FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 8, 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. 07- 13138 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 7 9 4 - C R - D MM 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 P I T E R S O N R O S I E R , 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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 8, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P i t er son R osi erappeal s hi s c on vi ct i on s f or (1) c on spi ra cyt o i m po rtcoca i ne,Jac qu e s ultimate ly ple d guilty

to t hec on sp ira c y

c ha rg ebut invo ke d his F if

th 1 Am endment p rivil e g eag ains t se lf -incrimin atio n a

nd did no t te sti fy

at Ro sier’ s trial. 2 i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 963; ( 2) i m por t a t i on of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § 9 5 2 ( a ) ; ( 3 ) c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 ; and (4) po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). O n app ea l , R osi erchal l enges the suff i ci ency o f th e e v i d e n c e a s t o a l l f

o u rc h a r g e s . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D A fe dera l grand j ury i nd i ct ed R osi eron four coun t s of c ocai ne-r el at ed of f e ns e s . F r a nt z J a c que s w a s c ha r ge d a s a c o- c ons pi r a t or . A ttr i a l , O f f i c e rH e c t or 1 F i rpo, a C ust om s a nd B order P rot ec t i on (C B P ) e m pl oyee atM i am i Int ernat i on al A i rpor t , t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d f

i r s tnot i c e d R os i e rdur i ng a n e nf or c e m e nt e xa m i na t i on of

R os i e r ’ s f

l i ghti n D e c e m be r2006. O f f i c e rF i rpo e xpl a i ne d tha the had n ot i ce d thatR osi erw al ked “ i n a ri gi d m anner” and coul d “ no tfl ex[] hi s s ho es ve ry w e l l . ” R 2 a t26. O f f i c e rF i rpo s t oppe d R os i e ra nd a s ke d a f e w r out i ne que s t i ons aboutR os i e r ’ s tr i p t o H a i t i . H e t e s t i f i e d tha t , w hi l e w a l ki ng t o a se cond ary i nspect i on si t e, he had n ot i ce d thatR osi erw as st i l l w al ki ng i n a very r ig id m a n n e r , a n d , d u r in g th e s e c o n d a ry in s p e c tio n , h e q u e s tio n e d R o s ie rab o u t h is s hoe s . R os i e re xpl a i ne d tha the ha d boughtthe m i n H a i t i f or$40. O f

f i c e rF i rpo t e s t i f i e d tha t , dur i ng a pa t - dow n s e a r c h of R os i e r , he ha d a s ke d R os i e rt o r e m ove3

h i s s h o e s , wh i c h we i g h e d m o r e th a n n o rm a l a n d s m e l l e d s tr o n g l y o f g l u e . He c oul d s e e gl ue c om i ng outof the s ol e f

r om the i ns i de of

the s hoe , a nd the s hoe w ou l d n otfl ex. O ff

i ce r F i rpo extra ct ed po w der f rom un der the sol e of the shoe, w hi ch t es t ed po si t i ve for c ocai ne. O f f ic e rL e s te rS ilv a , a C B P e m p lo y e e a t M ia m i I n te rn a tio n a l A irp o r t, t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d not i c e d J a c que s c om i ng “ of f the pl a ne i n a r i gi d m a nne r . ” I d. at 5 4 . S il v a e lab o ra ted th at Ja cq u es d id“n o t b en d [] h is sh o es m u ch ” a n d h ad “a r i gi d w a l k[ , l ] i f

t i ng hi s kne e s a l i tt l e above a ve r a ge . ” I d. a t55. O f f i c e rS i l va s t oppe d J a c que s a tthe c he c kpoi nta nd de c i de d t o c onduc ta s e c onda ry e xa m i na t i on and p at -dow n. O ff

i ce r S i l va no t i ce d thatJa cques’ s s ho e w as si gn i fi ca nt l y hea vi er than a no rm al snea ker a nd thatthe sol e s ee m ed m od i fi ed. H e a l so i nd i ca t ed that the shoe w as ri gi d and w ou l d n otbend . O ff i ce r S i l va extra ct ed a w hi t e pow dery s u b s ta n c e f

