Ju ly2 0 0 3 th a t h e a n d h is br ot herhad r ece nt l ydr i ven a l oad of mar ij uana f r om E l Pas o t o C hi cago, and that M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a p a id M r. B a rr a z a a n d h is b ro th e r $ 7 ,0 0 0 fo r t h e tr ip . Id. at 765- 77; 772- 73. E vi dence obt ai ned byl aw enfor cementcorr obor at es thi s tr i p and s u g g e s ts it o c c u rr e d in e a rl yJ u ly o f 2 0 0 3 . See i d. at2283- 87; E x. 187 ( fi ct i t i ous bil l of ladi ng used thatt ri p); E x. 74 1 at 11-20 (conv ers at i on s w i th M r. T orr esL ar anega and other s di s cus s i ng a tr aff i c ci t at i on r ece i ved byM r . B arr aza dur i ng the tri p ); E x . 9 5 2 (traffic c it ati o n fo r M r. B arraz a d ated Ju ly3 , 2 0 0 3 ). I n ear l yA pr i l 2003, M r . T orr es - L ar anega as ked M s . A l ar con t o m ove y et a n o th e r t ru c k f

ro m E l P a s o to th e ra n c h h o u s e in L a s C ru c e s . T ri a l T r. 6 9 8 -7 0 1 . M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a p a id M s . A la rc o n $ 1 0 0 0 fo r t h is d ri v e . Id . at701. T he
r out e, how ever , r equi r ed M s . A l ar con t o pas s thr ough a D epart m entof T ra n s p o rt a tio n (“ D O T ” ) i n s p e c tio n s ta tio n ju s t o u ts id e o f L a s C ru c e s . Id. a t 7 0 3 . D ur i ng a r out i ne s t op, t he D O T offi cernot i ced thatthe bi l l of l adi ng M s . A l ar con pr es ent ed s ugges t ed s he w as carry i ng 18 w as her s w hen he obs erved onl y16
w a s h e r- s iz e d b o x e s in th e tr a ile r. Id . at707. H i s s us pi ci ons w er e conf i r m ed
w hen he a cci dent al l yfel l on t op of a box a nd di s cover ed i tw as empt y– ther e w as n o w a s h e r w ith in . Id. W h ile th e re w e re n o n a rc o tic s in th e tr a ile r a t th a t tim e , a- 6 -

law e n fo rc e m e n t n a rc o tics d e tec tio n d o g a ler ted o ffice rs th a t th e re h a d re c e n tly b e e n n a rc o tic s in th e tr a ile r. Id. at353- 54, 710. T he D O T offi certhen br ought M s . A la rc o n in fo r q u e s tio n in g a n d d e ta in e d h e r fo r s e v e ra l h o u rs . Id. a t 7 1 0 . M s. A larco n ev en tuallytold the o fficers ab o u t M r. T o rres-L ara n eg a’s oper at i on and heri nvol vementi n the tr ans port at i on of nar cot i cs beca us e s he “w as n’ tgoi ng t o l os e [he r ] s i x- y ear - ol d s on, for– t hat . ” Id. a t 7 1 0 -1 1 . S u b s e q u e n tly, M s . A la rc o n a g re e d to s e rv e a s a p a id c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a n t. Id. at711, 2375- 76. U nbeknow ns tt o M r . T or r es - L ar anega , fr om thatpoi nton, al l of M s . A l ar con’ s deal i ngs w i t h hi m w er e underthe w at ch of the Feder al B ur eau of In v e s tig a tio n (“ F B I” ). Id. at2361- 62. The S eizures andA rres t On M a y1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , M s . Al a r c o n i n fo r me d Ag e n tAn d r e w Ar mij o o f th e F BI t hatone of M r . T or r es - L ar anega ’ s henchmen, E dgarL opez- H ernandez , as ked her t o m ov e a part i al l y“l oad ed” p urpl e t ract or trai l er for hi m sel f and M r. T orr esL a ra n e g a . Id. at156, 722- 28. Speci fi cal l y , M s . A l ar con w as t o m ove the truck ar ound L as C ruces ( fr om a truck s t op t o an aut o r epai rs hop and then bac k t o the t ruck s t op) i n or dert o compl et e the truck’ s l oad of mar ij uana be for e i t s s hi pm ent N o rt h . Id
. at724- 28. A tt he r epai rs hop, agent s obs erved the r earcar go door s of th e tr a ile r o p e n a n d in d iv id u a ls w o rk in g a ro u n d th e v e h ic le . Id. a t 2 3 6 3 , 2 3 7 2 . S h o rtlyth e re a f

ter , an o th e r p a rticip a n t in th e e n terp rise , M a rtin M e n d iv il, pr ocee ded t o t ake the tr act ort r ai l ernor thbound t ow ar d C hi cago. A ta perm anent- 7 -

U . S. B or derPat r ol chec kpoi nton I nt er s t at e 25, appr oxi m at el y20 m i l es nor th of L as C ruc es, th e trail er w as se arc h ed an d 1 , 4 1 7 k il o g ram s o f m arij u an a w ere s e iz e d . Id. a t 1 6 7 , 2 3 9 . M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a su b se q u e n tlyp a id fo r a n a tto rn e yto r epr es entM r . M endi vi l i n connec t i on w i th char ges ar i s i ng fr om the s ei zur e. E x. 2 9 6 a t 3 -4 . In ear l yJul yof 2 00 3, M s. A l arcon i nfo rm ed A gen tA rm ij o thatM r. T orr esL aranega aske d h er t o d ri ve an othertract or trai l er fr om C hicago t o L aredo, T exas, so that itco u ld b e p ac k ed w ith m arij u an a fo r a return tr ip to C h icag o . T ri al T r. 753. M r . T or r es - L ar anega t ol d M s . A l ar con thathe “gi ve[s ] al l the peopl e ar ound 20, ” Ex. 166f, and w oul d payher$15, 000 t o $20, 000 t o dr i ve the l oad depe ndi ng upon w hetheri tw as a “good l oad. ” Id. at75 5; Ex . 16 6f at 2. M r. T orr esL ar anega s ubs equent l ygave M s . A l ar con $700 t o fl yfr om E l Pas o t o C hi cago on J u l y1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , T r i a l T r . 7 4 1 - 4 2 , a n d a n o th e r$ 1 0 0 t o tr e a th e r s e l f a n d two c o n fe d e ra te s to d in n e r i n C h ic a g o , i d. a t 7 6 9 -7 0 . P rio r to b e g in n in g th e d riv e to T exas , M r . T or r es - L ar anega gave M s . A l ar con an a ddi t i onal $600 t o cover in c id e n ta l tr a v e l e x p e n s e s . Id. a t 7 7 7 -7 8 . A ft erM s . A l ar con compl et ed herpor t i on of the dr i ve, J os e B arr aza m anned t he truck fort he r etur n t r i p fr om T exas t o C hi cago. W hen the truck s t opped for gas i n I ndi ana, a pol i ce offi cerw i th the C hi cago Pol i ce D epart m entappr oache d M r. B a rr a z a a n d re q u e s te d , a n d re c e iv e d , p e rm is s io n to s e a rc h th e tr a ile r. Id. at 1397- 99. D ur i ng t he s ear ch, t he off i ceruncover ed and s ei zed 681 ki l ogr ams of- 8 -

