FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 22 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 04- 1203 4

________________________ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 10 01 6- CR-J LK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALVENIS ARIAS-IZQUIERDO, EDUARDO JAVIER MEJ IA MORALES, NEUDIS INFANTES HERNAND EZ, YAINER OLIVARES-SAMON, ALEXIS NORNEILLA MORALES, MIAKEL GUERRA-MORALES, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

________________________ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (M ay 2 2, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. BAR KE TT , C ircuit Judg e:Aer otaxi is an airline owne d and oper ated by the Cuban Civil Aviation S y stem. 1 2 T his c as es ari se s f

ro m the hij ac kin g of

a n a ir cr af

t bo und fo r H av an a fr om N ue vaG er ona , Cu bathat w as div erte d to K eyW es t, F lorida . A ppe lla nts Alvenis Arias-Izquierdo, Eduardo Javier Me j ia Morales, Ne udis Infantes He rnandez, Ya iner O livares-Sa m on, A lexis Norneilla Morales, and Miakel Guer ra Mor al es w er e tr ie d on f

our c ount s pe rt ai nin g to the hij ac kin g of the pla ne : ( 1) conspiracy to commit aircra ft piracy , in violation o f 49 U. S. C. §§ 46 502(a)(1)(A ), (a )( 2) (A ), a nd 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 (“ Co unt 1” ); ( 2) a ir cr af

t pi ra cy , in vio la tio n of

49 U . S. C. § 46 502( a) (1 )( A ) (“ Co unt 2” ); ( 3) c onsp ir ac y to int er fe re w ith af lig ht cr ew , in vio la tio n of

49 U . S. C. § 46 504 an d 18 U . S. C. § 2 (“ Co unt 3” ); a nd ( 4) in te rfer en ce wi th a fl ig htcrew, i n v io la ti on of 4 9 U.S.C. § 46 50 4 (“ Co un t 4 ”). E ac h appe lla nt n ow appe al s hi s c onvi ct ion , a nd H erna nde z, N or ne ill a- Mor al es , an d G ue rr a Mor al es a lso appe al the se nte nc e im pose d bythe dis tr ic t c ourt. I. BACKG ROUND T he gov ernm en t pr es en te d e vid en ce a t tri al de m onstratin g th at on M ar ch 19, 2003 , the six appe lla nts board eda n A er ota xi D C- 3 a ir cr af t sc he dul edto fl y to 1 H av an a, Cu baf

ro m N ue vaG er ona , atow n lo ca te d on aCu ba n is la nd k now n a s th e Isle of Y outh . Ale xis Norneilla-Morale s boarded the flight alon g with his wife an d y oung c hil d. N or ne ill a- Mor al es ’ s c ousi n, Me j iaMo ra le s, board edthe pla ne3

w ith his w if

e an d daught er . N or ne ill a- Mor al es ’ s br oth er G ue rr a- Mor al es a nd co usi n O liv ar es -S am on b oth board edw ith the ir w ive s. H erna nde z an d A ri as Izq ui erd o, n ei th er o f who m is rel at ed to Norn ei ll a-M or al es , bo ard ed alo ne . The governm ent presented evidence that several of the appellants entered the c oc kpi t bykno ck ing dow n th e door , a nd tha t N or ne ill a- Mor al es he ld a kni fe to the pilot ’ s throat and told him to head north to Miami. T he governm ent presented ev ide nc e tha t se ve ra l of

the appe lla nts ti edup the r em ai nin g c re w m em be rs a nd he ld kniv es a nd a n e m er ge nc y a xe thr ough out the f lig ht. The F lorida Air Na tional Guard w as m onito ring the radar scr een at T indel Air Force Base in Pa nam a City , F lorida on the evenin g in qu estion, and after observing the aircr aft m ake a 90 degree turn north, approxim ately 12 seconds after its tr an spon de r start edto em it the 750 0 hi

j ac k si gna l, “ sc ra m

ble d” f igh te r j et s to int er ce pt the a ir cr af

t. C ap ta in A da m

L an gst on r es pond edf

ro m H om es te adA ir Fo rc e Ba se , pic ke d up the D C- 3 e mitt ing the 750 0 si gna l, int er ce pte d th e ai rc ra ft , an d e sc orte d it

to the K eyW es t a irport. Af ter the air plane landed in Key W est, the a irplane wa s m et by law en fo rc emen t of

fi ce rs , w ho i nte rr oga te d th e ap pe llants . U . S. Bo rd er P atro l A ge nt Ke rryHe ck testified that Norneilla-M orales told him he had planned for over a y ear to overtake an aircr aft by force in order to go to th e U nited States and had4

re cruit ed“ the oth er

f ive . ” H e sta te d th at

aw ee k be fo re the Marc h 19 f lig ht, he ha d pl ac edkni ve s in aduf fe l ba g, w hic h he pa sse d th ro ugh the w ind ow of the ai rp or t b at hr oo m

to so m eo ne in si de who hi d t he ba g i n t he ba th ro om cei li ng . N or ne ill a- Mor al es r etri ev edthe duf fe l ba g di re ct lybe fo re the f lig ht a nd p as se d th e kniv es to others just prior to boarding. Norneilla- Morales signaled the takeover w he n he sa w the li ght s of H av an a an d br oke dow n th e door to the c oc kpi t. A ge nt H ec k te sti fi edthat G ue rr a- Mor al es tol d hi m he ha d be en inv olv edin the take ove r pla n f

or six m onths, that othe rs w er e inv olv ed , a nd tha t pu rs ua nt t o a pr earr an ge d si gna l, he ha d st ood up a nd p ull edout his kni fe . H is r ole w as to guardthe c re w . G ue rr a- Mor al es e xpl ai ne d th at the kni ve s ha d be en pla ce d in a duf fe l ba g a nd h idd en in the a irport bathr oom , that t w o pe rs ons ha d br ough t the kni ve s pa st s ec ur ity , a nd tha t he ha d be en giv en akni fe pr ior to board ing . U . S. Bo rd er

P atro l A ge nt G or don So lis te sti fi edthat M ej iaMo ra le s to ld h im tha t pl an nin g f

or the e ve nt h adstart edf

our or f ive m onths a go, but

he w as not

in ch ar ge . H e ha d be en giv en akni fe , w hic h he hidin the ba ck of his pa nts , a nd the oth er s a lso ha d kn ive s. H is r ole w as to sta y ne ar the c oc kpi t. FBI Special A gent Anthony Russo testified at trial that the Ke y W est police ha d re co ve red fiv e k ni ve s an d s ev eral sh eat hs th atha d b een th ro wn o n t he tar m ac. T w o m or e she aths w er e fo und on the a ir cr af t du ri ng the se ar ch , a lon g w ith a5

ha tc he t, c or d a nd t ap e tha t ha d be en use d to bin d th e cr ew , ar ole of tape , a nd the battered-in cockpit doo r. The appellants’ def

ense at trial c entered on the theorythat the entire cr ew wa s “ in” on the plan to divert the aircr aft to Miami. N orneilla-Morales testified tha t he ha d be en appr oa ch edby aMi ch ae l D e laN ue z an d bythe c o- pil ot o f the fl igh t, G ust av o S al as Cl eg er , to pla n asta ge d hi j ac kin g a s am ea ns o f re ac hin g th e U nit edS ta te s a nd o bta ini ng p oli tic al a sy lum . N or ne ill a- Mor al es te sti fi edthat c opil ot C le ge r de sig ne d th e take ove r pla n, a nd tha t C le ge r en sur edthat the a irpla ne w oul d ha ve e noug h f

ue l t o r ea ch Mi am

i, pr oc ur edthe appe lla nts ’ ti ck et s, a nd en ab le d th em

to boardw ith kni ve s. N or ne ill a- Mor al es c la imedthat he ne ve r he ld a kni fe to the Capta in’ s th ro at be cause it

w as unn ec es sary , a s th e Capta in w as in on the plan. He explained the testim ony of the cre w mem bers who testified ag ai nst the appe lla nts a s ari sin g f ro m the c re w ’ s c onc erns about r ep er cu ssi ons ba ckin Cu baif t he y were t o b e impl ic at ed in th e st ag in g o f a h ijack in g. Guer ra-M orales testified at tria l as we ll. H e stated that his broth er, N or ne ill a- Mor al es , tol d hi m about the pla n to take ove r an A er ota xi f lig ht t o ge t t o the United States. G uerra- Morales never met D e L a N uez or Cleger . GuerraMor al es te sti fi edthat a ft er the y board edthe pla ne , he ga ve tw o kn ive s to N or ne ill a- Mor al es , w ho t ook the m up t o th e co ckpit , a nd thr ee kni ve s to6

He rnandez and Arias-Izquierdo, but at no p oint d id he see any one hold ing a knife to the crew , a nd his own knife re m ained sheathed throu ghou t the flight. G uerraMorales explained that he and Norneilla-Mora les had planned to tie up the crew as part of the “ show , ” w ith sho e la ce s or dr aw string s on the ir

und er w ear or

ba thi ng su it s. O n r eb utt al , c o- pil ot C le ge r te sti fi edthat he ha d ne ve r se en the appe lla nts be fo re t he da te of t he fli gh t. He d en ie d k no win g No rn ei ll a-M or al es or De La N ue z, de nie d th at

he ha d in struc te d appe lla nts in an y w ay , a nd d en ie d th at he ga ve Nor ne il la -Mo ral es a co m pa ss . A t the c onc lus ion of

the tr ia l, the j ur y c onvi ct edA ri as -I zq uie rd o of Co unt II, Olivare s-Sam on and Mejia Morales of Counts I, II, and III , a nd NorneillaMor al es , H erna nde z, a nd G ue rr a- Mor al es of a ll fo ur c ount s of the sup er ce din g ind ic tmen t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d th e fo llo w ing se nte nc es : A ri as -I zq uie rd o to 250 m onth s’ incarce ration, three y ears’ supervised release, and a $100 sp ecial as se ssmen t; O liv ar es -S am on a nd M ej iaMo ra le s to 240 m onths’ inc ar ce ratio n a nd thr ee y ears ’ sup er vis edr el ea se a s to e ac h of Co unt s I , I I, a nd I II , a ll to run co nc urre ntl y , in ad dit ion to a $300 spe ci al a sse ssmen t; H erna nde z to 2 40 m onths’ inc ar ce ratio n a nd thr ee y ears ’ sup er vis edr el ea se a s to e ac h of the f our Co unt s, a ll to run c onc urre ntl y , a nd a $40 0 sp ec ia l a sse ssmen t; an d N or ne ill a- Mor al es a ndWhether the re cord c ontains sufficient e videnceto support a g uiltyverdic t is reviewe d de 2 novo. United States v. Calderon, 127 F .3d 1314, 1324 (11th Cir. 1997). We view the e vidence in a light most favor able to the g overnme nt and the jury ’s ver dict, with all rea sonable infe renc es and cr edibilitychoice s made in the g overnme nt’s favor . I d. Be causeArias- I zquierdo did not int ro du c e a ny