r o m J a c q u e s ’s s h o e , w h ic h te s te d p o s itiv e f o rc o c a in e . P a s qua l C i t e r e , a n e m pl oy e e of A i rF r a nc e , t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe pl a ne t i c ke t s of R o s ie ra n d J a c q u e s h a d b e e n p u r c h a s e d in P o r t- a u - P r in c e , H a iti, a n d p a id f o rin c a s h. C i t e r e c onf

i rm e d tha tthe tw o t i c ke t s ha d be e n pur c ha s e d c ons e c ut i ve l y , a nd thatJa cques had m ade the t i cketre se rvat i on for hi m se l f, R osi er , and tw o o ther in d iv id u a ls . F u r th e r , C ite r e te s tif ie d th a t: ( 1 ) b o th J a c q u e s a n d R o s ie rc h e c k e d in for the fl i gh tatP ort -au-P ri nce w i thi n three m i nu t es of ea ch other; (2) the t i cket4

r e s e rva t i ons of

R os i e ra nd J a c que s pr ovi de d the s a m e c ont a c ti nf orm a t i on; a nd ( 3) J a c que s , R os i e r , a nd the tw o othe ri ndi vi dua l s on the r e s e rva t i on c he c ke d i n f orthe fl i g h tco n secu t i v el y. P a tr i c i a B urn, a s e ni orf or e ns i c c he m i s tf

orthe D rug E nf

or c e m e nt A dm i ni stra t i on (D E A ), t es t i fi ed thatthe w hi t e pow der f ou nd i n R osi er ’ s s ho es w as co cai n e h yd ro ch l o ri d e. B u rn al so t est i fi ed th atth e sh o es carried ro u g h l y a k ilo g r a m o f

9 0 % p u r e c o c a in e . J ill R e n e R a e z e r , a s e c o n d D E A f o r e n s ic c h e m is t, t es t i fi ed thatJa cques’ s s ho es al so cont ai ned rou gh l y aki l og ra m of 95 % pu re coca i ne. U pon be i ng r e c a l l e d f

ora ddi t i ona l t e s t i m ony , O f f i c e rF i rpo s t a t e d tha the ha d r e c ove r e d tw o c e l l phone s f r om R os i e rdur i ng the pa tdow n- s e a r c h. A ge nt T r e v o rM c K e n z ie , a s p e c ia l a g e n t w ith I m m ig r a tio n a n d C u s to m s E n f o r c e m e n t, then t es t i fi ed thatal tho ug h R osi erand Jac qu es had each deni ed kn ow i ng the other, o n e o f th e tw o c e ll p h o n e s r e c o v e r e d f r o m R o s ie ra t th e M ia m i a irp o r t b e lo n g e d to J a c que s . A ge ntM c K e nz i e a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s tr e e tva l ue of 1 ki l ogr a m of c o c a i n e i s ap p r o x i ma t e l y $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 t o $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 , a n d th a tth e t o t a l o f 2 k i l o g r a ms se i ze d from R osi erand Jac qu es i s a n am ou ntgeneral l y use d for di stri bu t i on ra ther th a n f o rp e r s o n a l c o n s u m p tio n . A tthe c l os e of

e vi de nc e , R os i e rm ove d f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , w hi c h the5

di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d. T he j ury f ound R os i e rgui l ty of

a l l f ourc ount s , a nd the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d h i m t o 7 8 m on ths i n p ri son, t o run concurrent l y a s t o eac h c o u n t. O n ap p e a l, R o s ie rc h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

e v id e n c e a s to e a c h c o u n t. H e s peci fi ca l l y a rgues that(1) bec ause there w as no di re ctevi dence s ho w i ng an agre em entt o i m po rtor di stri bu t e c ocai ne, the go vernm entfa i l ed t o est abl i sh that h e a g r e e d to p a r tic ip a te in th e c o n s p ir a c y ; a n d ( 2 ) th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h e k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d o rin te n d e d to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r evi ew chal l enges t o the suff i ci encyof the evi dence de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l es , 29 0 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 55 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). T he evi dence is v ie w e d “in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w ith a ll r e a s o n ab le i n feren ces an d cred i b i l i ty ch o i ces m ad e i n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s fav o r. ” Id . W e m u st a f f i rm unl e s s the r e i s no “ r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on of the e vi de nc e ” unde rw hi c h the j ury c ou l d h ave f