m a riju a n a . Id . at1407- 08. O n M r . T or r es - L ar anega ’ s bi ddi ng and athi s expens e, M r . B arr aza fl ew fr om E l Pas o t o C hi cago i n an att empt t o r etr i eve the truck for M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a . See E x . 2 4 3 . In a rec o rde d co n v ersa ti o n b etw ee n M r. B arr aza and M r . T or r es - L ar anega , M r . B arr aza m akes r efe r ence t o the fa ctthat M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a “ b o u g h t th e [ s e iz e d ] t ra ile r.” E x . 2 8 5 a t 2 -3 . U ndet err ed byt he governm ent ’ s tw o s ei zur es ( s o far ) , M r . T or r es - L ar anega i ns t ruct ed M s . A l ar con t o r egi s t ery etanothertr act ortr ai l er , thi s t i m e a gr ey Fr ei ght l i nerw hi ch M r . T or r es - L ar anega ow ned, underM s . A l ar con’ s name. T r i al T r. 83 5-36. M s. A l arcon p ai d the r egis trat i on fees w i th $ 50 0 thatM r. T orr esL a ra n e g a g a v e h e r fo r t h a t p u rp o s e . Id. at82 6-27. O n July17 , 20 03 , M s. A l ar con ac compani ed M r . T or r es - L ar anega t o hi s hom e i n E l Pas o w her e he
r etr i eved a tl eas t$8, 000 i n cas h t o payfora r efr i ger at ed tr ai l ert o at t ach t o the g re yF re ig h tlin e r. Id. at837- 39. She obs erved thatthe home w as gat ed w i th a lo n g d ri v e w a ya n d a n in d o o r s w im m in g p o o l. Id. a t 8 3 8 . S u b s e q u e n tly, M s . A la rc o n a n d M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a m e t J o e D ia z , a m emberof the oper at i on w ho r egul ar l ys uppl i ed tr act ortr ai l er s t o the ent erpr i s e, in o rd e r t o re p a irth e re f ri g e ra te d tr a ile r p u rc h a s e d fo r t h e g re yF re ig h tlin e r. Id. at 86 6 -68 . O n A u g u st 6, 20 0 3 , a N ew M ex ico P o li ce O fficer p h o tog rap h ed M r. D ia z a n d M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a a tte m p tin g to ju m p s ta rt th e g re yF re ig h tlin e r. Id. at1990- 92, 1995- 97. O n t hats ame day , tw o phone ca l l s w er e i nt er cept ed b e tw e e n v a rio u s m e m b e rs o f th e e n terp rise d isc u ss in g d e liv e rya n d u n lo a d in g a t a- 9 -

hous e i n E l Pas o. E x. 381; 388. I n one ca l l , M r . T or r es - L ar anega di s cus s ed the
v a lu e a n d w e ig h t o f

th e m a riju a n a w ith R a u l E s p in o z a . See E x. 73 4 (M r. T orr esL ara n eg a inq u ir ed , “H o w m u ch is i t go ing to b e? ” M r. E sp ino za rep li ed , “it ’s ei ghthundr ed, i t ’ s al r i ght ? Is i tnot ?” t o w hi ch M r . T or r es - L ar anega r es ponded

“ O f c o u rs e it is d a m n it! T h a t’ s a tr ip ! H u h ? ” ). T h e fo ll o w ing d ay , A u g u st 7, 20 0 3 , in a c o n v ersa ti o n ag ain b etw ee n M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a a n d M r. E sp in o z a , M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a a sk e d M r. E sp in o z a to te ll a m a n th a t “ w e le a v e to d a y , th a t w e a re u n a b le to le a v e y e s te rd a yb e c a u s e . . . w el l , fors m al l i s s ues . ” Ex. 445 at2. L at erthatday , 523 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana w er e s ei zed byl aw enfor cementi n a hous e i n E l Pas o. T r i al T r . 1912- 19; E x. 9 5 1 . O n e o f th e ind ividu als d etaine d w h il e fleeing the re side n ce w as M r. E s pi noza. T r i al T r . 1769- 70. A m on t h lat er, on S eptem ber 9, 20 03 , M r. T orr es- L aranega instruct ed M s. A l ar con t o dr i ve the gr eyFr ei ght l i nerfr om L as C ruces t o E l Pas o t o pi ck up d ru g s fo r a n o th e r j o u rn e yto C h ic a g o . Id. at87 8-81. Th e foll ow i ng day , M s. A la rc o n d id ju s t th a t. Id. a t 8 8 3 ; see also i d. at 20 1 1 . U p o n arriving at a L o v e’s T ruck St op i n E l Pas o, M s . A l ar con w as m etbytw o of hercol l eague s i n the tr a ffic k in g ri n g . Id. at883- 84. Fol l ow i ng M r . T orr es - L ar anega ’ s di r ect i on that M r . D i az w oul d coor di nat e tr avel arr angement s forM s . A l ar con and he r compani ons i n and ar ound E l Pas o, the thr ee of them l eftthe truck s t op t ogether i n M r . D i az’ s per s onal t ruck. E x. 510. Subse quent l y , FB I agent s obs erved- 10 -

a n o t h e rme mbe ro f

t h e c o n s p i r a c yd r i v e th e g r e yFr e i g h t l i n e rt o a war e h o u s e i n El P a s o a n d b a c k it in to a lo a d in g d o c k . T ri a l T r. 1 9 7 0 -7 1 . T hats ame day , Sept ember10, 2003, i n a r ecor ded conve r s at i on, M r . D i az as ked anotherm emberof the oper at i on, C es arM i r amont es , aboutthe l ocat i on of t he gr eyFr ei ght l i nerand i t s s ecur i ty . M r . D i az a l s o i nqui r ed i n code w hethert he drugs had bee n l oaded – t o w hi ch M r . M i r amont es r es ponded, “U PS has s t opped . . . byt her e t o del i verand al l that . ” Ex. 507 at3. T w o day s l at er , the gr eyFr ei ght l i nerw as s ear ched bythe author i t i es i n E l Pas o atthe l ocat i on gi ven b yM r. M ir a m o n te s in h is c a ll w ith M r. D ia z . See T r i al T r . 2017. D ur i ng the s ear ch, M r . T or r es - L ar anega t el ephoned M s . A l ar con and t ol d heraboutthe i nves t i gat i on. E x. 582. H e i ns t ruct ed hernott o ans w erthe phone w hen the p o lic e c a lle d , b u t th a t, if q u e s tio n e d , s h e s h o u ld fa b ri c a te a s to ry. E x . 5 8 2 ; 5 8 3 . H e su g g e ste d sh e tell th e p o lice th a t sh e g a v e h e r tru c k k e y s to a “ Jo se L o p e z ” in order t o d et ai l t he truck . M r. T orr es- L aranega sub sequen t l ycreat ed b usi ness car ds foran aut o det ai l ernamed “J os e Lopez” a nd a fi ct i t i ous r ece i ptfors uch
w o rk , a n d g a v e b o th to M s . A la rc o n . T ri a l T r. 9 0 0 -0 4 . M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as al s o i n cons t antt el ephone c om m uni cat i on dur i ng t he pol i ce s ear ch w i t h G abr i el Fernandez , y etanotherm emberof the r i ng, w ho
r el ay ed a mi nut e- by
- m i nut e ac count i ng of the i nves t i gat i on of the truck. E x. 580; 5 8 2 . D u ri n g a re co rde d co n v ersa ti o n , M r. T o rres-L ara n eg a p rom ised M r. Fer nandez and anotherper s on a bonus of $20, 000 eac h “i f nothi ng happens and- 11 -

