FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 10957 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - CR - 2 0 7 5 1 - DLG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I S A E L S A N T A N A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 30, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f t e ra j ury tr i a l , M i s a e l S a nt a na appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orf a i l ur e t o he a veSantana doe s not appeal his sentence of sixmonths’ imprisonment and two year s of 1 supervised relea se. We re view deno vo c halleng e s tothesu ff ic ienc y of thee vide nc ein crimin al trials, 2 viewingthe evidenc e in the light most favorableto the g overnment. United States v. Futre ll, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 2 t o a v e s s e l , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 O n ap p e a l, S a n ta n a a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is c onvi c t i on. F a i l ur e t o he a ve t o a ve s s e l oc c ur s w he n “ the m a s t e r , ope r a t or , or pe r s on i n c ha r ge of

a ve s s e l of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ora ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , . . . kn ow i ng l y f ai l [s ] t o o bey a n o rderby an a u th o r i z e d Fe d e r a l l a w e n f o r c e me n to f

f i c e rt o h e a v e t o th a tv e s s e l . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 2237( a ) ( 1) . T o “ he a ve t o” m e a ns “ t o c a us e a ve s s e l t o s l ow , c om e t o a s t op, or a d ju s t its c o u r s e o rs p e e d to a c c o u n t f o rth e w e a th e rc o n d itio n s a n d s e a s ta te to f a c i l i t a t e a l a w e nf

or c e m e ntboa r di ng. ” 18 U . S . C . § 2237( e ) ( 2) . T hus , the g o v e rn m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t a d e f

e n d a n t: ( 1 ) k n o w in g ly f a ile d to o b e y ( 2 ) a n o r d e rb y a F e d e r a l la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r( 3 ) to h e a v e to th a t v e s s e l. Id. S ant ana c on t ends the go vernm entfa i l ed t o p rove he w as op er at i ng the bo at 2 w hen t he heave-t o o rderoccurre d. W e di sa gree . A ttri al , the go vernm entca l l ed the com m andi ng offi ce r of the C oastG uard c utt e r , L i e ut e na ntH a y w a r d S i l c ox, w ho or de r e d the ve s s e l i n que s t i on, a r a c i ng b o a t, to h e a v e to . S ilc o x te s tif ie d th a t h e a c tiv a te d th e b lu e la w e n f o r c e m e n t lig h t,3

b ro ad ca sted (o n th e r ad io ’s co m m o n ch an n el) a n o rd erto sto p , b lew th e c u tt er ’s w hi st l e s i x t i m es , turned o n a “ very l ou d” l aw enforce m entsi re n and anno un ce d an or de rt o s t op thr ough a bul l horn. I ns t e a d, the r a c i ng boa tf l e d, l e a di ng the c utt e ron a c h a s e f o rth r e e m in u te s . A f

te ra h e lic o p te rs h in e d a s p o tlig h t o n th e r a c in g b o a t, the ra ci ng bo atst op ped. H ow ever , w hen t he cutt ergo tcl ose e no ug h t o l ow era bo ar di ng bo at , the ra ci ng bo atsudd enl y s t art ed m ov i ng agai n. S i l cox agai n cal l ed f orthe he l i c opt e r , w hi c h f l e w ove rthe r a c i ng boa ta nd l i tthe r a c i ng boa tw i th the s pot l i ght . T he r a c i ng boa ts t oppe d, a nd S i l c ox s e nta t e a m a boa r d. T h e g o v er n m en t also ca ll ed Ju an F o n tan ez , a m em b ero f th e C o as t G u ar d ’s bo ar di ng t ea m . F on t anez t es t i fi ed that , w hen h e boarded the ra ci ng bo at , he sa w S a nt a na a tthe c ontr ol s a nd e ve ry one e l s e s i tt i ng t ow a r d the ba c k of the boa t . F r om th is ev id en ce , a re as o n ab le ju ry co u ld co n clu d e th at S an tan a w as th e r ac in g b o at’s o p e r a to r . S a nt a na e m pha s i z e s tha the pr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony f r om A l e xa nde rL a r a , w ho te s tif ie d th a t h e o p e r a te d th e r a c in g b o a t th a t n ig h t. H o w e v e r , th e ju ry w a s f r e e to di s be l i e ve L a r a ’ s t e s t i m ony . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, 473 F . 3d 1137, 1142 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 1 5 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t c r e d ib ility que s t i ons a r e r e s ol ve d by the j ury , a nd the C our tw i l l a s s um e the j ury di d s o i n a m a nne rtha ts uppor t s i t s ve r di c t ) . W e w i l l notdi s turb the j ury ’ s c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng.Specifically , at trial, F ontanez was a sked “did you ask if anyone on the boat was an 3 operator? ” and responded that he did. Fontane z was then asked “ Did anyone say to you, excluding Santana , did anyone say they were an operator of

