FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 27, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 45 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cr-1 00 21 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us CARLOS REYES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 27 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, CARNES a ndW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Carl os Reyes pa rti ci pa te d i n an a li en -s m ug gl in g o pe rat io n t ha t re su lt edin th e dro wni ng de ath o f a y ou ng ch il d a fte r th e g o- fas t b oa t caps iz edwhi le trying to ev ad e cap tu re. Reyes was co nv ic te d b y a jury of 29 co un ts of kno win gl y en co ur ag in g a ndin du ci ng 29 ali en s t o e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s i n v io la ti onof 8 U.S.C. §§ 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) an d (a )(1 )(B) (iv ), an d o ne co un t o f co ns pi rin g t o en co ur ag e an d i nduc e al ie ns to en te r th e Uni te d S ta te s i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. §§ 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) , (a)(1 )(A)(v )(I), a nd(a)(1 )(B) (iv ). Rey es rai se s a n um be r of is su es inth is ap pe al . He con te nd s tha t the Uni te d S ta te s C oa stGuar d’s s itua ti on rep ort i s i na dm is si bl e h ears ay ; tha t adm is si on of t he si tu at io n re po rt v io la te s the Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e; an d t ha t the re i s i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on s. I. Reyes fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e ad m is si on of t he Co as t Gu ard ’s si tu at io n re po rt athi s tria l was erro r be cau se th atrep ort i s i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . The rep ort was adm it te d u nd er the publ ic reco rd s ex cep ti on of F ed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 03 (8 ). Reyes arg ue s tha t i t was no t wi th in th atex cep ti onbe cau se th e la w enf or cem en t li mit at io n t o t he ex cep ti on ap pl ie s. We revi ew a d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on he ars ay ev id en ce o nl y

foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 4 41 F.3d13 30 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 2Hears ay is “ a st at em en t, o th er tha n o ne m ad e b y th e d ecl aran t wh il e te st ifyin g a t the tri al or h eari ng , off eredinev id en ce t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m atte r as se rte d.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c). Un de r Ru le 80 3( 8) , ho wev er, d oc um en ts are n ot ex cl ud edas h ears ay

if t he y are re co rd s, re po rts , st at em en ts , or d at a co m pi la ti on s o f publ ic ag en ci es co nt ai ni ng m at te rs ob se rv edun de r a dut y to rep ort. Fed . R. Evi d. 80 3( 8) (B). Incri m in al cas es , ho wev er, the ex cep ti on co nt ai ne d i n t ha t ru le do es no t co ve r m atte rs ob se rv edby pol ic e o ffi cers an d o th er l aw en fo rcem en t pe rs on ne l. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (8 ). Co as t Gu ardoff ic ers actat t im es as l aw en fo rcem en t p ers on ne l i n d is ch arg in g t he ir dut ie s. Cf. Un it edSta te s v . Trujil lo , 57 3 F .3d11 71 , 11 73 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (d is cu ss in g ajoi ntop erat io n b etweenth e Co as t Gu ardan d a“ vi rtu al alp habe t s oup o f fed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en ci es ”). The si tu at io n re po rt i n i ts un red act edform reco un te d a ll of the ev en ts of t he in te rd ic ti on in cl ud in g t he 40 -m in ut e h ig h- sp eed , go -fas t b oa t ch as e th aten de d i n a cap si zedbo at , a res cu e, an d t he de ath o f a ch il d. Th e si tu at io n re po rt i n t ha t fo rm wou ldalm os t ce rta in ly fit wi th in th e la w enf or cem en t l im it at io n t o R

ul e 8 03 (8 ) as a m atte r ob se rv edby law en fo rcem en t p ers on ne l. The en ti re s itua ti on rep ort, h owe ve r, was n otin tro du cedin to ev id en ce. The go ve rn m en t s tri pp edth e si tu at io n re po rt d own to a ba re l is t o f th e n am es of t he al ie ns fou ndinth e wat er n ear t he go -fas t b oa t an d t he id en ti fic at io n n um be rs 3as si gn edby the Co as t Gu ardto ke ep tra ckof tho se ali en s dur in g t he ir d et en ti on on

th e Co as t Gu ardve ss el . The s itua ti onrep ort i n t ha t re da ct edform is ak in to in fo rm at io n re su lt in g fr om fil li ng ou t a b oo ki ng sh eetan d a ss ig ni ng a pr is on er nu m be r to so m eo ne de ta in edat aco un ty j ai l. Thi s C ou rt h as reas on edth atsu ch