everyt hi ng tur ns outal l r i ght . ” Ex. 581. A s i thappene d, how ever , a t ot al of 2, 340 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana w er e found a nd s ei zed byauthor i t i es . E x. 951. R emar kabl y , even a ft ert hi s four th s ei zur e, M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as app arent l yno taw are of t he g ov ernm ent’ s i nv est i gati on and i nst ruct ed M s. A larco n to reg ist er a n d insu re a n o ther tractor trail er in h er n am e to tran sp o rt n arc o ti cs. T ri al T r. at 92 0 -21 . H e a lso p rov ided M s. A larco n w ith $ 1 , 0 0 0 to h ir e an att or neyi n an effor tt o r etr i eve the gr eyFr ei ght l i ners ei zed byfede r al a u th o ri tie s s o th a t it c o u ld b e u s e d in f u tu re d ru g ru n s . Id . at90 7, 24 69 . M s. A l arcon d el i vered t he d ocu m ents rel at i ng t o the sei zed F rei gh t l i ner t o M r. T orr esL a ra n e g a ’s g a te d h o m e in J u a re z , M e x ic o . Id. at909- 10. T he gat ed home w as k n o w n a s “ L a F u e n te ” b e c a u s e it h a d a “ b ig w a te r fo u n ta in ” in f ro n t. Id. at910- 11. A ut hor i t i es fi nal l yarr es t ed M r . T orr es - L ar anega and fi ve of hi s cocons pi r at or s on N ovember19, 2003. Si m ul t aneous l y , the FB I conduct ed a s ear ch o f M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a ’s r e sid e n c e in E l P a so a n d d isc o v e re d se v e ra l d o c u m e n ts r el at i ng t o t he oper at i on, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) document s r egar di ng St al l i on T r ans por t at i on ( a fi ct i t i ous t rucki ng companyes t abl i s hed byM r . D i az) w hi ch l eas ed tw o of the tr act ort r ai l er s s ei zed byauthor i t i es ; ( 2) a tr aff i c ci t at i on for anotherconfe der at e; and ( 3) a l eas e agr eementforone of the s ei zed tr act or tr a ile rs . Id . at 2 2 3 4 -4 5 . M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a w a s s u b se q u e n tlyc h a rg e d w ith C C E , cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , andT he di s t r i ctcour ts ubs equent l yvaca t ed the j ury ’ s ver di cton the 2 c o n s p i r a c yc o u n to n t h e g r o u n d th a ti ti s a l e s s e ri n c l u d e d o ffe n s e o f a CCE c o n v ic tio n . T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o s ent ence d M r . T orr es - L ar anega t o 120 m onths for 3 h is p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o n v ictio n , b u t o rd e re d th is s e n ten c e to run con curr entl yw i t h h i s C C E sent ence. Fi nall y , t he co urtordered M r. T orr esL ar anega t o a t erm of 10 y ear s of uns upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng compl et i on of h is s e n ten c e , an d to p a ya $ 2 0 0 a ss e ss m e n t.

- 12 - p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e 1 , 0 0 0 k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f ma r ij u a n a . On F e b ru a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , af ter a m o n th lo n g trial, th e ju ryre tu rn e d a v e rd ict o f g u ilty on al l count s . M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as s ent ence d t o 240 m onths i n pr i s on, t he 2
s ta tu to ry m in im u m fo r a C C E c o n v ic tio n . See 21 U . S. C . § 848( a) . O ur ju ri s d ic tio n a ri s e s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291. 3 II O n a p p e a l, M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly i ns t ruct ed the j ur yw i t h r es pectt o the “s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces ” el ement of the C C E offe ns e. U nder21 U . S. C . § 848( c) , a per s on i s s ubj ectt o convi ct i on fo r e n g a g in g in a c o n tin u in g c rim in a l en terp rise if: ( 1) he vi ol at es anypr ovi s i on of [the fe der al drug l aw s ] t he puni s hm entforw hi ch i s a fe l ony , and ( 2) s uch vi ol at i on i s a partof a c ont i nui ng s er i es of vi ol at i ons of [the fede r al drug l aw s ] – (A ) w h ich a re u n d e rta k e n b ysu c h p e rso n in c o n c e rt w ith fi ve orm or e otherper s ons w i th r es pectt o w hom s uch p erso n o cc u p ies a p o sit ion o f o rga n izer, a su p erv isory pos i t i on, oranyot herpos i t i on of m anage m ent , and- 13 - ( B) f r o m wh i c h s u c h p e r s o n o b t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l i n c o me or r esources. B ec au se M r. T o rres-L ara n eg a fail ed to o bject t o the d istri ct co u rt ’s C C E jury instruction an d d id n o t pro ffer a co m p eti n g instruction o f h is ow n , w e w il l distu rb the d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t on lyif i ts i n stru cti o n s w ere infec ted b yp lai n erro r; t hati s , M r . T or r es - L ar anega m us ts how thatthe di s tr i ctcour tnotonl ycomm i t t ed err or , butt hats uch err orw as pl ai nl yevi dent ; thati taffect ed hi s s ubs t ant i al
r i ght s ; and thati ts er i ous l yaffect ed the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . Uni t ed Stat es v. B ur bage , 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M r . T or r es - L ar anega cont ends he meet s thi s hi gh s t andar d fortw o r eas ons m er i t i ng m ent i on her e. Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe j uryw as al l ow ed t o fi nd the s u b s t a n t i a l i n c o m e e l e m e n tw i t h o u tp r o o f th a tM r . T o rr e s - L a r a n e g a p e r s o n a l l y – a s o p p o se d to th e d ru g ru n n in g o p e ra tio n g e n e ra lly– o b tain e d th e re q u isite s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 29. A s i thappens , how ever , t he di s t r i ctcourts peci fi cal l yand expr es s l yi ns truct ed thatthe ques t i on befor e the j ur yw as w hethert he defendant– thati s , M r . T or r es - L ar anega hi m s el f – obt ai ned s u b s ta n tia l in c o m e o r r e s o u rc e s . See J ur yI ns truct i on N o. 18 ( the j urym us tfi nd b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t “ th e d e fen da n t obt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome or r es our ces fr om t he s er i es of vi ol at i ons . . . [t ] he governm entm aym eetthe s ubs t ant i al i ncome r equi r ement. . . bydi r ectevi dence of the r evenue s r eal i zed- 14 -