the boat? ” and F ontanez responde d, “N o , th e y di dn ’ t . ”S ant an a di d n o to b j e c tt o th i s t e s t i m o ny.

4 W e not e, ho w ever , thateven i f L ar a’ s t es t i m on y w as cr edi t ed, i tpl ac ed S a nt a na i n c ontr ol of

the r a c i ng boa ta f

t e ri ts t oppe d the f

i r s tt i m e a nd w hi l e the C oastG uard cut t erw as approachi ng w i th i t s e m er gency l i gh t s on. L ar a a dm i tt ed th ath e h an d ed th e co n tro l s t o S an t an a o n ce th e b o atw as n o tm o v i n g aft er th e fi rst st op . S ant ana then st art ed the ra ci ng bo at , drov e f or approx i m at el y tw o m i nu t es a n d s to p p e d th e b o a t o n ly w h e n th e h e lic o p te r ’s s p o tlig h t s h o n e o n th e b o a t a g a in . A cc ordi ng l y, a j ury c ou l d con cl ud e, even w i th thi s t es t i m on y, thatS ant ana knew th a t th e v e s s e l w a s u n d e ra n o r d e rto h e a v e to a n d m o v e d th e r a c in g b o a t a n y w a y . I n s um , the r e w a s a m pl e e vi de nc e f r om w hi c h the j ury c oul d c onc l ude tha tS a nt a na w a s th e o p e r a to ro f

th e b o a t a n d f

a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e C o a s t G u a r d ’s o r d e rto he a ve t o. F orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , S a nt a na a l s o c ha l l e nge s the a dm i s s i on of F on t anez ’ s t es t i m on y thatno ne of the ot her pas se ng er s on the ra ci ng bo at r e s ponde d w he n he a s ke d the m i f the y w e r e dr i vi ng the boa t . S a nt a na c ont e nds 3 tha tthi s e vi de nc e w a s i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y a nd vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i g h tt o c o n f

r o n tw i tn e s s e s . Be c a u s e th e s e a r g u me n t s a r e r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me on appe a l , w e r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A rbol a e z , 450 F . 3d5

1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (rev i ew i n g n ew l y rai sed C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se c ha l l e nge f

orpl a i n e rr or ) . P l a i n e rr ore xi s t s i f the r e i s “ ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f

f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). H e r e , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tthe a dm i s s i on of thi s t e s t i m ony w a s e rr or th a t w a s p la in , it d id n o t a f f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . A d e f e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts a r e pr e j udi c e d w he n the r e e xi s t s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti f

the e rr o rh a d n o t o c c u rr e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 2 - 6 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). S ant ana does not , and n everhas, obj ec t ed t o F on t anez ’ s t es t i m on y that w he n he boa r de d a l l othe rpa s s e nge r s w e r e s i tt i ng ne a rthe ba c k of the boa ta nd S ant ana w as atthe op er at or’ s c on sol e. G i ven F on t anez ’ s other t es t i m on y that S ant ana w as the on l y per son n ea r the op er at or’ s c on sol e of the bo atata t i m e w hen S a nt a na ha d no r e a s on t o be the r e unl e s s he w a s dr i vi ng the boa t , S a nt a na ha s not s how n ar e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe j ury w oul d ha ve a c qui tt e d hi m ha d the di s tr i c tc our te xc l ude d the por t i on of F ont a ne z ’ s t e s t i m ony t o w hi c h S a nt a na now o b je c ts o n ap p e a l. F in a lly , S a n ta n a a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n itRul e40 4(b)state s: 4 Evidenceof other crimes, wrong s, or ac ts is not admissible to prove the c haracter of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may , however, be a dmi ssiblefo r o ther pur po se s, su c h a s p ro of