“ do cu m en ts reco rd in g ro ut in e, ob jecti ve ob se rv at io ns , m ad e as pa rt o f th e ev eryday fun ct io n o f th e p rep ari ng off ic ia l o r ag en cy ” are pre ci se ly the “ type o f rel iabl e rec or d e nv is io ne d b y th e draft ers of R

ul e 8 03 (8 ).” See Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 9 F.3d90 7, 9 11 –1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) (ho ld in g t ha t ad m is si on of apo li ce cu st od ia n’s p ro pe rty recei ptto sh ow ex is te nc e o f a fi rearm di d n otvi ol at e Ru le 80 3( 8) ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Carab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ [A]dm is si on of r ou ti ne ly andm ech an ic al ly kep t I.N.S. rec or ds , su chas . . . warra nt s o f de po rta ti on , do es no t v io la te Ru le 80 3( 8) (B).” (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v. Ag us ti no -Hern an de z, 14 F.3d42 , 43 (11 th Cir .19 94 ))); Uni te d S ta te s v . Dowd el l, 5 95 F.3d50 , 72 (1s t Ci r. 20 10 ) (fi nd in g t ha t the adm is si on of t he “ ro te reci ta ti on of b io gr ap hi cal in fo rm at io n i n abo ok in g s he et ” d oe s v io la te Ru le 80 3( 8) ). Inth is cas e th e g ov ern m en t o ffer edev id en ce tha t m at ch in g t he na m es of al ie ns with c us to di al id en ti fic at io n n um be rs onbo ardCo as t Gu ardcu tt ers is a ro ut in e, no n- adve rs ari al pro cedur e u se d t o t rackin di vi du al s u nt il th ey are 4tra ns ferr edto ot he r ag en ci es inth e Uni te d S ta te s o r rep atria te d t o t he co un tri es

fro m whi chth ey

cam e. Reco rd in g a li en s’ nam es an d a ss ig ni ng id en ti fic at io n nu m be rs to lo g a ndtra ckde ta in ees whi le onbo arda Co as t Gu ardve ss el do es no t di fferinform

fro m in ta ke pro cedur es pe rfo rm edat t he lo cal jail . Bot h a re

“ ro ut in e, ob

jecti ve ob se rv at io ns , m ad e as a pa rt o f th e ev eryday fun ct io n” of t he ag en cy an d d o n otvi ol at e Ru le 80 3( 8) . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e si tu at io n re po rt u nd er Ru le 80 3( 8) . 1 Reyes al so co nt en ds th atth e n am es withi n t he si tu at io n re po rt we re o ut -o fco urt s ta te m en ts by the ali ende cl aran ts , andth os e n am es were the m se lv es he ars ay an d s ho ul d n otha ve be enadm it te d. Bu t the ali en s’ st at em en ts pro vi di ng na m es were n otoff

eredforth e truth o f th e m at te r as se rte d—th ey were n otoff

eredto pr ov e th atan y

ali enwas i n fa ctwho he sai d t ha t h e was . Ins te ad , th os e n am es were o ffer edan d a dm it te d o nl y to pro ve th atth e n am es were s ta te d b y th e al ie ns an d t ha t an off

ic er re co rd edth os e n am es an d t he nu m be r of th e co rres po nd in g br acel etth atwas p la cedon each ali en ’s wris t fo r id en ti fic at io n a ndtra ck in g pu rp os es . Thatin fo rm at io n i n turn was m at ch edwith re co rd s o f rep atria ti on to Reyes make s a passingref ere nce a nd brief a rgument that another

document, which 1 rec orded the aliens’ r epatriation to Cuba, also constituted hearsa y . Even a ssuming that issue is sufficie ntly

raised, that document, like the situation repor t, falls within the Rule 803(8) public rec ords exception beca

use it was a “ document[] rec ordingroutine, objec tive observations, made as par t of the eve ryday

function of the pr eparing of ficial or a g ency .” See, B rown, 9 F .3d at 911. 5Cuba , whi chwas re le va ntto th e is su e o f whe th er the ali en s l ack edauth or iz at io n t o

co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Whethe r anali enwas re pa tri at edto Cubaun de r hi s co rrec t n am e o r a fi ct it io us on e was irr el ev an t. II. Reyes’ seco ndco nt en ti on is th atadm is si on of t he si tu at io n re po rt v io la te d th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s re jecti onof t ha t is su e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Lam on s, 5 32 F.3d12 51 , 12 61 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . As we ha ve alr eady