and r es our ces acc um ul at ed by the def endant ” (e m p h a se s a d d e d )). N o m o re is re q u ir e d . Second, and more s ubs t ant i al l y , M r . T or r es - L ar anega char ges thatthe di s t r i ctcourti m pr oper l yfus ed the s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces el ementof Sect i on 848( c) ( 2) ( B ) w i t h t he s epar at e manager i al el ementof Sect i on 8 4 8 (c)(2)(A ), effe cti v elysu b su m ing the fo rm er into th e latt er. A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 6 . W ith resp ec t t o the m an ag erial el em en t of S ec ti o n (c)(2)(A ), the d istri ct co u rt i ns t ruct ed thatt he j ur yhad t o fi nd that t he defendantunder t ook [the s er i es of vi ol at i ons of the fe der al drug l aw s ] i n conce r tw i t h fi ve orm or e otherper s ons w i th r es pectt o w hom t he defendantoccupi ed a pos i t i on of or gani zer , s upervi s or , or m anage r. . . T he t erm “or gani zer , s upervi s or , orm anage r ” means that t he defendantw as m or e than a fel l ow w or kerand thatthe defendant ei t heror gani zed ordi r ect ed the ac t i vi t i es of fi ve orm or e other p e rs o n s , e x e rc is in g s o m e fo rm o f m a n a g e ri a l a u th o ri ty o v e r t h e m . T he defendantneed notbe the onl yor gani zerors upervi s or , and the “ fiv e o r m o re p e rso n s” m a yin c lu d e p e rso n s w h o a re in d ire c tly s ubor di nat e t o t he defendantthr ough an i nt erm edi ary. . . ther e i s no req u ir em en t fo r y o u to find the d efen d an t w as th e d o m inan t org an izer, s upervi s or , orm anage rof the ent erpr i s e. J ur yI ns t ruct i on N o. 18. W i t h r es pectt o the s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces el ementof Sect i on ( c) ( 2) ( B ) , t he courti ns truct ed that [t ] he t erm “s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces ” means i ncome i n m oney orpr opert yw hi ch i s s i gni fi canti n s i ze oramount as di s t i ngui s hed f ro m s o m e re la tiv e ly in s ig n ific a n t, in s u b s ta n tia l, o r t ri v ia l a m o u n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t p ro v e a d e fin ite a m o u n t o f n e t p ro fit –it i s suffici ent t o sho w subst anti al gross r ecei pts , gross i nco m e, or gross expendi tur es forr es our ces . T he governm entm aym eetthe s ubs t ant i al i ncome r equi r ementei t herbydi r ectevi dence of the r evenue s r eal i zed a n d re s o u rc e s a c c u m u la te d b yth e d e fe n d a n t, orby s uch- 15 -

ci r cum s tant i alevi dence as the def endant ’s pos i t i on i n the cr i m i nal organiz at i on and the volum e of dr ugs handl ed by the organiz at i on . Ju ryIn stru c tio n N o . 1 8 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also T r i a l T r . 2 7 2 7 - 2 9 . We under s t and M r . T or r es - L ar anega as es s ent i al l ycont es t i ng the i t al i ci zed port i on of t he l at t eri ns t ruct i on, s ugges t i ng thatbyal l ow i ng the j uryt o fi nd s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces fr om hi s pos i t i on i n the cr i m i nal or gani zat i on i n conj unct i on w ith th e v o lu m e o f

d ru g s h a n d led b yth e o rg a n iza tio n , the c o u rt im p ro p e rly confl at ed tw o s epar at e and di s t i nctel ement s of the governm ent ’ s pr oof. W e dis agree. W e beg i n b yno t i ng that, al tho ug h the defen dan tchall eng es a cl aus e i n one i ns t ruct i on, i n r evi ew i ng an al l eged e rr orw e ar e r equi r ed t o r evi ew a n d a ss e ss th e d istric t co u rt’s ju ryin stru c tio n s a s a w h o le w ith o u t u n d u e e m p h a sis o n a n yp a rt ic u la r c la u s e . See United S tates v. P ark , 4 2 1 U . S . 6 5 8 , 6 7 4 -75 (19 7 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. McC onnel , 464 F. 3d 1152, 1158 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s cas e, th e ju ryin stru c tio n s v iew e d a s a w h o le tra c k e d a n d re c ited e a c h o f th e a p p lica b le s t atut or yel ement s fora C C E convi ct i on; fur ther , theycl ear l yand corr ect l ys t at ed the a p p li ca b le l eg al st an d ard u n d er S ec ti o n (c)(2)(B ) – n am elythat “[ t] h e term ‘su b sta n tial in c o m e o r re so u rc e s’ m e a n s in c o m e in m o n e yo r p ro p e rtyw h ich is sig n ifica n t in siz e o r a m o u n t as d istin g u ish e d f ro m so m e re lativ e lyin sig n ifica n t, in s u b s ta n tia l, o r t ri v ia l a m o u n t.” J u ry In s tru c tio n N o . 1 8 . E ven i f one c oul d pr oper l yexami ne the i t al i ci zed c l aus e of w hi ch the defe ndantcompl ai ns i n i s ol at i on, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s i ns truct i on di d notal l ow t heT o the ext ent that M r. T orr es- L aranega m i gh tbe u nd ers t oo d to sugge st 4 t hatt he cha l l enged phr as e i n J ur yI ns truct i on N o. 18 perm i t t ed the j ur yt o fi nd t he s ubs t ant i al i ncome el ementbyevi dence ei therof the defendant ’ s pos i t i on i n t he or gani zat i on ort he vol um e of drugs handl ed byt he or gani zat i on, he does s o for th e first tim e o n a p p e a l; h a v in g fa iled to p re se n t th is iss u e to th e d istric t co u rt in t he fi r s ti ns t ance , underourpr ece dent s M r . T orr es - L ar anega m us tes t abl i s h that th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t m e re ly er r b u t c o m m itte d p la in e rr o r h e re a s w e ll. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Shaf

f er , 47 2 F . 3d 12 19 , 12 27 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ). T his M r. T orr esL ar anega cannotdo. H i s ar gum entdepends on a mi s cons truct i on of the i ns t ruct i on; t he cl aus e ati s s ue cont ai ns t he conj unct i ve “a nd” – nota di sj unct i ve “or ” – ther ebycl ear l yi nform i ng t he j ur yt hats uffi ci entpr oof of both the defe ndant ’ s pos i t i on andt he vol um e of drugs handl ed byt he or gani zat i on w as r equi r ed. W e ar e obl i ged as a mat t erof l aw t o pr es um e thatt he j uryunder s t ood a n d fo llo w e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d ir e c tio n o n th is s c o re . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A lm ar az , 3 0 6 F . 3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