e vid e nc e fo llo wi ng his Rul e 29 motion , th e su ff ic ie nc y of thee vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m must be evaluated solely

in terms of the proof

prese nted in the g overnme nt’s case -in-chie f. United States v. Thomas, 987 F .2d 697, 702-03 (11th Cir. 1993). 7 G ue rr a- Mor al es to 292 m onths’ inc ar ce ratio n a nd thr ee y ears ’ sup er vis edr el ea se as to each of t he fou r Co un ts , to run co nc ur ren tl y , and a $4 00 sp eci al ass es sm en t. A ll six appe lla nts now r ai se ti m el y appe al s c ha lle ngi ng the ir c onvi ct ion s a nd se nte nc es on a

vari et y of

gr ound s, w ith e ac h appe lla nt a dopt ing the arg um en ts o f hi s co -ap pe ll an ts pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 2 8( i). II. D ISCU SSION A . A ri as- Iz qu ie rd o A ri as -I zq uie rd o w as c onvi ct edof Co unt I I, a ir cr af

t pi ra cy , a nd a cq uit te d of Co un ts I, III, an d IV. He ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on forair craf t p ira cy on two ground s. F irst, he argues that the gov ernm ent failed to present sufficient evidence to co nv ic t h im

of a irc raftpi racy or as an aid er an d a be tt orof a irc raftpi racy. Se co nd, he arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edw he n it de nie d hi s m oti on f

or mistri al r el at ing to a fa lse state m en t bythe pr ose cu tor during c los ing arg um en ts. 1. S ufficiencyof the E vidence 2 In order to convict Arias-Izquierdo of air craf t piracy , the governm ent was8

re qui re d to pr ove : ( 1) ase iz ur e of, or e xe rc ise of

c ontro l ov er , a n a ir cr af

t, ( 2) by m ea ns o f fo rc e, vio le nc e, thr ea t of f or ce or vio le nc e, or

a ny f or m of int imida tio n, (3) w ith wrongful intent, (4) w hen that the aircra ft w as within the special juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s. See 49 U.S.C. § 4 65 02 . W e ha ve our

dou bts a s to w he the r the gov ernm en t pr ove d th at A ri as Iz qui er do h im se lf

se iz edor e xe rc ise d c ontro l ov er

the a ir cr af

t. H ow ev er , the gove rn m en t di d no t ne edto pr ove A ri as -I zq uie rd o’ s gu ilt a s apr inc ipa l be cause it suc ce ssf ull y de m onstrate d A ri as -I zq uie rd o’ s gu ilt a s a n a ide r an d abe tto r, w hic h is sufficient to supp ort the convictio n. S ee 18 U. S. C. § 2(a) ( “ W hoever commits an of fe nse a ga ins t the U nit edS ta te s or a ids , abe ts, c ouns el s, c omm an ds, ind uc es or pr oc ur es it s co mmis si on , is pu ni sh ab le as apri nc ip al .”). In or de r to p ro ve a ir cr af

t pi ra cyund er

athe or y of

a idi ng a nd abe tti ng, the governm ent was r equired to prove that (1) the aircr aft pirac y offense w as co mmitt edby someo ne , ( 2) A ri as -I zq uie rd o c ommitt eda n a ct w hic h c ontri but edto an d f urthe re d th e of

fe nse of a ir cr af t pi ra cy , a nd ( 3) A ri as -I zq uie rd o in te nde d to a id its c ommiss ion . S ee 18 U . S. C. § 2; se e al so U nit edS ta te s. v. W al se r, 3 F . 3d 3 80, 387 (1 1th Ci r. 199 3) . T he gov ernm en t w as not r eq uir edto pr ove that A ri as Iz qui er do p artic ipa te d in e ac h e le m en t of the sub sta nti ve of

fe nse in or de r to h old him li ab le a s a n a ide r an d abe tto r. U nit edS ta te s v. S el le rs , 871 F . 2d 1 019, 102 2B othAria s- I zqu ie rd o andtheg ov e rn me nt e xpla in i n th e ir brie fs that th e rewe repr ob le ms 3 at trial with the translators and the c ourt reporter. Ga rcia testified that Aria s-I zquierdo car ried a kn if e , b ut G arc ia

a lso app e ars , f

ro m th e tr a ns c ri pts , to ha ve te sti fi e d at on e po int that A ri a sI zquierdo and Gue rra -Mora les ca rried ax es rather than knive s. Arias-I zquierdo arg ues that beca use the only

wea pons on the airc raf

t werefive knives and one air cra ft emer g ency axe that the jury could not rea sonably

have c oncluded that hewas a rmed at all. Howeve r, the jury could have rea sonably

conclude d from Ga

rcia ’s testimony , taken a s a whole, that Arias-I zquierdo was armed with a dang erous, sha

rp-e dg ed we apon during the cour se of the hijac king, r eg ardle ss whether that wea pon was a knife or ax e. 9 (1 1th Ci r. 198 9) . A ri as -I zq uie rd o a dmits that the gov ernm en t pr es en te d su ff ic ie nt e v i d e n c e t o e s t ab l i s h t h a tt h e c r i me o f a i r p i r a c y wa s c o mm

i t t e d b y som eo ne . In ste ad , he arg ue s th at

the gov ernm en t f

ai le d to pr ove that he a sso ci at edhim se lf w ith the c ri mina l ve ntu re a nd c ommitt eda n a ct in fu rthe ra nc e the re of . B as edon the r ec or d, w e re

j ec t this c ont en tio n. T he a ir cr af

t st ew ar d, A bil io H erna nde z- G ar ci a, te sti fi edthat A ri as Iz qui er do s too d on the f

ir st s ea t of

the a ir cr af

t, w al ke d th ro ugh the a ir cr af t ho ldi ng a kni fe or a n a xe , a nd o cc as ion al lyw al ke d to the r ear of the a ir cr af

t t o sp eak w ith 3 H erna nde z an d G ue rr a- Mor al es , w ho w er e guard ing the c re w . A cc or din g to G ar ci a, A ri as -I zq uie rd o a nnou nc edto the pa sse nge rs that the y sho uldr em ai n seated and that noth ing was going to happen to any one. T his testim ony wa s co rr obor at edby pa sse nge rs A m au ri S ilv a Bare daa nd T an iaD ie gue z Sa nta na , both of w hom ide nti fi edA ri as -I zq uie rd o in c ourt a nd t es tif ie d th at A ri as -I zq uie rd o announ ced to the passengers that they did no t wa nt any problem s, and that they10

jus t wan te d t o re ach th e Uni te d S ta te s. Fu rthe rm or e, O ff

ic er Ma die do t es tif

ie d th at a ft er the a ir cr af

t l an de d, he spok e w ith am an in a gr ee n sh irt a t the doo r of the a ir cr af

t, w ho w as a m ong the defendants in the courtroom . The m an in the green shirt told Office r Madiedo that the y w er e arm edw ith kni ve s a nd the n he lpe d th e m an dr es se d in a ll w hit e to thr ow the kni ve s on the tarm ac . A lth ough O ff ic er Ma die do d id n ot i de nti fyA ri as Iz qui er do a t tri al a s th e m an in the gr ee n sh irt, he didstate that the m an in the green shirt wa s one of the defendants present in court, and photo graphic evidence ad mitt eda t tri al c onf

ir m edthat A ri as -I zq uie rd o w as the onl y de fe nda nt w eari ng a gr een sh irt . W e co nc lud e tha t the j ur y c oul d ha ve r ea sonablyinf er re d th at A ri as Iz qui er do c ommitt eda n a ct w hic h c ontri but edto an d f urthe re d th e of

fe nse of ai rc ra ft pir ac y , a nd i nte nde d to a id i ts c ommiss ion , by w ie ldi ng a sharp w eapon on the f lig ht, by e xc la iming to the pa sse nge rs that the y sho uldr em ai n se at eda nd quiet, and by his admissio n to Off icer Ma diedo th at he and the other hija ckers w er e arm edw ith kni ve s. S ee U nit edS ta te s v. P ab lo- L ugon es , 725 F . 2d 6 24, 626 (1 1th Ci r. 198 4) ( hol din g th at “ a dis pla y of

ada nge ro us w eapon is a suf fi ci en t us e of force and violence for the purpose of hijac king ,” even when a defendant does not int en d to use the w eapon) . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr inArias- I zquierdo’s counsel state d during his closing a rg ument that Offic er Ma diedo neve r 4 ide nti fi e d A ri a s- I zqu ie rd o a s th e ma n intheg re e n s hirt a ndthat se ve ral of theind ivi du a ls photogr aphed a s passeng ers on the airplane “ seem to havesome g ree n in their shirts.” The g ov e rn me nt o bje c te d, statin g that “ [t]he reis n o e vid e nc e of a ny on e e lsewi th a

g re e n s hirt inthi s case .” The district court stated to the jury , “Well, ladies and g entlemen, y ou can look at the pictures. If it is otherwise important, dec ide who has the g ree n shirt on.” Aria s-I zquierdo’s counsel we nt on to admit that Arias-I zquierdo was we aring a g ree n shirt. 11 de ny ing A ri as -I zq uie rd o’ s R ule 29 m oti on. 2. Motion for Mistrial A ri as -I zq uie rd o a lso arg ue s th at his c onvi ct ion sho uldbe r ev er se d be cause the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing his m oti on f or mistri al , w hic h w as ba se d on al le ge d pr ose cu toria l misc ondu ct during c los ing arg um en ts. A ri as -I zq uie rd o al le ge s tw o in sta nc es of

pr ose cu toria l misc ondu ct during c los ing arg um en ts: f ir st, he c ha lle nge s th e pr ose cu tor ’ s st at emen t tha t the e vid en ce sho w edthat A ri as Iz qui er do w as “ the pe rs on w ho m ad e al l the a nnou nc emen ts, a nd this is the pe rs on in the green shirt that also talked to Of ficer Madiedo,” a nd second , he challenges the prosecutor’ s statem ent that “ there is no evidence of any one else with a gre en shirt in th is case. ” A rias-Iz quierdo bases hi s claim of err or on the facts that Of ficer Madiedo never form ally identified Arias- Izquierdo as the m an in the green shi rt , a nd tha t the re e xis te d se ve ra l ph oto gr ap hs d ep ic tin g th e m or e tha n th irty passengers on th e airc raft, several of whom we re w earing shirts with som e gree n in the m . A ri as -I zq uie rd o arg ue s th at the pr ose cu tor

miss ta te d th e ev ide nc e an d 412

vouc he d f

or w itn es se s, so h is c onvi ct ion m ust be r ev er se d. In r ev ie w ing ac la im

of pr ose cu toria l misc ondu ct , w e m ust a sse ss ( 1) whether the challenged comm ents wer e im proper, a nd (2) if so, w hether they pr ej udi ci al lya ff

ec te d th e subs ta nti al r igh ts o f the de fe nda nt. S ee U nit edS ta te s v. Ca s tro , 8 9 F. 3 d 1 4 4 3 , 1 4 5 0 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 6 ). Whe n re v i ew i n g a d ef en d an t ’s