m en ti on ed , th e o nl y

pa rts of the rep ort tha t wer e ad m it te d wer e th e na m es th e al ie ns ga ve an d t he id en ti fic at io n n um be rs ass ig ne d t o t ho se na m es . Bec au se th e n am es th e al ie ns ga ve were n otoff eredforth e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d, i t fo ll ows th atcro ss -ex am in at io n o f th e al ie n m ak in g t ha t o ut -o f-co urt st at em en t t o d et erm in e it s tru th wou ldbe fru it le ss . Whe th er the ali enga ve a fal se na m e is irr el ev an t. Pu t d iff eren tl y , if i t d oe s n otm at te r whe th er the ali en s wer e te ll in g t he tru th , th enth ey are n ottes ti fy in g a s “ witne ss es ag ai ns t” Reyes un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. U.S. Co ns t. Am en d. VI; see als o Uni te d S ta te s v . Ji m in ez, 5 64 F.3d12 80 , 12 86 –1 28 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ The Cl au se . . . do es no t b ar the us e o f te st im on ia l s ta te m en ts forpu rp os es ot he r th an es tabl is hi ng th e trut h o f th e m atte r as se rte d.” (al te rat io ns om it te d) (qu ot in g Crawf or d v . W as hi ng to n, 5 41 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9 , 12 4 S .Ct. 1 35 4, 1 36 9 n .9 (2 00 4) )). 6Add it io na ll y , to th e ex te ntReyes arg ue s tha t the si tu at io n re po rt i ts el f vi ol at es th e

Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e, bo th th e Co as t Gu ardoff ic er wh o g athe redth e n am es fro m th e al ie ns an d a ss ig ne d t he ir i de nt ifi cat io n n um be rs an d t he off

ic er wh o re co rd ed th e n am es inth e si tu at io n re po rt t es ti fie d i n c ou rt. Re y es ha d t he op po rtu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e th os e o ffi cers ab ou t wh atth e al ie ns sai d, h ow n um be rs were as si gn edto th e n am es , whi chnu m be rs were as si gn edto whi chna m es , andso fo rth . III. Reyes al so co nt en ds th atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on foren co ur ag in g o r in du ci ng ali en s t o c om e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(i v) , andto supp ort h is co nv ic ti on for co ns pi rin g t o d o t ha t u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(v )(I). We rev ie w de n ov o t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce, v ie win g a ll ev id en ce, rea so nabl e in fere nc es , and cred ib il it y

ch oi ces infav or

of t he ve rd ic t. Un it edSta te s v . Greer, 4 40 F.3d12 67 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A jury ve rd ic t ca nn otbe setasi de “ if a ny reaso nabl e co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce wo ul d h av e al lo wedth e jury to fi ndth e d efen da nt gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v . Herrera , 93 1 F .2d76 1, 7 62 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) . A. 7The go ve rn m en t ch arg edReyes with 2 9 c ou nt s u nd er 8 U.S.C. §

13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) , on e fo r eac h a li en . The el em en ts of t ha t s ta tu te are: “ (1 ) en co ur ag in g o r in du ci ng ; (2 ) anali en ; (3 ) to co m e to . . . th e Uni te d S ta te s; an d (4 ) kn owi ng or i n re ck le ss di sr eg ardth atth e al ie n’s co m in g t o . . . th e Uni te d S ta te s i s il le ga l.” Edward s v . Prim e, In c., 60 2 F .3d12 76 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Lop ez, 5 90 F.3d12 38 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 )); see als o 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) . “ Thi s C ou rt h as gi ve n abro adin te rp ret at io n t o t he ph ras e ‘enco ur ag in g o r in du ci ng ’ in th is co nt ex t, co ns tru in g i t t o i nc lu de th e actof ‘hel pi ng ’ al ie ns co m e to . . . th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Edward s, 6 02 F.3dat 1 29 5. Reyes as se rts th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e g ov ern m en t i s i ns uf

fic ie nt to sat is fy th e fi rs t el em en t o f en co ur ag in g o r in du ci ng un de r th atst atut e b ecau se al l h e d idwas p lu g c oo rd in at es in to a GPS an d p lu g h is ph on e num be r in to a sa te ll it e p ho ne . He arg ue s tha t i nc lu di ng th atco nduc t u nd er the fir stele m en t o f § 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) stret ch es ev enth is Co urt’s b ro adin te rp ret at io n o f th e p hr as e

“ en co ur ag in g o r in du ci ng ” to o fa r. 2 Reyes’ po rtr ay al of t he ev id en ce an d h is arg um en t, h owe ve r, m is s the bo at . The ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e g ov ern m en t p ro ve d a t the ve ry lea stth athe he lp ed Reyes also asse rts that such a br oad re adingrende rs 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)( 1)(A) (i) and 2 (a) (1)( A)(v) (I I ) super fluous. This Court specifica lly addre ssed and r ejec ted those arguments in L opez. See L opez, 590 F.3d at 1250–51. 8th e al ie ns to co m e fro m Cubato th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th ere was tes ti m on y th at Reyes was th e “ or ga ni zer o f th e tr ip ” an d m ad e cal ls to Cubato co or di na te th e pi ckup of t he ali en s. Th ere was als o t es ti m on y th atReyes, inad di ti on to pro vi di ng an d i ni ti al ly plu gg in g i n t he GPS co or di na te s o f th e p ic kup re nd ev ou s an d pr ov id in g asat el li te ph on e with h is nu m be r pr og ram

m edinit , hel pe d t he pi lo ts vi a sa te ll it e p ho ne to rep ro gr am th e GPS wh enitm al fu nc ti on edwhi le th e b oa t was on th e h ig h s eas enrou te to Cuba . W it ho utReyes’ hel p, the sm ug gl in g o pe rat io n wou ldha ve be enba ckto squa re o ne be cau se th e p il ot s co ul d n otha ve gu id edth e go -fas t b oa t t o t he ren de vo us po in t wh ere t he ali en s wer e wai ti ng forth em . There was als o e vi de nc e th athe in stru ct edth e p il ot s h ow t o e va de in te rd ic ti on by the Co as t Gu ardan d t ol d t he m whatth ey

sh ou lddo incas e th ey

go t caug ht . Thatwas pl en ty of ev id en ce t o s up po rt R ey es ’ co nv ic ti on un de r 8 § 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) . 3 B. Reyes al so arg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro du ce s uf fic ie ntev id en ce to supp ort h is co ns pi racy con vi ct io n u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4 (a )(1 )(A)(v ). He Reyes also brie fly

argues that the g overnme nt insufficiently proved e ach a lien’s lack of 3 authorization to enter the United States. A s we have alr eady discussed, there was e vidence showinga cove rt smugg ling ope ration re sulting in the g o-fa st boat pickingup 29 aliens who we re waitingfor that boat in the water off the Cuba

n shore. En r oute to the United States, the g o-fa st boat attempted to eva de authorities, resulting in a 40-minute, highspeed c hase. The re w as evidenc e that the a liens were detained by the Coast Guar d afte r the interdic tion and that eac h alien wa s succe ssfully

repa triated ba ck to Cuba. That wa s more than e nough evidenc e to prove that the 29 aliens we re Cuban na tionals not authorized to enter the United States.

9as se rts th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d n o e vi de nc e o f arra ng em en ts be twee n R ey es

an d a ny forei gn na ti on al . The l ackof a ny arran ge m en t, Re y es cla im s, m ad e it im po ss ib le for

hi m to ha ve co ns pi redto en co ur ag e o r in du ce an y ali en s t o c om e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n v io la ti on of 8 § U.S.C. § 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i v) . Tha t ar gu m en t i s u np ers ua si ve , bec au se th e ab se nc e o f arra ng em en ts be twee n R ey es an d a ny ali en s i s n otdi sp os it iv e. The e le m en ts of c riminal co ns pi racy are: (1 ) anag reem en t t o c ommita cri m e, (2 ) de fen da nt ’s kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary pa rti ci pa ti oninth e co ns pi racy, and(3) pe rfo rm an ce b y at l eas t o ne co ns pi rat orof a n o ve rt a ctinfurth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ndi ay e, 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The g ov ern m en t m ay sh ow co ns pi racy “by circu m st an ti al ev id en ce an d t he ex te ntof p art ic ip at io n i n t he co ns pi racy or ex te ntof kno wled ge of d et ai ls . . . do es no t m atte r if th e p ro of sh ows th e d efen da ntkn ew th e es se nt ia l o bjec ti ve of t he co ns pi racy.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gup ta , 46 3 F .3d11 82 , 11 94 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on s m ark s o m it te d) . Lik e th e co nv ic ti on s und er 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(i v) , Rey es ’ co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on un de r § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(v )(I) i s s up po rte d b y am pl e ev id en ce. The re was ev id en ce tha t af

te r th e fi rs t d ep artur e to Cubafai le d, Re y es was p res en t ata m eet in g wh ere ane w pl anwas p utto ge th er s o t ha t the il le ga l s m ug gl in g t rip co ul d be co m pl et ed . Rey es als o fu lfi ll edhi s ro le inth atag reed -to pl anwhenhe 10pr og ram

m edth e GPS, p ro vi de d t he sat el li te ph on e, an d c omm un ic at edon nu m ero us oc cas io ns with the pi lo ts whi le th ey were en rou te to Cuba . The ev id en ce s uf

fic ie nt ly sho wedth atReyes an d the pi lo ts ag reedto co m m ita cri m e, an d R ey es , with kno wled ge of t he pl an , parti ci pa te d i n i t an d c omm it te d n um ero us ov ertact s i n fu rth eran ce o f it . AFFIRMED.

11