- 16 - j ur yt o i nfert hatM r . T or r es - L ar anega obt ai ned s ubs t ant i al r es our ces s i m pl yby vi r tue of hi s pos i t i on w i t hi n t he drug- tr aff i cki ng or gani zat i on. B efor e bei ng perm i t t ed t o dr aw an i nfer ence t hatM r . T or r es - L ar anega obt ai ned s ubs t ant i al reso u rce s, the d istri ct co u rtreq u ir ed the ju ryto co n side r b o th the d efen d an t’ s pos i t i on w i t hi n t he or gani zat i on andthe vol um e of drugs handl ed bythe or gani zat i on. T hi s l at t err equi s i t e i s i ndepende ntand addi t i ve t o anythi ng 4
r equi r ed underSect i on ( c) ( 2) ( A ) . I ti s al s o di r ect l ydr aw n fr om l anguage c o n ta in e d in a F ir s t C ir c u it d e c is io n , Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 17 F . 3d 50 2, 50 7 (1st C i r . 1994) , w hi ch w as , i n d icta , quot ed bythi s C our ti n United S tates v. Mayn ard , 2 3 6 F .3 d 6 0 1 , 6 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on, m or eover , m akes good s ens e of the s t atut or yl anguage . Sect i on ( c) ( 2) ( B ) r equi r es t he j ur yt o fi nd thatt he defendantSee Uni t ed Stat es v. Hut chi ng , 7 5 F .3 d 1 4 5 3 , 1 4 5 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (th is 5 C our tw i l l cons i derci r cumst ant i al evi dence i n det erm i ni ng i f the governm enthas p re se n ted su fficie n t ev id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e d e fe n d a n t’s C C E c o n v ictio n ); Welch v. C i t y of P r at t, Kan. , 21 4 F . 3d 12 19 , 12 24 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ) (j urors can u se e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial a lo n g w ith th e ir “ c o m m o n se n se a n d e x p e rie n c e to d ra w su fficie n t in fe re n c e s” ); see also J uryI ns truct i on N o. 6 ( “[Y ] ou m aym ake deduct i ons and r eac h concl us i ons t hatr eas on and comm on s ens e l ead y ou t o dr aw f ro m th e fa c ts w h ic h h a v e b e e n e s ta b lis h e d b yth e e v id e n c e .” ).

- 17 - “obt ai n[ed] s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces , ” butdoes notcomm and the governm entt o r el ys ol el yon di r ectevi dence and does nototherw i s e def i ne the ter m . H e re , as in v irtu a llya ll m a tters a t trial, the d istric t co u rt m e re ly emphasi zed thatt he governm entcoul d pr ove i t s cas e byi ndi r ectorci r cumst ant i al evi dence and w i t h r efe r ence t o j ur or s ’ comm on s ens e. Speci fi cal l y , t he di s tr i ct 5
cour t ’ s chal l enged l anguage perm i t t ed the governm entt o pr ove i t s cas e bas ed on tw o in fe re n c e s: first, th a t an o rg a n iza tio n th a t d e a ls d ru g s in lar g e v o lu m e s is l i kel yt o have “ s ubs t ant i al ” i ncome orr es our ces t o bes t ow on i t s part i ci pant s , and, s econd, t hata per s on w ho hol ds a hi gh- l evel pos i t i on w i thi n s uch an or gani zat i on lik e lyo b tain s a sig n ifica n t sh a re o f th e o rg a n iza tio n ’s in c o m e o r re so u rc e s. B o th of thes e pr opos i t i ons s eem t o us ent i r el yfai thful t o the s t atut or yl anguage and comm on s ens e. U s i ng t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s r eas oni ng i n anothers et t i ng, one mi ght i nferfr om , s ay , t he vol um e of bus i nes s done byt he Trump congl om er at e, and D o n ald T rum p ’s po sit ion as th e h ea d o f th o se e p o n ym o u s b u sine sses , that M r. T ru m p h im s e lf

o b ta in s “ s u b s ta n tia l in c o m e o r r e s o u rc e s ” f ro m th e e n te rp ri s e .M r . T or r es - L ar anega br i efl yar gues t hatt he s ubs t ant i al i ncome el ementof 6 t he offens e i s notcl ear l ydefi ned and thus t he s t atut e s houl d be hel d voi d for v a g u e n e ss . A p p e llan t’s B r. 2 8 . W e h a v e p re v io u slyc o n sid e re d a n d rejec ted th is (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 18 - D ire c t p ro o f

it m a yn o t b e , b u t a p e rm iss ib le a n d c o m m o n se n se in fe re n c e it s u re ly is. T o rejec t th e d istric t co u rt’s in stru c tio n w o u ld , w e th in k , als o se rv e to u n d e rc u t th e v e ryp u rp o se o f th e sta tu te. In o rd e r to b e su c c e ss f u l, an d th u s a v o id det ect i on, drug t r aff

i cker s m us tcamoufl age a l l as pect s of thei rbus i nes s es . T he everevol vi ng “arm s r ace ” betw een drug- tr aff i cki ng ent erpr i s es and l aw enfor cementi ns pi r es and demands drug tr aff i cker s t o become m or e s ophi s t i cat ed in d is g u is in g n o t o n ly th e irtr a ffic k in g a c tiv ity b u t a ls o th e re s u ltin g in c o m e . Awa r e o f

t h i s , Co n g r e s s d e l i b e r a t e l yc h o s e t o l e a v e th e t e r m “ s u b s t a n t i a l i n c o me orr es our ces ” undef