“ vouc hin g” c la im , w e ex am ine w he the r (1 ) the pr ose cu tor pla ce d th e pr es tig e of the gov ernm en t be hin d th e w itn es s bym ak ing e xpl ic it pe rs ona l a ssu ra nc es of the wi t n es s ’s cr ed i b i l i t y, or(2 ) t h e p ro s ec u t o r i m p l i ci t l y v o u ch ed fo r t h e w i t n es s ’s cr ed ibi lit y by im

ply ing that e vid en ce not

f or m al lypr es en te d to the j ur y sup ports the witness’ s testim ony . United States v. Cano, 289 F. 3d 13 54, 1365 (11t h Cir. 2002 ); Ca str o, 89 F . 3d a t 14 57. We f i n d n o m er i ti n Ar i as -I zq u i er d o ’s co n t en t i o n t h att h e p ro s ec u t o r’s sta te m en ts w er e im

pr ope r or pr ej udi ci al . T he gov ernm en t’ s arg um en t tha t A ri as Izquierdo wa s the m an in the green shirt who talked to Off icer Ma diedo was based upon photo graphic evidence depicting Arias-I zquierdo in a green shirt. T he j ury wa s free to determine whether the exhibit s showed any other m en we aring green shirts, whether

Arias-Izquierdo w as one of them or w as the only one, and w hether O ff ic er Ma die do’ s r ef

er en ce to the hij ac ke r in the gr ee n sh irt, w ho, he te sti fi ed , wa s one of the defendants in th e courtroom , c ould have been som eone other thanSe v e r a l o th e r ap p e ll a n ts , in c lu d in g G u e rr a - M o r a le s , a ls o r a is e th is s a mear g u me n t. We 5 addre ss here all of the Appe llants’ claims of er ror with re spect to their right to cr oss-examine the g ov e rn me nt’ s w itn e sse s. 13 Arias-Izquierdo, in ligh t of all the evidence introduced at trial. See United State s v. Y oung , 470 U. S. 1, 16 (1985) (review ing assertion o f prosecutorial miscondu ct ag ai nst the e nti re r ec or d) . A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t err in deny ing Arias-I zquierdo’ s m otion for m istrial based upo n prosecutorial misc ondu ct . B. Edu ardo Javier Mej ia Morales E duard o Ja vie r Me

j iaMo ra le s arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt abuse d it s dis cr et ion w he n it

r ef use d to a llo w the de fe nse to cr oss -e xa mine gov ernm en t witnesses about their m em bership in th e Cuban governm ent’ s Comm unist party as a m eans o f show ing the w itn es se s’ m oti ve s a nd b ia s in te sti fy ing a ga ins t the de fe nda nts . H e ar gue s th at the c ourt vi ola te d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o 5
co nf ro nt a dve rs e w itn es se s byr es tr ic tin g th e sc ope of c ro ss- ex am

ina tio n in a m an n erwh i ch p re v en t ed h i m fr o m ch al l en g i n g t h e b i as es o f t h e g o v er n m en t ’s wit ne ss es . The C onfrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendm ent guarantees crim inal de fe nda nts a n op portun ityto im pe ac h th ro ugh cr oss -e xa mina tio n th e te sti m onyof ad ve rs e w itn es se s. U nit edS ta te s v. Bapti sta -R odr igu ez , 17 F . 3d 1 354, 137 0 ( 11th14

Ci r. 199 4) . T he r igh t t o f ull c ro ss- ex am

inatio n in cr ea se s in im

porta nc e w he re the witness is a chief governm ent witness. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F. 3d at 136 6. I n evaluating a Confrontation Clause violation , w e m ust keep in mind th at

“ [c ] onf ro nta tio n mea ns m or e tha n be ing a llo w edto co nf ro nt the w itn es s phy sic al ly . ” D av is v . A la ska , 415 U . S. 308 , 315 ( 1974 ). T he Co urt he ld i n D av is tha t the Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause r eq uir es ade fe nda nt t o ha ve some oppo rtuni tyto sh ow b ia s o n t he pa rt o f a p ro se cu ti on wit ne ss . Id. Ne vertheless, the right to cross-examination is limited, as “ [t] rial j udges re ta in w ide la titude to im pose r ea sonable li mits on c ro ss- ex am ina tio n ba se d on co nc erns about , a m ong oth er thi ngs, c onf

usi on o f the iss ue s or

int er ro ga tio n th at

is re pe tit ive or

onl y m ar gin al lyr el ev an t, ” an d “ [s ] uc h r es tr ic tio ns are r ev ie w edsol el y fo r ab use of

dis cr et ion . ” Ba

pti sta -R odr igu ez , 17 F . 3d a t 13 70- 71; D e L isi v. Cr osby , 402 F . 3d 1 294, 130 2- 03 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . “ A de fe nda nt' s c onf ro nta tio n ri ght s are sa tis fi edw he n th e cr oss -e xa mina tio n pe rm itt ede xpos es the j ur y to fa ct s suf fi ci en t t o e va lua te the c re dib ili tyof the w itn es s a nd e nable s de fe nse c ouns el to establish a record fr om

which he properlycan ar gue why the witness is less than reliable. ” Baptista-Rodrigu ez, 17 F.3d at 1371. W e m ust therefore r eview w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pe rm itt edthe de fe nda nts to es tabli sh a r ec or d f ro m whi ch th ey co ul d c ha ll en ge th e cre di bi li ty of th e g ov ern m en t’s wi tn es se s.15

T he de fe nda nts ’ the or y of the c as e ce nte re d on the c ont en tio n th at the hij ac kin g w as a n e ve nt s ta ge d w ith the part ic ipa tio n of the a ir cr af

t’ s c re w , a nd thus cou ld nothave constitu ted aircr aft pirac y ; part of this theory explained that the crew could no t openly participate in the staged hijac king because of potential re pe rc uss ion s f

ro m the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t. T he de fe nda nts thu s so ught to cr oss examine the crew m em

bers who testified for the governm ent in order to show that the ir te sti m onyw as bia se d a nd d ic ta te d bythe Cu ba n go ve rn m en t, inc lud ing by Fi de l Ca st ro hi m se lf. T he dis tr ic t c ourt su mm ariz edthe de fe nda nts ’ the or y of the c as e as f

oll ow s:

“ W hat y ou wish to inject, as I understand it throug h this s eries of questions, that they are coming here and not tellin g the truth. T hey are perj uring them selves because they wa nt to curry favor w ith a Comm unist dictatorship and /or because a Co mm uni st d ic ta tor shi p ha s to ld the m to co m e he re a nd p er

j ur e the m se lve s. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt on se ve ra l oc ca sio ns d en ie d th e de fe nse the r igh t t o c ro ss- ex am ine witnesses on their allegiance to the Cuban governm ent’ s Comm unist party as fo undatio n to sho w am oti ve or bia s to li e on the sta nd. T he c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at it w as sus ta ini ng o bj ec tio ns t o th e de fe nda nts ’ que sti ons ab out w itn es se s’ m em be rs hip in the Co mm

uni st p artybe cause he c onc lud edthat l ine of que sti oni ng w as onl y f

or the pur pose of pr ej udi ci ng a nti -C omm

uni st j ur y m em

be rs a ga ins t a16

Co mm un is t wi tn es s. N ev erthe le ss, the c ourt pe rm itt edque sti ons co nc ernin g: ( 1) w he the r Capta in Sa nc he z re ce ive d a ny be ne fi t f ro m the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t or his e m plo y er a s a re sul t of the inc ide nt, ( 2) w he the r Capta in S an ch ez r ec ei ve d a ny pic tur es w ith Fi de l C as tr o, ( 3) w he the r Capta in S an ch ez w as int er vie w edby Cu ba n se cu ri ty of fi ce rs , ( 4) w he the r Capta in S an ch ez e ve r se rv edin the Cu ba n mili tary , ( 5) w he the r Capta in S an ch ez w as thr ea te ne d bya ny one in Cu baint o te sti fy ing a ga ins t the D ef en da nts , ( 6) w he the r Fi de l C as tr o w as pr es en t w he n C uba n se cu ri ty interviewed Captain Sanchez re garding the hi j acking, (7) w hether H ernandezG ar ci a re ce ive d a ny pr om oti ons as ar es ult of his part ic ipa tio n in the tr ia l, ( 8) w he the r co -p ilo t G ust av o A dol fo S al as Cl eg er m et w ith r ep re se nta tiv es of

the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t be fo re te sti fy ing a t tri al , ( 9) w he the r Sa la s C le ge r ga ve te le vis ion int er vie w s to hig h r an kin g of fi ci al s of the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t, inc lud ing F i d e l C a s tr o , a n d ( 1 0 ) wh e t h e r S a l a s C l e g e r