ou nd the defendantgu i l ty bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . U ni t ed S t at es v. G ar ci a, 40 5 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 69 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). C on spi ra cyre qu i re s proof beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat : (1) “ there exi st ed a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n tw o orm or e pe r s ons t o [ c om m i tthe unde r l y i ng c r i m e ] , ” a nd (2) “ the defendantkn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y part i ci pat ed i n thatagre em ent . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. A rbane, 44 6 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 28 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). “ A conspi ra cy6

m a y be i nf

e rr e d f r om a c onc e r tof

a c t i on orf

r om a de ve l opm e nta nd c ol l e c t i on of ci rc um st ance s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C oo per, 87 3 F . 2d 26 9, 27 2 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( per curi am ). P art i ci pat i on m aybe i nferre d w here a def endantt akes ac t i on t o further th e c o n s p ir a c y , a n d “th e d e f e n d a n t’s o w n s ta te m e n ts m a y b e u s e d to in f e rh is part i ci pat i on i n the conspi ra cy . ” I d. W e have found thatevi dence of concert ed tr a ve l a rr a nge m e nt s a nd i de nt i c a l c ont a c ti nf or m a t i on s uppor t s a c onvi c t i on f or c o n s p ir a c y . I d . a t 2 7 3 - 7 4 . F u r th e r , e v id e n c e th a t a“d e f e n d a n t [ la te rf

o u n d to b e in pos s e s s i on of

drugs ] w a s ne rvous , m a de c onf l i c t i ng s t a t e m e nt s t o a uthor i t i e s , or r e la te d im p la u s ib le s to r ie s to a u th o r itie s ” m a y s u p p o r t ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y . U ni t ed S t at es v. S t anl ey , 24 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 21 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). I n or de rt o pr ove tha ta de f e nda nti m por t e d a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , the go vernm entm ustes t abl i sh thatthe defendantkn ow i ng l y i m po rt ed a c on trol l ed s u b s ta n c e in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . U n ite d S ta te s v . P e a r t, 8 8 8 F .2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 n .2 (11th C i r. 19 89 ) ( per c uri am ). P roof m aybe m ade by di re ctor ci rc um st ant i al evi dence. U ni t ed S t at es v. K el l y, 74 9 F . 2d 15 41 , 15 46 (11th C i r. 19 85 ). In order t o con vi cta def

endantun der 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a ), the go vernm entm ustprov e that h e h a d k n o w in g p o s s e s s io n o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te it. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, 473 F . 3d 1137, 1142 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 2155 ( 2007) . I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h know i ng pos s e s s i on, the gove rnm e nt7

m ayshow ac tual or construct i ve po ss es si on and can prov e posse ss i on w i th d i re ct orc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . I d. “ C ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on e xi s t s w he r e the de f e nda ntha d dom i ni on orc ontr ol ove rthe drugs orove rthe pr e m i s e s w he r e the d ru g s w e r e lo c a te d .” I d . “P o s s e s s io n b y o n e c o - c o n s p ir a to rc a n b e im p u te d to another. ” K el l y, 74 9 F . 2d at15 48 . F urther, i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m aybe i nferre d fr om the l ar ge am ou ntof contraband i n the defendant ’ s posse ss i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T i no co, 30 4 F . 3d 10 88 , 11 24 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). T h e c u m u lati v e e ff

ec t o f th e c ircu m stan ti al ev id en ce b elies R o sier ’s c ont e nt i on of

i ns uf f i c i e nc y . A s t o R os i e r ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the c ons pi r a c y , the r e c or d i s c l e a rtha t , on the s a m e ni ght , both R os i e ra nd J a c que s w e r e s t oppe d, se ar ched, and u l t i m at el y a rr es t ed atthe M i am i ai rportaf t erhavi ng been di sc ov er ed w e a r i ng s hoe s i n w hi c h s i gni f i c a ntqua nt i t i e s of

c oc a i ne ha d be e n c onc e a l e d. T he e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he s tha tR os i e ra nd J a c que s tr a ve l e d t oge the r . S e e C oope r , 873 F .2 d a t 2 7 3 . R o s ie ra n d J a c q u e s ’s p la n e tic k e ts w e r e p u r c h a s e d c o n s e c u tiv e ly in P ort -au-P ri nce, H ai t i , w i th cas h. Ja cques m ade the re se rvat i on for R osi erand l ef t the sa m e c on t ac ti nform at i on on bo th t i cket s. T he evi dence al so es t abl i shes that R osi erand Jac qu es chec ked i n t o the fl i gh tt og ether. M oreover, R osi erca rr i ed J a c q u e s ’ s c e l l p h o n e w i th h i m o f f o f th e a i rp l a n e , a n d b o th me n w a l k e d i n th e s a me r i gi d m a nne rbe c a us e of the s a m e s hoe m odi f