i ned and i ti s pr es um ed t o be aw ar e of the l aw ’ s backgr ound
n o rm th a t, i n su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, th e p h ra se w ill b e re a d b yju ro rs a n d c o u rts a lik e in a c c o rd w ith c o m m o n s e n s e in fe re n c e s f ro m d a ily life . See F. T. C
. v. Kuy ke n da ll , 4 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ T h e sta rtin g p o in t in i n t e rp r e t i n g a s t a tu t e mu s tb e t h e l a n g u a g e e mp l o y e d b yCo n g r e s s , a n d we a s s u me t hatt he l egi s l at i ve purpos e i s expr es s ed bythe or di narym eani ng of the w or ds us ed. ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) . T o r equi r e the governm entt o pr ocee d agai ns tdrug t r aff i cker s onl yw hen theycan pr ove r ece i ptof s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces by
m eans of m or e di r ect pr oof w oul d be t o di s r egar d thi s pr i nci pl e. 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 lin e o f a rg u m e n t, a n d w e a re b o u n d b yth a t r e s u lt. See Uni t ed Stat es v. D i ckey , 7 3 6 F .2 d 5 7 1 , 5 8 8 n .7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (th e ter m “ su b sta n tial in c o m e ,” re a d in its s t atut or ycont ext , does not“fa i l t o adequa t el yw arn an i ndi vi dual of the cr i m i nal co n seq u en ce s o f h is acti o n ”). S e e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . Za v a la , 839 F. 2d 523, 527 ( 9th C i r . 1988) 7 (hol ding t hat the lar ge q uan t i t yof co cai ne tr afficked b yt he ap pell ant’ s ent erpr i se w ith a se lli n g p ric e o f o v e r $ 6 3 ,0 0 0 p e r k ilo g ra m p ro v id e d su fficie n t ev id e n c e to in fe r th a t “th e a p p e llan t ea rn e d su b sta n tial in c o m e f ro m th e e n terp rise ” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C ha gra , 669 F. 2d 241, 257 ( 5th C i r . 1982) ( defe ndant ’ s att ai nm ent t hr ough t he ent erpr i s e of s ever al ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and a l ar ge quant i tyof m a riju a n a , w h ich w o u ld h a v e b ro u g h t “a h a n d so m e re tu rn ” if n o t se ize d , w o u ld alon e h av e b ee n su ffici en t t o p rov e the su b stan ti al i n co m e o r reso u rce s elem en t) , `over r ul ed on othergr ounds , G ar r et tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 7 1 U . S . 7 7 3 (19 8 5 ); United S tates v. K i rk , 534 F. 2d 1262, 1278 ( 8th C i r . 1976) ( hol di ng thatevi dence of the defendant ’ s r ol e “a s t he l eade rof a l ar ge and a ct i ve nar cot i cs di s tr i but i on cons pi r acy ” w hi ch di s t r i but ed “l ar ge quant i t i es of her oi n and dea l tw i th s uffi ci ent m oneyt o be abl e t o s end age nt s t o N ew Y or k and C al i forni a t o buyher oi n” s uffi ci entt o perm i tt he j ur yt o fi nd defe ndantobt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome or (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 19 - W e fi nd i tnot ew or t hy , t oo, thatw e ar e fa rfr om al one i n r eac hi ng the concl us i on w e do t oday . C i r cui tcour t s acr os s the countryfac ed w i th thi s i s s ue h a v e ru le d a s w e d o , a n d w e h a v e b e e n c ite d to n o c o n tr a ry a u th o ri ty. See Hahn , 17 F. 3d at507 ( hol di ng t hatt he s ubs t ant i al i ncome el ementm aybe metby “ci r cumst ant i al evi dence [of] t he defendant ’ s pos i t i on i n the cr i m i nal or gani zat i on a n d th e v o lu m e o f

d ru g s h a n d led b yth e o rg a n iza tio n ” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C hur ch , 955 F. 2d 688, 697 ( 11t h C i r . 1992) ( evi dence that“the or gani zat i on r eape d appr oxi m at el y$140, 000 [perm i t t ed the j uryt o] r eas onabl yconcl ude thatthe s upervi s or s and manager s of s uch a l ucr at i ve oper at i on der i ved i ncome fr om i t ”) (qu o tat ion o m itted). 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 reso u rce s fro m the o p era ti o n ) vacated i n par ton othergr ounds , 723 F. 2d 1739 (1 9 8 3 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Sis ca , 5 0 3 F .2 d 1 3 3 7 , 1 3 4 5 -4 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 4 ) (ju ryc o u ld i nfert he defendantr ece i ved s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces w her e the defendant w as t he “ope r at i onal ki ngpi n” of a nar cot i cs di s tr i but i on netw or k tr aff i cki ng an “enorm ous quant i t yof nar cot i cs ” and “ s ubs t ant i al s um s of m oney ” cha nged h a n d s ).

- 20 - III E v e n if th e ju ryw a s p ro p e rlyc h a rg e d , M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a a rg u e s th e re is i n s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e i n t h i s r e c o r d t o s h o w t h a th e “ o b t a i n [ e d ] s u b s t a n t i a l i n c o me orr es our ces ” fr om a “c ont i nui ng s er i es of vi ol at i ons . ” See 21 U . S. C . § 848( c) (r epri nted abo ve). W e, of co urse, revi ew such ch al l eng es de novo , but , outof resp ec t fo r th e jury ’s ve rdict an d the d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t, in d o ing so w e a re r equi r ed t o r evi ew t he fa ct s i n t he r ecor d i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the p re v a ilin g p a rt y , h e re th e g o v e rn m e n t. See Alm ar az , 306 F. 3d at1040. A tt he o uts et , w e ask w hat i s the rel evan t“con t i nu i ng ser i es of v i olat i on s” s ubj ectt o ourr evi ew . T he Supr eme C our thas i ns truct ed thatthe governm ent need notpr ove thata C C E defe ndantobt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces f r o m each v iolati o n that co m p ri ses th e re leva n t seri es; rathe r, w e a re told, th e jury need f i nd onl yt hatt he def

endantobt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces fr om th e s e ri e s o f

v io la tio n s v ie w e d a s a w h o le . See Uni t ed Stat es v. R i char ds on , 526 U . S. 813, 823 ( 1999) . T he C our ti n R i char ds on di d l eave open, how ever , the qu est i on w hetherj uryun anim i t yi s r equ i red on w hich act s const i tute “vi olat i on s”T o hel p di s pel doubt s aboutw hi ch vi ol at i ons t he j ur ycons i der ed partof 8 th e c o n tin u in g se rie s, th e d istric t co u rt’s s p e c ial v e rd ict fo rm re q u ire d th e ju ryto fi nd t hatt he governm entpr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubteac h el ementof the C C E char ge as “s etfor t h i n I ns t ruct i on N o. 18. ” V er di ctat2. I ns truct i on N o. 18, i n tur n, i dent i fi ed thos e ac t s char ged i n C ount s 2 ( cons pi r acy ) and 3 ( pos s es s i on) (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 21 - form i ng t he r equi s i t e s er i es forpurpos es of the s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces a n d m a n a g e ri a l c o n tr o l e le m e n ts . Id. at823- 24. I n A lm ar az , w e h eld th at th e jury i s notl i m i t ed t o cons i der i ng as vi ol at i ons m aki ng up the r equi s i t e “c ont i nui ng s e ri e s ” o n ly th o s e a c ts fo r w h ic h it r e tu rn s a u n a n im o u s g u ilty v e rd ic t. See 306 F. 3d at1037- 39. B ound t hough as w e ar e bythes e hol di ngs , atl eas tone further ques t i on does r emai n unr es ol ved: w hethereac h of the vi ol at i ons cons t i tut i ng t he

“ c o n tin u in g s e ri e s ” m u s t b e s e p a ra te ly an d s p e c ific a lly a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. See i d. at1039- 1040. B ut , as i n A lm ar az , w e b e liev e th e re so lu tio n o f th is p a rt ic u la r q u e s tio n c a n b e le f t fo r a n o th e r d a y . Id. I n the ca s e befor e us , the i ndi ctm ents peci fi cal l ychar ged thatthe vi ol at i ons of l aw cons t i tut i ng the c o n tin u in g c rim in a l en terp rise in c lu d e d : ( i ) pos s es s i on of m ar ij uana w i th an i nt entt o di s tr i but e; (ii) f ro m Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 2 th ro u g h N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , co n sp irin g to pos s es s m ar ij uana w i t h an i nt entt o di s tr i but e; and ( i i i ) pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e the mar ij uana found i n eac h o f th e fo u r t ra c to r t ra ile rs s e iz e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. See I ndi ctm entat1- 2. Forpurpos es of thi s appea l , w e l i m i tourr evi ew of the suffici encyof the evidence to these specifi cal l ycharged viol at i on s. 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 of the i ndi ctm entas vi ol at i ons of the fe der al drugs l aw s w hi ch w er e partof the c o n tin u in g s e ri e s . See I ns t ruct i on N o. 18 at1. T hus , as i n A lm ar az , ita p p e a rs in th is c a se th a t th e d istric t co u rt w e n t b e y o n d w h a t R i char ds on r equi r es and e ffe c tiv e lye n su re d ju ryu n a n im ityo n e a c h “ v io latio n ” sp e c ifica llyid e n tifie d in th e in d ictm e n t.