of motiv e , opp or

tunity, intent, prepa ration, plan, knowle dg e, identity , or absence of mistake or ac cident . . . . Fe d. R. Evid. 404(b). 6 deni ed hi s m ot i on t o excl ud e t es t i m on y of apri or i nci denti n w hi ch S ant ana f ai l ed t o h eav e t o . D u ri n g th e tri al , F el i x D el av erg a t est i fi ed th at , w h i l e w o rk i n g as a m ari n e i n t erd i ct i o n ag en tfo r C u st o m s an d B o ard P ro t ect i o n , h e p u rsu ed a g o -fast vess el dri ven b y S ant ana, w ho w ou l d n otst op . D el aver ga st at ed thathe had turned on hi s l i ght s a nd s i r e ns , y e l l e d, m a de ha nd ge s tur e s , f i r e d tw o w a rni ng s hot s a nd the n m a ne uve r e d i nt o pos i t i on t o di s a bl e the ve s s e l ’ s e ngi ne s , a f t e rw hi c h S a nt a na r a m m e d D e la v e r g a ’s b o a t. U nde rF e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 404( b) , e vi de nc e of pr i orba d a c t s m a y be adm i tt ed on l y f

or pu rposes other than p roof of bad charac t er . R ul e 404 (b) i s a 4 ru le “o f in c lu s io n w h ic h a llo w s [ e x tr in s ic ] e v id e n c e u n le s s it te n d s to p r o v e o n ly cr i m i nal prop ensi ty. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. E l l i sor, 52 2 F . 3d 12 55 , 12 67 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . P r io rb a d a c ts e v id e n c e is subj ec tt o a three -par tt es tfor a dm i ss i bi l i ty: (1) the evi dence m ustbe re l evantt o an i s s ue othe rtha n the de f

e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) the pr oba t i ve va l ue m us tnotbe subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce ; and (3) the go vernm entm ustoffe r s u f f ic ie n t p r o o f

s o th a t th e ju ry c o u ld f

in d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d th e a c t.We reviewadmissions of prior bad acts evidenc e for abuse of discretion. Ellisor, 522 5 F.3d at 1267. 7 I d. 5 H er e, the evi dence of S ant ana’ s pri or re fusa l t o st op hi s ves se l for l aw enforce m entw as re l evantt o S ant ana’ s kno w l edge of l aw enforce m entvess el s i gna l s t o s t op a nd l a c k of m i s t a ke ora c c i de nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1281 n. 7 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tw he n a de f e nda ntpl e a ds g u il ty to a c h ar g e th at in clu d es k n o w led g e a s a n elem en t, th e d ef en d an t’ s k n o w le d g e is p u t in is s u e ) . F u r th e r m o r e , a t tr ia l, S a n ta n a a r g u e d th a t th e h e a v e - to or de rw a s gi ve n w hi l e L a r a ope r a t e d the boa ta nd tha t , onc e S a nt a na t ook the c ontr ol s , the boa tm ove d a ta s l ow e rr a t e of s pe e d a nd no f

ur the ror de r s t o s t op w er e gi ven. T hi s a rgum entpu ti n i ss ue w hether S ant ana’ s f ai l ure t o h ea ve t o w as know i ng. T he gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j ury t o c onc l ude tha tS a nt a na i n f

a c tha d f a i l e d t o he a ve t o dur i ng the pr i ori nc i de nt . F i na l l y , the evi dence of the pri or i nci dentw as hi gh l y probat i ve gi ven thati toccurre d u nd er v e ry s im ila rc ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d w e c a n n o t s a y its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly o u twe i g h e d b y a n y p r e

j u d i c i a l e f

f e c ti t s a d m i s s i o n m a y h a v e h a d . T h e r e f o r e , we c onc l ude the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng the e vi de nc e of th e p r io rin c id e n t. AF F I RME D.