wa s a c c o mp a n i e d a ttr i a l b y a re pr es en ta tiv e of

the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t. T he que sti on p re se nte d is thu s w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt abuse d it s discretion in p rohibiti ng the defendants to question the governm ent’ s witnesses about th eir mem

bership in th e Comm

unist party , notwithstanding the other que sti ons co nc ernin g bi as that the c ourt pe rm itt edthe de fe nse to as k. T he17

de fe nda nts arg ue that the que sti on i s c ontro lle d bythe S upr eme Co urt’ s de ci sio n in United States v. Abel, 469 U.S . 45 (1984), in w hich the Court held th at a tria l co urt pr ope rl y a dmitt ede vid en ce pe rt ai nin g to ade fe nse w itn es s’ s mem be rs hip in the A ry an Br oth erhoodbe cause “ [a ] w itn es s’ a nd a part y ’ s c omm on mem

be rs hip in a n or ga niz at ion , e ve n w ith out pr oof that the w itn es s or

part y ha s pe rs ona lly ad opt edit s te ne ts, is ce rt ai nlypr oba tiv e of bia s. ” Id . a t 52 . T he de fe nda nts arg ue that if m em

bership in an organi zation m ay be rele vant as evidence of the bias of a de fe nse w itn es s, it

m ust a lso be r el ev an t a s e vid en ce of the bia s of

agov ernm en t w itn es s, part ic ularl y be cause of the S ixth A m en dm en t C onf ro nta tio n C lause co nc ern s at st ak e. W e conclude, howe ver, that Abel is disting uishabl e fr om the case a t bar be cause the m er e fa ct

of m em be rs hip in the A ry an Br oth erhoodne ce ssari ly im plied a willingness to commit perj ury on behalf of one of a w itness’s “ brothers”; in o the r w or ds, ly ing on b eh al f of af el low m em

be r w as one of

the de fi nin g te ne ts of one ’ s mem

be rs hip in the Br oth erhood . S ee id. a t 54 ( “ T he a ttribu te s of the A ry an Br oth erhood– ase cr et pr iso n se ct

sw or n to pe rj ur y a nd s el f- pr ote ct ion – bor e dir ec tlynot

onl y on the f

ac t of bia s bu t a lso on the sou rc e an d stre ngth of Mi lls ' bia s. T he te ne ts o f thi s gr oup show edthat M ill s ha d apow er fu l m oti ve to sla nt h is t es tim onytow ar ds r es pond en t, or e ve n c ommit pe rj ur y outri ght . ”) . T he18

Co urt he ld tha t the na tur e of the A ry an Br oth erhoodor ga niz at ion m ad e te sti m ony re gard ing the w itn es s’ s mem be rs hip part ic ula

rl y pr oba tiv e; thu s, the low er c ourt i n Abel did not abuse its discretion when it conducted the balancing inqui ry , under Fe de ra l R ule of

E vid en ce 403 , be tw ee n th e pr oba tiv e an d pr ej udi ci al qua lit ie s of th e ev id en ce atis su e. In thi s c as e, the w itn es se s’ m em be rs hip in the Co mm

uni st p artydidnot , by definition , im

pugn their cre dibil ity . Mem bership in a pol itical party , byitself, doe s no t ne ce ssa

ri lysig nif y a ny thi ng about

ape rs on’ s truth fu lne ss a nd i s th us distin guish able from

“ a secr et prison sect sworn to perj ury and self-protection.” Id . a t 54 . F urthe rm or e, the dis tr ic t c ourt pe rm itt edthe de fe nda nts to que sti on the governm ent’ s witnesses concerning their potenti al biases in term s of, inter alia, the ir m ee tin gs w ith Co mm

uni st o ff ic ia ls i n C uba , w he the r the y f el t pr es sur edby the Cuban gov ernm ent to testify in a certain m anner, and whether they rec eived an y be ne fit s o r pr om ot io ns fro m th e g ov ern m en t i n e xc ha ng e fo r th ei r te st im on y . In a ddi tio n, the de fe nda nts c ro ss- ex am ine d th e gove rn m en t w itn es se s on the reason for there being sufficient fuel in the aircra ft to reac h Florida, the pre sence of nautical charts for South Florida on th e airc raft, and alleged discrepancies be twee n t he ir t es ti m on y at t ria l an d t he ir s ta te m en ts as d es cri be d i n a n F BI re po rt. The def endants were not permitted to present a j ustification d efense ( i.e. , that theyTh e dis tric t c ou rt g rante d th e g ov e rn me nt’ s u no pp os e d r e ne we d mo tio n inlim ineto 6 prec lude the def

endants fr om raising the af firmative de fense s of dure ss, nece ssityor justification, and pre vented the de fendants from introducing evidenc e re g arding the difficult ec onomic and political living conditions in Cuba. The g rant of this motion in li mine is not being c halleng ed on app e a l. 19 w er e j ust if

ie d in hij ac kin g th e ai rc ra ft in or de r to c om e to the U nit edS ta te s to es cape ar ep re ssi ve r eg ime) , but w er e pe rm

itt edto “ ex pose [] the j ur y to fa ct s 6 suf fi ci en t t o e va lua te the c re dib ili tyof the w itn es s” or

to “ es tabli sh a

r ec or d f ro m which [they ] properly [could] argue w hy the witness is less than reliable.” Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F. 3d at 137 0-71. A ccordingly , having review ed the rec ord as aw hol e, w e hol d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse it s di sc re tio n in dis al low ing the que sti ons dir ec tlyinq uiring int o C omm uni st p artym em

be rs hip . C. N eudis Inf

antes He rnande z N eu dis I nf

an te s H erna nde z ar gue s th at : ( 1) the gov ernm en t f ai le d to pr es en t suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ion s; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing his m oti on t o e xc lud e a Cu ba n go ve rn m en t do cu m en t w hic h w as a summ aryprepare d for the trial r ather than an officia l record; ( 3) the district court er re d in r ef usi ng t o gr an t H erna nde z a mistri al a nd s ev er an ce a ft er aBruto n v i o l at i o n b y t h e g o v er n m en t ; (4 ) t h e d i s tri ctco u rterre d i n d en yin g He rn an d ez ’s re que ste d j ur y ins truc tio ns a nd v er dic t f or m ; ( 5) he w as de nie d af ai r tr ia l be cause of the c um ula tiv e ef fe ct of e rr one ous ru lin gs b y the dis tr ic t c ourt; an d ( 6) theUnlike Aria s-I zquierdo, Hernandez does not arg ue that he did not havea we apon, but 7 seems to be a

rg uing that he did not actually use it. He c ites in support Bar reda ’s testimony

that Hernandez did not hold the knife “in a threatening manner ” while hedistributed snacks, but rathe r held it in a “pr otective” manner . Howeve r, the flig ht steward, G arc ia, testified that ea rlier in the fl ig ht, He rn and e z ind e e d u se d h is knif e to thr e a te n G arc ia

a s h e wa s b e ing tie d u p. Ev e n if He rn a nd e z didno t w ie ld the we apo n ina thr e a te nin g way

tow ard s th e pa sse ng e rs , h e didso towards the c rew . Furthermore , even if he did not actua lly

use the knife , the fa ct that he thr e a te ne d to kil l G arc ia

if he re sis te d is su ff

ic ie nt u nd e r 4 9 U .S. C. § 46 50 2. Se e Pablo -L ug on e s, 72 5 F .2 d 6 24 (h old ing that th re a te nin g to u se a dang e ro us we apo n, e ve n if it i s n e ve r a c tually used, is a suff

icient use of f

orceand violenceto convict for aircraft pirac y ).

20 dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin se nte nc ing H erna nde z in v iol at ion of the E igh th A m en dm en t pr oh ib it io n a ga in stcru el pu ni sh m en t. 1. S ufficiencyof the E vidence H e r n a n d e z wa s c o n v i c t e d b y th e ju r y o f a l l f o u r c o u n t s –a i r c r a f

tp i r a c y, co nspi ra cyto co mmit ai rc ra ft pir ac y , int er fe re nc e w ith af lig ht c re w , a nd conspiracy to interfere with a f lightcre w. T he evidence at trial dem onstrated that H erna nde z, li ke A ri as -I zq uie rd o, w ie lde d akni fe in or de r to m ai nta in s ec ur ityon the f lig ht. G ar ci a te sti fi edthat a s he appr oa ch edO liv ar es -S am on, H erna nde z an d Guer ra-M orales grabbed him

from behind, pressed a knife to him , pushed him fac e dow n on the f

loo r of the c ab in, w arne d hi m

that he w oul d be kil le d if he r es ist ed , boun d his hand s behind him , a nd left him on the floor. G arcia

stated that H erna nde z re m ai ne d a t the r ear of the c ab in, guard ing the c re w , f or m ost of the fl igh t. P as se nge r Barr ed a te sti fi edthat H erna nde z dis tr ibu te d sn ac ks t o th e passengers while holdin g a long kn ife. 721

W ith r es pe ct

to ai rc ra ft

pir ac y , H erna nde z ar gue s th at he didnot

se iz e or ex er ci se c ontro l of

a n a ir cr af

t, a s r eq uir edby 49 U . S. C. § 46 502, be cause he onl y ac te d to se cu re the a ir cr af t st ew ar d, G ar ci a, didnot ha ve ar ole in the se cu ri tyor control of the aircra ft, and never entere d the cockpit. He rnandez ar gues that be cause Co ngr es s pa sse d tw o se parate pr ovi sio ns –one f or a ir cr af t pi ra cya nd o ne for interfe rence with the perform ance of a flight crew m em

ber, see 49 U. S. C. § 465 04 – Congress di d not in tend for the aircr aft pirac y statute to be used against persons who interac t only with the flight crew during a flight and never en te r the c oc kpi t. W e find the relevant distinction betwee n aircra ft piracyand interfer ence w ith af lig ht c re w m em

be r to b e the a ct

of the de fe nda nt r athe r tha n th e ide nti ty of th e v ic ti m

– § 46 50 2 p ro hi bi ts th e “ se iz in g o r ex erci si ng co nt ro l o f an air craf t . . . by f or ce , vio le nc e, thr ea t of

f or ce or vio le nc e, or

a ny f or m of int imida tio n, ” w hil e § 46 504 crimina liz es “ as sault ing or int imida tin g af

lig ht c re w m em

be r or f lig ht at te nda nt o f the a ir cr af

t” in a m an ne r tha t “ int er fe re s w ith the pe rf or m an ce of

the dut ie s of the m em be r or a tte nda nt o r le sse ns the abil ityof the m em be r or a tte nda nt to perform

those dut ies . . . .” T here is no supp ort for H ernandez’ s assertion that the obj ec t of

ade fe nda nt’ s f

or ce , vio le nc e, or

int imida tio n m

ust be dir ec tlya nd ex cl usi ve lythe pil ot o f an a ir cr af t. S ee , e . g. , U nit edS ta te s v. Co m pto n, 5 F . 3d22