- 22 - I n doi ng s o, w e al s o beari n m i nd that , i n cons truct i ng Sect i on 848( c) ( 2) ( B ) , C ongr es s di d notr equi r e pr oof of the defendant ’ s neti ncome aft er d e d u c tio n s fo r e x p e n se s a n d o u tlay s; ra th e r, itin stru c ted u s to e x a m in e o n ly
w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t o b tain e d su b sta n tial “ in c o m e ,” a w o rd w h ich is o rd in a rily
u n d e rs to o d to e m b ra c e g ro s s re c e ip ts . See D i ckey , 7 3 6 F .2 d a t 5 8 8 (“ [ I]t is s uffi ci entt o s how s ubs t ant i al gr os s r ece i pt s , gr os s i ncome orgr os s expendi tur es fo r re so u rc e s.” ); see also Webst er’s Th i rd New Int ernati on al D i ct i on ary 1143 ( 2002) ( i ncome i s “the val ue of goods and s ervi ces r ece i ved byan i ndi vi dual i n a g iv e n p e ri o d o f

tim e ” ). L i kew i s e, C ongr es s i ns t ruct ed thatSect i on ( c) ( 2) ( B ) can be s at i s fi ed not on l yw i t h p roof o f “i nco m e” bu tal so “res ou rces , ” a w ord t hat deno t es not j ust m o n e ta ry re c e ip ts b u t a ls o th in g s in k in d . See Webs t er ’s Thi r d New Int er nat i onal D i ct i on ary 1934 ( 2002) ( t he def i ni t i on of r es our ce e ncompass es “i m m edi at e and p o ss ib le s o u rc e s o f

re v e n u e [ : s u c h a s ] r ic h n a tu ra l” re s o u rc e s (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) . T hus , t he fa ctt hata defendanthas noty etr eal i zed the monet aryval ue as s oci at ed
w i t h hi s orhers t ock- i n- t r ade i s i m m at er i al foras s es s i ng w hetherhe ors he has obt ai ned “s ubs t ant i al . . . r es our ces . ” I ndeed, w e do notdoubtthatanys i gni fi cant- 23 -

r et ai l erhas “s ubs t ant i al r es our ces , ” i f noti ncome, t i ed up i n i t s s t ocked
m e rc h a n d ise . W h o c a n q u e stio n th a t th e to n s o f m e rc h a n d ise sittin g o n sh e lv e s in anyW al
- M arthave s i gni fi cantval ue and a r e cons i der ed bythe company , and any W al l S t reetanaly stfor that m at t er, t o b e subst anti al res ou rces ? S o long as a
r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d i nferfr om the pr oof pr es ent ed thatthe defendant ’ s drug s t ockpi l e w as i t s el f obtai nedt hr ough t he al l eged c ont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e – th a t is , “ g a in [ e d ]” o r “ a tta in [ e d ]” th ro u g h th e e n te rp ri s e , s ee Webs t er ’s Thi r d New Int ernati on al D i ct i on ary 1559 ( 2002) – Sect i on ( c) ( 2) ( B ) i s s at i s fi ed w hetheror n o t th e m o n e ta ry v a lu e o f th o s e re s o u rc e s w a s e v e r r e a liz e d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Herrer a-R i vera , 2 5 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 9 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (“ M o n e yo r d ru g s a re b o th ‘re so u rc e s’ w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e [ C C E ] sta tu te.” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. G r az i ano , 7 1 0 F .2 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 7 -9 8 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ), cer t . deni ed , 466 U . S. 937 ( 1984) ( hol di ng t hatm ar ij uana i s a “r es our ce” and thatthe defendant“obt ai ned” c ons truct i ve pos s es s i on of a “ s ubs t ant i al ” amountof thi s r es our ce w hen he a rr anged forthe tr an sp o rt ati o n o f 4 , 8 0 0 p o u n d s o f m arij u an a f rom S o u th C aro li n a to N ew Y o rk C ity ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Henders on , N o . 0 2 -34 2 6 , 7 8 F ed . A p p x . 9 1 , 9 3 (10 th C ir . O ct . 15, 2003) ( unpub. ) ( hol di ng thatdrugs pur chas ed w i th m oneyfr om pr i or d ru g d e a ls c o n s titu te “ re s o u rc e s ” ). H er e, t he j ur yhad befor e i tampl e evi dence thatM r . T or r es - L ar anega obt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces fr om the conduc tchar ged i n the in d ictm e n t. F o r e x a m p le, th e ju ryre c e iv e d e v id e n c e o f fo u r se p a ra te in c h o a te- 24 -

t r ans act i ons i n w hi ch the governm ents ei zed a l m os t5, 000 ki l ogr ams w or th of
m a riju a n a f

ro m M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a ’s e n terp rise . E v id e n c e w a s a lso p re se n ted to t he j ur yt hat , pur s uantt o the cons pi r acychar ged as partof the cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e, M r . T or r es - L ar anega acqui r ed fordi s tr i but i on vas tquant i t i es of
m a riju a n a th ro u g h d ru g c o u ri e rs tr a v e lin g in to th e U n ite d S ta te s f ro m M e x ic o . See supra at4. T he j ur yw as fr ee t o i nferthatthe 5, 000 ki l ogr ams of drugs s ei zed byt he governm entw er e obt ai ned byM r . T or r es - L ar anega i n thi s m anner and, t hus , t hatM r . T or r es - L ar anega “obt ai ned, ” “ga i ned” or“att ai ned” s ubs t ant i al
r es our ces t hr ough a vi ol at i on char ged i n the i ndi ctm entas partof the cont i nui ng c ri m in a l e n te rp ri s e . See s upr a a t 2 3 (c o llec tin g c a se s); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Webs t er , 639 F. 2d 174, 182 ( 4t h C i r . 1981) ( hol di ng that“gi ven the quant i tyof drugs w hich w ere s ho w n to have been m ov i ng i n an d o ut of [the d efen dan t ’s ] pos s es s i on, t he j ur yw oul d have be en j us t i fi ed i n concl udi ng thatthe defendant h a d re c e iv e d ten s o f

th o u sa n d s o r e v e n h u n d re d s o f th o u sa n d s o f

d o llars f

ro m h is d ru g b u s in e s s ” ). T he j ur yal s o r ece i ved evi dence of atl eas tthr ee s ucce s s ful drug runs m ade byt he ent erpr i s e dur i ng t he cour s e of the cons pi r acyal l eged a s partof the c o n tin u in g s e ri e s o f