i c a t i on. I n a ddi t i on, the c oc a i ne8

f ound i n R os i e r ’ s s hoe s m a t c he d i n appr oxi m a t e qua l i ty a nd qua nt i ty tha tf ound on Ja cques. S ee i d. (s i m i l ar i ty i n d rug q ual i ty f ou nd on defe nd ant s c on st i tut ed evi dence of conspi ra cy ). F i nal l y, ea ch m an i ni t i al l y deni ed kn ow i ng the other, a l though i tbe c a m e e vi de nttha tthe y w e r e tr a ve l i ng t oge the r . S e e S t a nl e y , 24 F . 3d at13 21 . F or al l of these re as on s, a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatthere w a s a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n R os i e ra nd J a c que s i n w hi c h R os i e rknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y pa r t i c i pa t e d. T he e vi de nc e a l s o di s c r e di t s R os i e r ’ s c l a i m of i ns uf f i c i e nc yr e ga r di ng the i m po rt at i on and d i stri bu t i on el em ent s of the charges agai nsthi m . B ec ause R osi er a n d J a c q u e s w e r e in v o lv e d in a c o n s p ir a c y , e v id e n c e th a t J a c q u e s k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d c o c a in e c a n b e im p u te d to R o s ie r . S e e K e lly , 7 4 9 F .2 d a t 1 5 4 8 . A dd i t i on al l y, gi ven the evi dence thatR osi er ’ s s ho es sm el l ed strong l y of gl ue, w e ig h e d s ig n if

ic a n tly m o r e th a n n o rm a l s h o e s , a n d f o r c e d h im to w a lk in a r ig id m anner, a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatR osi erkn ew thatthe shoes had b ee n al t er ed t o con ce al a c on trol l ed subst ance . E ven i f thatw er e notthe ca se , pos s e s s i on c a n be i m put e d t o R os i e rbe c a us e he ha d dom i ni on a nd c ontr ol ove rthe s h o e s c a rry in g c o n tr ab a n d . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C la rk , 7 3 2 F .2 d 1 5 3 6 , 1 5 4 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 84 ) ( ho l di ng thatdefe nd anthad con struct i ve po ss es si on of narc ot i cs w here narc ot i cs foun d i n h i s truck).9

B e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e a ls o e s tab lis h e s th a t R o s ie rp u r c h a s e d th e s h o e s in H a i t i a nd br oughtthe m i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , a r e a s onabl e j ury c oul d ha ve concl ud ed thatR osi erkn ow i ng l y i m po rt ed cocai ne i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es . In a d d itio n , th e e v id e n c e a ls o e s tab lis h e s th a t R o s ie rh a d th e r e q u is ite in te n t to di s tr i but e ne c e s s a ry unde r§ 841( a ) . A ge ntM c K e nz i e t e s t i f i e d tha tthe a m ountof coca i ne ca rr i ed by R osi erand Jac qu es i s notcom m on l y use d for pers on al c ons um pt i on butr a the rf ordi s tr i but i on. F ur the r , he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe s tr e e tva l ue of tw o k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne w as betw ee n $ 30 , 00 0 and $4 4, 00 0. T hu s, a j ury r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve f ound a n i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e ba s e d on the l a r ge a m ountof c o c a in e p o s s e s s e d b y th e d e f e n d a n ts . S e e T in o c o , 3 0 4 F .3 da t 1 1 2 4 . I I I . CONCL US I ON R os i e rappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orc ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s a nd i m por t , a nd i m po rt i ng and p osse ss i ng , coca i ne w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e i t . B ec ause R osi erhas fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e thatthe evi dence re l at i ng t o any el em entof the charged of f e ns e s w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntf ora r e a s onabl e j ury t o f i nd hi m gui l ty be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt , w e AF F I RM h i s co n v i ct i o n s.