358 (9 th C ir . 199 3) ( hol din g th at de fe nda nt’ s de liv ery of

athr ea te nin g no te to fl igh t a tte nda nt w as suf

fi ci en t t o a tte m

pt a ir pir ac y be cause he “ se t i n m oti on a ch ai n of e ve nts that he m

ust ha ve int en de d to a ff

ec t the c ap ta in o f the pla ne ” an d because “ the statute does no t require a specific intent”). T he governm ent proved that Hernandez used inti midation and threats of violence to m aintain control o ver the passenger cabin of the aircr aft, in a m anner meant to influence the flight plan an d th e pil ot, thu s th e gove rn m en t pr ove d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce of

H erna nde z’ s gu ilt unde r the pla in l an gua ge of § 46 502. H erna nde z ne xt arg ue s th at the gov ernm en t di d no t pr ove suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e to c onvi ct

him of c onsp ir ac y to co mmit ai rc ra ft pir ac y . T he e le m en ts o f the of fe nse of c onsp ir ac y are : ( 1) a n a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e de fe nda nt a nd o ne or m ore persons, ( 2) the objec t of which is to do either an unlawful ac t or a law ful act by un la wfu l m ean s. Un it ed Sta te s v . Tol er, 1 44 F.3d 14 23 , 14 26 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

“ Be cause the c ri m e of

c onsp ir ac y is ‘ pr ed omina ntl y m en ta l i n c om posi tio n, ’ it

is frequently necessaryto resort to circum stantial evidence to prove its elements.” Id . ( quot ing U nit edS ta te s v. S haba ni, 513 U . S. 10, 16 ( 1994 )) . T he gov ernm en t i s the re fo re not

r eq uir edto de m onstrate the e xis te nc e of a“ fo rm al a gr ee m en t, ” but m ayins te adde m onst

rate by c ir cu m sta nti al e vid en ce am ee tin g of the mind s to commit an unlawful act. Id. Proof that the ac cused committed an act w hich23

furthered the purpose of the conspiracy is an exam ple of the ty pe of circ um stantial ev id en ce t he go ve rn m en t m ay in tro du ce t o p ro ve th e ex is te nc e o f ag reem en t. United States v. Sullivan, 763 F.2d 1215, 1218 -19 (11th Cir. 1985). He rnandez ar gues that the go vernm ent presented no evidence that H erna nde z ag re edto part ic ipa te in the c ri m es of a ir pir ac y a nd i nte rf

er en ce w ith a flight crew m em

ber because ther e w as no evidence that the crim es we re pre pla nne d. W e co nc lud e, how ev er , that the j ur y r ea sonablyc oul d ha ve inf er re d f ro m the r ap id e xe cu tio n of

the hij ac kin g, w ith e ac h de fe nda nt s pr ing ing int o a ct ion upon asig na l f

ro m N or ne ill a- Mor al es , that the c ri m e ha d be en pr e- pla nne d a nd tha t e ac h de fe nda nt h ada gr ee d to part ic ipa te by a cc ep tin g th ose ins truc tio ns. T he gove rn m en t pr es en te d su bst an tia l e vid en ce de m onstratin g H erna nde z’ s r ole in the co nspi ra cya s ape rs on r es pons ibl e fo r co ntr oll ing the c re w in the pa sse nge r cabin of the a ir cr af

t. T he f lig ht s te w ar d G ar ci a te sti fi edthat H erna nde z re str ai ne d hi m an d re m ai ne d a t t he rearof t he cab in , gu ard in g t he crew. He rnandez also argues that there w as no evidence he agreed to a c onsp iracy to c ommit ai rc ra ft

pir ac y be cause he r es tr ai ne d on lyaf lig ht s te w ar d, thu s hi s restraint did not con tribute to the seizure and control of the aircra ft. How ever, ev en if it w er e not true that G ar ci a w as r es pons ibl e, in part , f or m ai nta ini ng security in the passenger cabin of the aircr aft, Garcia a lso testified that Hernandez24

re str ai ne d a nd g uard edthe f lig ht s ec ur ityguard , the f lig ht t ec hni ci an , a nd the flight engin eer. A ll of the gentlem en restra ined by He rnandez held responsib ilities pertaining to th e securityand phy sical integrity of the airc raft a nd were prevented fr om pe rf or ming tho se dut ie s byphy sic al r es tr ai nt, thu s e nabli ng H erna nde z’ s c oco ns pi rat or s t o c on tro l t he air craf t. From He rnandez’ s actions, the j ury rea sonably could have inferred that H erna nde z ha d a gr ee d to part ic ipa te in co nspi ra ci es to co mmit the c ri m es of aircr aft pirac y and interfer ence w ith a flight crew m em ber. A ccordingly , the c ourt didnot e rr in de ny ing H erna nde z’ s R ule 29 m oti on f or aj udgmen t of

a cq uit ta l. 2. A dmiss ion of

Cu ba n G ove rn m en t D oc umen t H erna nde z ar gue s th at

the c ourt e rr edby a dmitt ing in ev ide nc e a fo re ign re co rd s c ertif

ic at ion a nd r ep ort f

ro m Cu ba naA ir lin es sho w ing that f ive of the de fe nda nts pr ev iou slyha d be en pa sse nge rs on the N ue vaG er ona /H av an a fl igh t, an d in part ic ular, that H erna nde z an d N or ne ill a- Mor al es ha d tr av el edon the f lig ht a m onth prior to the hijac king . The e xhib it is a ty ped docum ent in Spanish enti tled

“ CE RT IF IC O . ” T he doc um en t l ist s th e fl igh ts the D ef en da nts ha d take n on Cubana Airlines in 2002 and 2003 . It w as authenticated at trial by m eans of an acco m pa nyin g d oc um en t en ti tl ed “ CERTIFI CACION DE REGISTROS COMERC IALES EXTRANJEROS,” o r “ CERTIFI CATION OF FOREIGN25

CO MM E RC IA L RE G IS T RI E S. ” T he a uth en tic at ing doc um en t w as a lso ty pe w ri tte n, how ev er

bla nks w er e fi lle d in by ha nd b y A naI sis T obos o M or en o, the Re ve nue s D ep artmen t H ea d of Cu ba naA ir lin es . Ms . Mo re no’ s f or ei gn re co rd s c ertif

ic at ion , pur sua nt t o F ed er al Ru le of E vid en ce 902 (1 2) , state d th at the at ta ch eddoc um en ts w er e pr ep ar edon o r ab out the da y that the e ve nt tra nspi re d, by pe rs ons w ith kno w le dge a nd i n th e or din ary c our se of bus ine ss. Ms . Mo re no, in certify ing it as a busi ness record, stated that Cubana Airlines m aintained ha ndw ri tte n r ec or ds, sto re d in f old er s, doc um en tin g th e pa sse nge rs on a ll of it s fli gh ts . He rnandez ar gues that the exhi bit did not qu alify as a summ aryof Cuban ai rl ine s r ec or ds b ec au se the gov ernm en t di d no t pr oduc e the und er ly ing or igi na ls or c opi es of the doc um en ts a s de m an de d, a nd tha t i t w as ina dmiss ibl e be cause the re port ha d be en ge ne rate d a t the r eq ue st o f the gov ernm en t f or tr ia l. T he gove rn m en t arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y a dmitt edthe doc um en t a s a busin ess record in the form of a r eport or data com

pilation by Cubana Air lines pursuant to Feder al Rule of E vidence 803(6), not as a summ aryexhibit o f other tri al ex hi bi ts pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 1 00 6. T he r el ev an t rule , 803 (6 ), pr ovi de s th at the f oll ow ing e vid en ce is not ex cl ude d bythe he ar sa y rule , e ve n th ough the de cl ar an t i s a va ilable a s aw itn es s:26

A m em or an dum , r ep ort, r ec or d, or da tac om pil at ion , in an y f

or m , of ac ts, e ve nts , c ondi tio ns, opi nio ns, or dia gnos es , m ad e at

or ne ar the time by , or

f ro m inf or m at ion tr an smitt edby , ape rs on w ith know le dge , if

ke pt i n th e co ur se of

ar eg ularl y c ondu ct edbus ine ss ac tiv ity , a nd i f it w as the r eg ular pr ac tic e of that bu sin es s a ct ivi tyto m ake the m em orandum , r eport, r ecord or data c om pilation , a ll as show n bythe te sti m onyof the c ust odi an or

oth er qua lif ie d w itn es s, or by certification that com

plies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a sta tut e pe rm

itt ing c ertif

ic at ion , unl es s th e sour ce of inf or m at ion or

the m ethod or

c ir cu m sta nc es of

pr ep ar at ion ind ic at e la ck of trust w orthi ne ss. T he te rm "b usi ne ss" a s us edin thi s para gr ap h inc lud es bus ine ss, ins tituti on, a sso ci at ion , pr of es sio n, oc cu pa tio n, a nd ca lli ng o f ev ery kin d, w he the r or not c ondu ct edf

or pr of it. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). W e have held that “ [t] he touchsto ne of adm issib ility under [R ule 803 (6 )] is re liabil ity , a nd a tr ia l j udge ha s br oa d di sc re tio n to de te rm ine the ad miss ibi lit y of

suc h e vid en ce . . . . ” U nit edS ta te s v. Bu en o- Si er ra , 99 F . 3d 3 75, 37 8- 79 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). In this case, the district court found that the exhibitin questio n was a report or da tac om pil at ion c re at edby Cu ba naA ir lin es f ro m the c om pa ny ’ s ow n r ec or ds do cu m en ti ng it s p as se ng ers , and th us was a dm is si bl e as a bu si ne ss reco rd . He rnandez ar gues that because the exhibi t in questi on was prepar ed for purposes of li ti ga ti on , itsh ou ld ha ve be en rul ed in ad mis si bl e. W e ag ree. Rule 803(6) requires that both th e underly ing records and the report summ ariz ing tho se r ec or ds b e pr ep ar eda nd m ai nta ine d f or bus ine ss p urpose s in the ordinary course of business and not for purposes o f litigation. See United27

States v. Kim , 595 F. 2d 75 5, 760-64 (D. C. Cir. 1979 ) (holding in admissib le a summ ary of

ba nk r ec or ds e ve n a ssu ming the und er ly ing r ec or ds w oul d be ad miss ibl e) . T he gov ernm en t arg ue s th at the sum m ary sho uldbe a dmiss ibl e because the re cords regarding the passengers wer e m aintained in th e ordinary co ur se of bus ine ss, c iti ng U nit edS ta te s v. F ugi i, 301 F . 3d 5 35, 539 ( 7th Ci r. 200 2) in sup port. I n Fugii, the Seventh Circuit upheld the admissio n, under Rule 803(6), of Kore an Air lines check-in and reservation records and flight m anifests printed at the request of the governm ent for use in an alien sm uggl ing trial because such re co rd s w er e co m

pil edin the a ir lin es ’ or din ary c our se of bus ine ss. T hose r ec or ds ar e dis tin gui shable f

ro m the pr es en t r ec or ds, how ev er , be cause the r ec or ds i n F ugi i w er e el ec tr oni ca llysto re d in fo rm at ion a nd the sum m ary w as sim

plyapr int out

of th atin fo rm at io n. H er e, r athe r tha n asim

ple pr int out

of r eg ularl y ke pt, c om

put eriz edr ec or ds, the G ove rn m en t so ught

to ha ve a dmitt edaty pe d su mm ary of ha ndw ri tte n bu sin es s re co rd s. T his pr int edsum m ary w as pr ep ar edsol el y f or tr ia l. R ule 803 (6 ) doe s no t al low f or the a dmiss ion of

suc h asum

m ary . S ee K im , 595 F . 2d a t 76 0- 64. T he Fe de ra l R ule s do pr ovi de in Ru le 100 6 f or the a dmiss ion of

asum m ary of vol umino us b usi ne ss r ec or ds, but onl y if c erta in r eq uir emen ts are m et . A m ong these requirements is that ot her parties to the case m ust be provi ded the origin al28

records upon which the summ aryis based -- or duplicates of those originals -- pr ior to the a dmiss ion of

the sum m ary . I n th is c as e, the gov ernm en t di d no t provide the defendants with the origi nal handwritten rec ords of the passenger m an if es ts, or a ny dup lic at es of

tho se or igi na ls, be fo re se ek ing a dmiss ion of the summ ary . W e the re fo re c onc lud e tha t i t w as e rr or f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o a dmit th is do cu m en t attri al . N ev erthe le ss, H erna nde z ha s f ai le d to sho w sub sta nti al pr ej udi ce be cause th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f hi s g ui ltev en ab se ntth e d oc um en t i n q ue st io n. T he c ondu ct

of the D ef en da nts aboardthe a irpla ne , te sti fi edto by m ult ipl e w itn es se s a t tri al , w as suf fi ci en t t o su pport a

c onsp ir ac y e ve n w ith out the erro ne ou sl y ad mit te d C ERTIFIC O. 3. B ruton Er

ror W ith Respect to Severa nce H erna nde z ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt c ommitt edBruto n e rr or w he n it denied Her nandez’ s m otion s for mistrial and severance a fter A gent Heck testified tha t N or ne ill a- Mor al es ha d to ld h er that he ha d pl an ne d to ove rt ak e an a ir cr af t by force for over a

y ear and that he had recruited “ the other five.” T he district court denied Her nandez’ s m otion for sever ance on the basis that because NorneillaMor al es w as te sti fy ing a t tri al a nd w oul d be sub j ec t t o c ro ss- ex am

ina tio n, H erna nde z’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e not im pli ca te d bythe a dmiss ion of29

A g e n tHe c k ’s t e s t i mo n y. In Bruto n v. U nit edS ta te s, 391 U . S. 123 ( 1968 ), the S upr eme Co urt he ld tha t the a dmiss ion of

a“ pow er fu llyinc ri mina tin g e xtr aj udi ci al state m en t” of ac odefendant violates a defendant’ s Sixth Am endm ent right of confrontation even w he n th e co urt i nstru ct s th e j ur y to co nsi de r the c onf es sio n on lya ga ins t the c ode fe nda nt. I d. a t 13 5- 36. A state m en t i s po w er fu llyinc ri mina tin g if it e xpr es sly im pl ic at es th e d efen da nt . Id. How ever, the Court clarif ied the Bruton rule in Nelson v. O ’ Ne ill, 402 U. S. 622 (1 971) , w he n it

he ld tha t the re is no C onf ro nta tio n C lause pr obl em w he n th e

“ co nf es sin g” c o- de fe nda nt i s su bj ec t t o c ro ss- ex am ina tio n a t tri al . I d. a t 62 7 ( “ T he Co nst itu tio n a s c onstru edin Bruto n, in oth er w or ds, is vio la te d on lyw he re the out-of-court hearsaystatem ent is that of a declara nt who is unavailable at the trial fo r ‘ fu ll an d e ff

ec tiv e’ c ro ss- ex am

ina tio n. ”) ; se e al so U nit edS ta te s v. Cl em ons, 32 F. 3d 1 504 (1 1th Ci r. 199 4) ( hol din g th at be cause one de fe nda nt w ai ve d hi s F if th A m en dm en t r igh t a nd t es tif ie d, thu s m ak ing him

a va ilable f

or c ro ss- ex am

ina tio n, the c ourt di d no t e rr

in ad mitt ing his pos t- ar

re st s ta te m en t i m

pli ca tin g hi s c ode fen da nt ). In thi s c as e, N or ne ill a- Mor al es te sti fi eda t tri al a nd w as a va ilable f or c ro ssex am ina tio n, thu s H erna nde z’ s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e not vio la te d a nd h isHernandez also ar g ues that his rig ht to confront adve rse witnesse s was violated by the 8 g overnme nt’s rema

rks during closing arg ument reg arding Norne illa-Morale s’s statement. Hernandez did not object to these re marks during trial, so we r eview the m for plain er ror. United States v. Humphrey , 164 F.3d 585, 588 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (holding that we may not corre ct an err or the de fendant failed to raise in the district court unless ther e is (1) e rror , (2) that is plain, (3) that a ff e c ts s ub stanti a l rig hts , ande ve n th e n, on ly if (4 ) the e rr or

se ri ou sly a ff e c ts the fairne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s). We concludethat there was no plain e rror beca use the prose cutor ne ver sug g ested that the jury should ignorethe court’s limit ing instruc tion that Norne illa-Morale s’s confe ssion was to be consider ed only ag ainst himself, and bec ause the re wa s ab u n d an tev i d en ce aga i n s tHe rn an d ez i rr es p ec t i v e o f t h e c h al l en ged re m ark s atcl o s i n g. 30 m oti on f or se ve ra nc e w as pr ope rl y de nie d. 8 4. Jury I nstru ct ion s H erna nde z ne xt arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing his r eq ue st f or a j ury instruction that interfering with a flight crew and conspi racyto interfere w ith af lig ht c re w w er e le sse r inc lud edof fe nse s of the c onsp ir ac y a nd s ubst an tiv e ai rc ra ft pir ac y c harg es . H erna nde z doe s no t di sput e tha t the sup er se din g ind ic tmen t c harg edthe le sse r inc lud edof fe nse s a s C ount s I II a nd I V . I nst ea d, he argues that the court’ s failure to instruct specifically that Counts III and IV we re le sse r inc lud edof

fe nse s of Co unt s I a nd I I de pr ive d hi m of his r igh t t o arg ue his theory of the defense. H e also argues that the court err ed by ref using to instruct the j ur y that c ar

ry ing ada nge ro us w eapon on b oarda n a ir cr af t, in vio la tio n of

49 U . S. C. § 46 505, a nd b at te ry , in vio la tio n of F laS ta t. § 78 4. 03 p ur sua nt t o 18 U . S. C. § 13 , w er e le sse r inc lud edof fe nse s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o gi ve ade fe nda nt’ s r eq ue ste d j ur y ins truc tio n is31

re vie w edf

or a n abuse of

dis cr et ion . U nit edS ta te s v. S ch le i, 122 F . 3d 9 44, 969 (1 1th Ci r. 199 7) . T o pr ove r ev er sib le e rr or , a de fe nda nt m

ust sho w that the ins truc tio n: “ (1 ) w as ac orre ct state m en t of

the la w ; ( 2) w as not

a de qua te ly co ve re d in the ins truc tio ns g ive n to the j ur y ; ( 3) c onc erne d a n is sue so s ubst an tiv e tha t i ts o miss ion im

pa ir edthe a cc use d’ s abil ityto pr es en t a de fe nse ; a nd ( 4) de al t w ith a n is sue pr ope rl y be fo re the j ur y . ” U nit edS ta te s v. L y ons, 53 F . 3d 1 198, 1200 (11th Cir. 1995). W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse it s di sc re tio n in de cl ini ng to specifically state that the interfer ence w ith a flight crew charges w ere lesser included o ffenses. T he court instructed the jurythat a separa te offense w as charged against one or m ore of the defe ndants in each c ountof the indictm ent, that each char ge and the evidence pertaining to it s houl d be consid ered separ ately , that the c as e of

e ac h de fe nda nt s houl d be c onsi de re d se parate lya nd i ndi vid ua lly , a nd that they had to determine from the evidence in the case w hether eac h indi vidu al de fe nda nt w as gui ltyor

not gui ltyof e ac h of the ind ivi dua l c harg es se t f orth i n th e ind ic tmen t. T he j ur y c le ar lyund er sto od this ins truc tio n, a s se ve ra l of the defendants wer e found gui lty of som e but not all of the four charges, while others w er e fo und gui ltyof

a ll fo ur c harg es . W e co nc lud e tha t the j ur y didnot ne eda redundant in struction th at there w ere offenses other than aircr aft pirac y that they32

co uldc onsi de r in e va lua tin g H erna nde z’ s gu ilt . H erna nde z’ s r eq ue ste d in struc tio n w as c ove re d bythe c ourt’ s in struc tio n th at H erna nde z co uldbe f

oundgui ltyof som e char ges in the ind ictm ent and not o thers. Ac cordingly , his re quest was pr ope rl y de nie d. He rnandez next argues that the district court erre d in refusing to in struct the j ury that carry ing a dangerous weapon on b oard an airc raft a nd battery we re lesser included o ffenses. In order for an off ense to be a lesser- included o ffense of a pare nt o ff en se , it s e le m en ts m

ust be c ont ai ne d w ith in the e le m en ts o f the pare nt offense. See Schm

uck v. U nited States, 489 U. S. 705, 716 (198 9); United States v. St on e, 13 9 F .3d 82 2, 8 39 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . The e lem ents of carry ing a dangerous weapon on b oard an airc raft, under § 46 505, are that the de fe nda nt: ( 1) board eda n a ir cr af t i nvol ve d in a ir tr an sporta tio n; ( 2) kno w ing lyha d on or about his pe rs on a

c onc ea le d da nge ro us w eapon w hic h w oul d be a cc es sib le to him in fl igh t, or

pla ce d aloa de d f

ir earm on the aircr aft in property not accessible during fligh t, or plac ed a bom b or incendiary de vic e on the a ir cr af

t; an d ( 3) a ct edw ill fu llya nd w ith r ec kle ss d isr eg ar d f or the sa fe tyof hum an li fe . S ee E le ve nth Ci rc uit P at te rn Jury I nstru ct ion 104 , a t 50 5 (2003). Se ction 46 505 in volv es elements not in cluded within the offenses charged in the ind ic tmen t, thu s it

w as not a n abuse of

dis cr et ion to de cl ine to ins truc t the33

j ur y a s to thi s of

fe nse . S imilarl y , the e le m en ts o f ba tte ryare not inc lud edw ith in the c harg edof

fe nse s. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c ommit re ve rs ibl e er ro r in d ec lin ing to giv e H erna nde z’ s de sir edins truc tio n. 5. C um ula tiv e E rr or H erna nde z ar gue s th at

e ve n if e ac h of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a sse rt ede rr or s, sta ndi ng a lon e, are ins uf

fi ci en t t o merit re ve rs al , w e shou ld e va lua te the cum ulative effec t of the asserted er rors to find prej udice requiring reversal. See , e. g., United State s v. Pr eciado-Cordobas, 981 F. 2d 12 06, 1215 n .8 (11th Cir. 1993 ). Bec ause we conclude that the dis trict court did not commit prej udicial er ro r, wh et h ers t an d i n g al o n e o r t ak en cu m u l at i v el y, we a ff

i rm Her n an d ez ’s co nv ic ti on . 6. S en te nc ing H erna nde z re ce ive d th e sta tut or y mini m um se nte nc e of

20 y ears , but challenges his sent ence on the basis that 20 y ears c onsti tutes cruel and unus ual pu ni sh m en t i n v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Be cause thi s is anon -c ap ita l c as e inv olv ing astatut or y mini m um , “ the E igh th A m en dm en t e nc om pa sse s, a t m ost , onl y anarr ow pr oportio na lit y p ri n ci p l e. ” U n i t ed St at es v . R aa d , 4 0 6 F. 3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). We m ust m ak e a thr es hol d de te rm ina tio n th at

ase nte nc e im

pose d is gr oss ly34

di sp ro po rti on at e to th e o ffen se co mmit te d a nd , if i t i s g ro ss ly dis pr op or ti on at e, we mu s tt h e n c o n s i d e r

t h e s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d o n o t h e r s c o n v i c t e d i n t h e s a me j ur isd ic tio n a nd the se nte nc es im pose d f or the c ommiss ion of

the sa m e crime in oth er j ur isd ic tio ns. B ra nt, 62 F . 3d a t 36 8. F urthe rm or e, ase nte nc e w hic h is not otherwise cruel and unu sual does no t becom e so sim ply because it is “ m andatory .” Id. ( citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 995 (199 1)). W e co nc lud e tha t the 240 -m onth, or 20 y ear, statut or y mini m um se nte nc e is not gros sly disprop ortionate to the offense of conviction . The hij acking of a pa sse nge r ai rc ra ft

is an e xtr ao rd inari lyda nge ro us u nde rt ak ing , put tin g a t r isk the liv es of a ll pa sse nge rs a nd, a s w e know too w el l a ft er the e ve nts of

S ep te m be r 11, 2001 , potentially the lives of m any others as we ll. C ongress assig ned a m andatory min imum sen te nc e o f twe nt y y ears forairpi racy case s wh en iten act ed 49 U.S.C. § 4650 2(a)( 2)(A ) and (B) , e xcept in tho se instances in which death of another ind ivi dua l r es ult s, in w hic h c as e the de fe nda nt s ha ll ei the r re ce ive ase nte nc e of lif e im pr iso nm en t or

de ath. W e ar e re qui re d to “ gr an t su bst an tia l de fe re nc e to the br oa d auth or itythat l eg isl atur es ne ce ssari lypos se ss i n de te rm ini ng the ty pe s a nd lim its of pun ish m en ts f

or c ri m es , a s w el l a s to the dis cr et ion that tri al c ourts poss es s in se nte nc ing c onvi ct edc ri mina ls. ” S ole m v. H el m , 463 U . S. 277 , 290 (1983); see also Raad, 406 F.3d at 1323. Furtherm ore, the fac t that HernandezWe also c on c lud e that th e dis tric t c ou rt didno t c omm it r e ve rs ibl e B oo ke r e rr or wi th 9 respe ct to Hernandez’s sente nce. H ernandez's substantial rig hts werenot affe cted e ven thoug h he was sente nced unde r a mandatory g uidelines sy stem because the district court sentence d He rn a nd e z to the statut ory min imu m, w ith ou t r e so rt to any g uid e lin e e nh a nc e me nts . 35 cl ai m s, in his de fe nse , that he w as f le ei ng a r ep re ssi ve Cu ba n go ve rn m en t i s no t a co nsi de ratio n in the pr oportio na lit y inq uiry . C f. U nit edS ta te s v. Ro j as , 47 F . 3d 1078 , 1082 (11th Cir. 1995) (holdin g that downward departure w as not warr anted unde r gui de lin es appl ic ab le w he n de fe nda nt c ommits ac ri m e in o rd er to av oid perceived grea ter harm

wher e defe ndant professed the belief that his criminal action is furthering a greater political go od in Cub a). A ccordingly , w e find that the statut or y mini m

um se nte nc e of

20 y ears im

pr iso nm en t w as not

c ru el or unus ua l i n vi ola tio n of

the E igh th A m en dm en t. 9 D . Y ain erOl iva re s S am on Y ai ne r O liv ar es S am on arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing the defense the opportun ity to cross-examine governm ent witnesses as to their m otives an d bi as in te sti fy ing a ga ins t the de fe nda nts . W e ha ve a lr ea dy r ej ec te d th is argum ent, w hich is the on ly one raised by Olivare s Sam on in h is brief. E. Ale xis Norneilla-M orales and Miak el Gue rra Morales A le xis N or ne ill a- Mor al es arg ue s th at : ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing his theory of defense instruction; (2) the district court erre d in deny ing po st-trialMia ke l G ue rr a

Mo rale s a

rg ue s th a t: ( 1) thedis tric t c ou rt abu se d it s d isc re tio n w he n it 10 ref used to allow the de fenseto cross-e x amine g overnme nt witnesses as to their motives and bias in testify ing a g ainst the defe ndants; (2) the district c ourt abused its discre tion in li miting the scope of the lead de fensewitness as to the def endants' plan to come to the United States; (3) the district court abuse d its discretion by denying Mor ales' s reque st for disclosure of information pe rt a ini ng to g ov e rn me nt w itn e ss Abil io H e rn a nd e z-G arc ia ; a nd(4 ) the dis tric t c ou rt e rr e d in enhanc ing his ba se off

ense le vel by

two points for obstruction of justice ba sed upon trial t e s t i m o n y. 36 dis co ve ryr eg ar din g th e fl igh t a tte nda nt’ s de fe ct ion to the U nit edS ta te s; ( 3) he w as de nie d af

ai r tr ia l be cause of

the c um ula tiv e ef fe ct of e rr one ous ru lin gs b y the dis tr ic t c ourt; an d ( 4) the dis tr ic t c ourt c ommitt edBo oke r er ro r in appl y ing the guid elines. G uerra- Morales ra ises argum ents with respect to his convictio n that we have alre ady rej ected, and also raises the sam e sentencing objection as 10 Nor ne il la -Mo ral es . 1. Jury I nstru ct ion s N or ne ill a- Mor al es arg ue s th at the c ourt e rr edby de ny ing his “ w ro ngf ul int en t” ins truc tio n, w hic h de fi ne d “ know ing ly ” as a ct ing “ vol unt arilya nd in te nt io na ll y an d n otbe cau se of m is ta ke or a cci de ntor o th er i nn oc en t re as on .” (e m pha sis a dde d) . H e co nte nds tha t this la ngua ge w oul d ha ve e nable d hi m to ar gue his de fe nse to the j ur y that the c re w w as c om pli ci t i n th e hij ac kin g. T he gov ernm en t ob

j ec te d to the pr opos edins truc tio n on the gr ound s th at the te rm “ know ing ly ” w as c orre ct lyde fi ne d in the E le ve nth Ci rc uit P at te rn I nstru ct ion an d th at the sa m e de fi nit ion f

or “ know ing ly ” shou ld b e use d th ro ugho ut the37

instructio ns. T he court denied Norneilla-Mora les’ s request because it found that his de sir ed“ w ro ngf

ul i nte nt” ins truc tio n w as “ not r ea llyappl ic ab le to the c as e in the se nse that the re is no q ue sti on o f mist ak e or a cc ide nt, a nd the inn oc en t r ea son is the viol ent strong feeling against the regim e in Cuba.” W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c ommit re ve rs ibl e er ro r in deny ing Norneilla-Morales’ s requested instructio n because the requested “ or other inno cent rea son” langu age w ould have misled the juryinto th inkin g that N or ne ill a- Mor al es ’ s c ondu ct c oul d be e xc use d be cause the ir de sir e to l ea ve Cu ba an d c om e to th e Uni te d S ta te s was an “ in no cen t re as on ” fo r hi jack in g t he air craf

t. The district court held that the defendants could no t raise a j ustification d efense, and that ruling is not bein g challenged on app eal. N orneilla-Morales’ s propos ed j ur y ins truc tio ns w er e m er el y aba ck door m ea ns o f m ak ing the j ust if ic at ion d e f e n s e . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’s i n s tru c t i o n r e g ar d i n g i n t e n t–t h a t“ k n o w i n g l y” m ea ns “ the a ct

w as don e vol unt arilya nd i nte nti ona llya nd n ot b ec au se of mist ak e or acc ident” was a

corre ct statem ent of the law and adequate to cover the charged cri m es . Fu rthe rm or e, the ins truc tio n w as not ne ce ssaryf

or N or ne ill a- Mor al es to argue his theory of defense – that the hij acking had been staged and the cre w w as

“ in on it .” N orneilla-Morales, Arias-Izquierdo, and Guerr a-Mora les argued that38

the hij ac kin g ha d be en sta ge d. O liv ar es -S am on c hara ct eriz edthe hij ac kin g a s a

“ free dom flight,” ar guin g that there w as no credible evidence that he had committed acts of violence or intimidation . So too did He rnandez. Mej ia Morales co m pare d th e fl igh t t o th e Je w s w ho tri edto fl ee N az i G erm an y a nd the G erm an s w ho d ie d a tte m

pti ng t o c ro ss the Be rl in W al l. D ef en se c ouns el sug ge ste d in cl osi ng arg um en t tha t the c ondu ct of the de fe nda nts w as j ust if ie d. 2. P ost-Tria l Discovery N or ne ill a- Mor al es arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt abuse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it denied the appellants ’ m otion for post-trial discovery invol ving the flight steward G ar ci a’ s de ci sio n to r em ai n in the U nit edS ta te s a ft er the gov ernm en t l earn edof G ar ci a’ s de fe ct ion . H e cl ai m s th at the f ru its of suc h a n in qui rymigh t ha ve supp orte d am oti on f

or ane w tr ia l ba se d up on e ith er pe rj ur edinf

or m at ion or

the gove rn m en t’ s f

ai lur e to d isc los e ex cu lpa tory e vid en ce a s r eq uir edby Br ad y v. Mary land, 373 U. S. 83 (1963 ). He m aintains that at the very least, the court wa s re qui re d to hol d a n e vid en tiaryhe aring , or de r the r el ea se of G ar ci a’ s a sy lum ap pli ca tio n or

to co nduc t a n in c amer a re vie w of suc h m at eria ls. T he r ec or d de m onstrate s th e fo llo w ing . T he tr ia l e nde d on D ec em be r 11, 2003 . O n D ec em

be r 19, 200 3, the gov ernm en t i nf or m edthe de fe nda nts that the pr ose cu tor s ha d j ust

le arne d of

G ar ci a’ s de ci sio n no t t o r etur n to Cu ba . T he39

d ef en d an t s fi l ed m o t i o n s t o re q u i re t h e g o v er n m en tt o p ro v i d e t h em wi t h Ga rc i a’s contact inform ation or to prod uce him for interview . On Mar ch 4, 2004, the court de nie d th e de fe nda nts ’ m oti ons, f ind ing that the y ha d no t c ont en de d th at the gove rn m en t ha d ob ta ine d e xc ulp at or y inf or m at ion f

ro m G ar ci a, but

or de re d th e gove rn m en t t o in qui re w he the r G ar ci a w ish edto ch an ge his te sti m onyor be int er vie w edby the de fe nda nts . O n M ar ch 11, 200 4, the gov ernm en t r es pond edthat G ar ci a ha s st at edhe did not w ish to ch an ge his te sti m onynor be int er vie w edby the de fe nda nts . T he fo llo w ing w ee k, G ue rr a- Mor al es f ile d am oti on d em an din g in te rv ie w r ep orts pe rt ai nin g to G ar ci a, or

a t a mini m um , f or a n in c amer a re vie w of

a sy lum application d ocum ents, asserting that they constitu ted exculpatory evidence under Br ad y . T he c ourt de nie d th e m oti on f or pr oduc tio n, hol din g th at the de fe nda nts ’ vig or ous cr oss -e xa mina tio n of G ar ci a at tr ia l mea nt that a nyinf

or m at ion sur ro undi ng G ar ci a’ s de fe ct ion w oul d no t m ak e his te sti m onya ny le ss b el ie vable an d w oul d no t c onst itu te gr ound s f or c ha ngi ng the ve rd ic t or

or de ri ng a

ne w tr ia l. The rule regarding exculpatory evidence announced in Brady applies after trial w hen it is dis covered that the prosecution had m aterial inform ation of which the defense w as unawar e. U ntied States v. A gurs, 427 U. S. 97, 103 (1976 ). In U nti edS ta te s v. Q uin n, 123 F . 3d 1 415 (1 1th Ci r. 199 7) , w e he ld tha t the40

gove rn m en t w as not

r eq uir edto dis cl ose the c ont en ts o f pe rs onne l f ile s or sub mit them for in camera review sim ply based on the defendant’s unsuppo rted contentio n that they might con tain inform ation of sign ificance to his case. I d. at 1421 -2 2. W e de cl ine d to or de r dis co ve ryba se d up on mer e spe cu la tio n a s to w he the r the m at eria l w oul d c ont ai n e xc ulp at or y e vid en ce be cause to do s o w oul d

“ co nve rt Br ad y int o adis co ve ryde vic e an d im pose a n un due bur de n up on the district court.” I d. at 1422 (quotatio n m arks and citation omitted). This case is unli ke those cited by the defendants in which a w itness perjure s him self at tria l and the defense discovers exculpatory evidence to that effe ct afte r trial. See , e .g. , U nited States v. E spino sa-H ernandez, 918 F.2d 911 (11t h Cir. 1990 ). T he de fe nda nts he re m ad e no s how ing that G ar ci a pe rj ur edhim se lf a t tri al , dur ing his pr e- tr ia l de posi tio n, or a t a ny oth er

poi nt. I nst ea d, the y m er el y spe cu la te that hi s a sy lum appl ic at ion migh t sh ow that he li eda t tri al , not be cause he w as try ing to cu rry f

av or w ith the Cu ba n go ve rn m en t, a s th eya lle ge d a t tri al , but un der their new theory that he wa s try ing to curryfavor w ith the United States governm ent. H owever , G arcia ’ s testim ony at trial – that he w as tied up at knifepo in t b y th e d efen da nt s – was c or ro bo rat ed by m ul ti pl e wit ne ss es at t ria l. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c ommit re ve rs ibl e er ro r in de ny ing de fe nda nts ’ r eq ue st f or pos t- tr ia l di sc ove rya s to G ar ci a’ s im migr at ion41

sta tus . 3. C um

ula tiv e E rr or Like H ernandez, Norneilla- Morales ar gues that even if each of the district co urt’ s a sse rt ede rr or s, sta ndi ng a lon e, are ins uf fi ci en t t o merit re ve rs al , w e shou ld ev al ua te the c um

ula tiv e ef fe ct of the a sse rt ede rr or s to f

indpr ej udi ce r eq uiring re ve rs al . H er e too , be cause w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c ommit prej udicial error, whether standing alone or taken cum ulatively , w e af

firm Nor ne il la -Mo ral es ’s con vi ct io n. 4. S en te nc ing E rr or Bo th N or ne ill a- Mor al es a nd G ue rr a- Mor al es arg ue that the c ourt e rr edin enhancing th eir base off

ense levels by two points for obst ruction of justice based upon trial testim ony . W e agre e, as w e find that there is re versible Booker statutory err or here. T he first prong of the plain error test is easilysatisfied be cause the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e gui de lin es a s m an da tory during sentencing. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330-31. T he second prong is also satisfied be cause “ w he re the la w a t the ti m e of tr ia l w as se ttl eda nd c le ar lyc ontraryto the la w a t the ti m e of

appe al – i t i s e noug h th at a n e rr or be ‘ pla in’ a t the ti m e of ap pe ll at e co ns id erat io n.” Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 20 U.S. 46 1, 4 68 (19 97 ). Under B ooker, view ing th e guidelines as m andatory is plainly err oneous . United42

St at es v. Dacu s, 4 08 F.3d 68 6, 6 89 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A s to the thi rdpr ong, N or ne ill a- Mor al es a nd G ue rr a- Mor al es m ust de m onstrate that the pla in e rr or a ff ec ts the ir sub sta nti al r igh ts a nd tha t the e rr or

“ actually did m ake a diff

erence .” Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298 . Theyhave m et thi s bu rd en be cause the y ha ve sho w n ar ea sonable pr obabil itythat the c ourt w oul d have im posed a lower sentence if the guidelines h ad been advisory . The c ourt sta te d th at

it w as “ re luc ta nt” to ap plythe obs truc tio n of j ust ic e en ha nc emen t because of the “ very subst antial increase” in sentencing . The c ourt also stated that it w as se nte nc ing a ll of

the c o- de fe nda nts a t the low e nd o f the gui de lin es r an ge be cause “ thi s is suf

fi ci en t or ind ee d m or e tha n su ff

ic ie nt p uni shmen t a nd de te rr en t. ” T he c om

bin at ion of

the se f ac ts a nd s ta te m en ts d em onstrate s a re as onable pr obabil itythat the c ourt w oul d ha ve im pose d adif

fe re nt s en te nc e if the gui de lin es w er e ad vis or y , thu s th e de fe nda nts ha ve sho w n th at pla in e rr or af fe ct edthe ir

sub sta nti al r igh ts. F or

the se sa m e re as ons, N or ne ill a- Mor al es a nd G ue rr a- Mor al es a lso sa tis fythe f ourth p ro ng o f the pla in e rr or te st – ar ea sonable probabilit y that the court would im pose a lesser sentence. III. C ONC LUS ION Based on the foregoing, the appellants’ conviction s are AF FIR MED . T he sentences of H ernandez, Olivare s Sam on, Mej ia Morales, and Arias-Izquierdo are43

AF FIR MED . W e VA CA TE the sentences of Norneilla-Morales and G uerra Mor al es a nd REMAND to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r es en te nc ing a s to tho se de fe nda nts .