v io la tio n s . See sup ra at3- 5, 21 n. 8. T w i ce M s . A l ar con o b s e rv e d la rg e q u a n titie s o f m a riju a n a d e p a rt f

ro m L a s C ru c e s b o u n d fo r C h ic a g o . Id. T h e re w a s a lso e v id e n c e th a t in e a rlyJu lyo f 2 0 0 3 , M r. B a rra z a a n d h is br ot hers ucce s s ful l ydel i ver ed a l oad of mar ij uana i n a comm er ci al tr act ortr ai l er- 25 -

to C h ic a g o o n b e h a lf

o f M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a . See sup ra at5. T hi s i s m or e than s uffi ci entas a mat t erof l aw ; i ndeed, evi dence of s ubs t ant i al i ncome r es ul t i ng fr om a s i ngl e s i gni fi cants ucce s s ful tr ans act i on i n a s er i es of vi ol at i ons can, s ta n d in g a lo n e , s a tis f

yth e C C E s ta tu te . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez , 940 F .2 d 1 4 1 3 , 1 4 2 4 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 0 2 U . S . 1 0 4 7 (19 9 2 ). I n addi t i on, M s . A l ar con t es t i fi ed thatt he goi ng r at e fordr i vi ng tr act or t r ai l er s ful l of m ar ij uana forM r . T or r es - L ar anega dur i ng the cour s e of the cons pi r acyw as $13, 000 - $20, 000 perdel i very . M r . T or r es - L ar anega di d i n fac t payM s . A l ar con, M r . M endi vi l , M r . B arr aza and other s , t hous ands of dol l ar s for d ri v in g tru c k s a n d re la te d tr a n s p o rt a tio n e x p e n s e s . See sup ra at 3-9 . M r. T or r es - L ar anega fur t herpr om i s ed bonus es of $20, 000 t o M r . Fernandez and anotherco- cons pi r at ori f the pol i ce di d nots ei ze a t r act ort r ai l erful l of
m ar ij uana. St i l l fur t herevi dence s ugges t ed thatM r . T orr es - L ar anega ow ned at l eastt w o tr act or trai l ers i nv olved i n the traffi cking. A nd , of co urse, M r. T orr esL a ra n e g a p a id fo r th e leg a l b ill s o f M r. M e n d iv il w h e n h e w a s a rre ste d w h ile t r ans por t i ng m ar ij uana, as w el l as t he cos t s as s oci at ed w i th effor t s t o r etr i eve se ize d tra c to r tra ilers f ro m law e n fo rc e m e n t au th o rities . W e h a v e p re v io u slyh e ld th a t ev id e n c e o f

su c h sig n ifica n t ex p e n d itu re s b ya d e fe n d a n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith hi s orherdrug oper at i on s uppl i es a s uffi ci entbas i s fora j ur yt o i nfert he d e fe n d a n t’ s re c e ip t o f s u b s ta n tia l in c o m e o r r e s o u rc e s f ro m a d ru g e n te rp ri s e . See United S tates v. R i vera , 837 F. 2d 906, 924- 25 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng that- 26 -

evi dence s ol el yof defendant ’ s l ar ge ca s h expendi tur es r el at i ng t o the drug ent erpr i s e – paym entt o empl oy ees tr ans por t i ng drugs and expe ndi tur es forl ar ge t r ans por t at i on equi pm ents uch as ai r cr aftand trucks – s uffi ci entt o m eetthe s u b s ta n tia l in c o m e o r r e s o u rc e s e le m e n t) , vacated i n par ton othergr ounds , 874 F . 2 d 7 5 4 (19 8 9 ). M r. T o rre s-L a ra n e g a re sp o n d s to th is p a rticu lar p o in t b ysu g g e stin g th a t h is expendi tur es “on beha l f of the or gani zat i on” w er e “bus i nes s expens es ” and thus c a n n o tb e u s e d e v e n a s c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e th a th e a t t a i n e d s u b s t a n t i a l i n c o me orr es our ces fr om t he ent erpr i s e. B ut , t o putthi ngs i n pr opercont ext , w e fe el compel l ed t o s t at e the obvi ous : M r . T or r es - L ar anega w as the b usi ness. T hat i s, fr om t he evi dence adduce d att r i al , a r eas onabl e j ur ors ur el ycoul d have concl uded thatM r . T or r es - L ar anega w as , i n es s ence , the “bus i nes s ’ s ” ow nerand pr i m arybenef

i ci ary . Fur t her , t he “bus i nes s ” di d nothave the i m pr i m aturof any s t at e orot herauthor i t ycapa bl e of be s t ow i ng i tw i th an i ndepende ntl egal exi s t ence ; w hat everas s et s ori ncome – orexpens es – “the bus i nes s ” had or in c u rr e d w e re n e c e s s a ri ly th o s e o f M r. T o rr e s -L a ra n e g a h im s e lf. Fi nal l y , nei t herM r . T or r es - L ar anega norhi s w i fe f i l ed anyt ax r eturns for t he y ear s 2001, 2002 or2003. Y et , M r . T or r es - L ar anega ow ned tw o hom es , one w i t h an i ndoors w i m m i ng pool , and var i ous l uxuryvehi cl es . G i ven the vol um e of drugs underhi s contr ol , t he evi dence of pr i ors ucce s s ful runs , the as s et s he pos s es s ed, t he moneyhe expe nded i n ai d of the ent erpr i s e, and the l ack of- 27 -

ev iden ce o f M r. T o rres-L ara n eg a h av ing an ylegiti m ate job , the ju ryv ery r eas onabl ycoul d have i nferr ed thattr aff i cki ng drugs w as hi s ful l t i m e, and r ather l ucr at i ve, occupa t i on dur i ng t he per i od of t i m e enc om pas s ed bythe cons pi r acy char ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . T hi s t oo s uffi ces t o s uppor tthe j ur y ’ s ver di ctunder S e c tio n (c )( 2 )( B ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 1 1 6 F . 3 d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 8 8 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is n o t re q u ire d to p re se n t sp e c ific a m o u n ts ea rne d fro m the c o n sp ir ac y ; “th e jurym ayinfer su b stan ti al i n co m e f rom o u tw ard ev iden ce o f w ea lth in the ab sen ce o f o ther, l eg it im ate so u rce s o f in co m e” ),
r eve rs ed on othergr ounds , 1 6 1 F .3 d 2 5 6 (1 9 9 8 ) (e n b a n c ); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Es cobar

- D e Je s us , 187 F. 3d 148, 174 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) (j uryent i t l ed t o concl ude t hatdefe ndantobt ai ned s ubs t ant i al i ncome orr es our ces w her e evi dence demonstr at ed thatfora four
- y earper i od the defendantm ade e xpendi tur es of over $238, 000 forw hi ch no i ncome sour ce c oul d be i dent i fi ed; i n one y ears pent $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 in c a s h ; a n d h a d a n e t w o rt h o f o v e r o n e m illio n d o lla rs ). t t t T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED .