2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-13-2010 

# U SA v . B e rn ard G a

briel
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-2926

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Be r n a r d G a

br ie l " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1347. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1347NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 2926
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BERN AR D G AB RI EL, A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt of t he V i r gi n I s l ands D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 3- 04- cr - 00154- 003 U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e Jam es T
. G i l es
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

M ay3, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S , a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges ( Fi l ed: M ay13, 2010 )
OP I NI ON
S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. Be r n a r d Gab r i e l was a b a g g a g e h a n d l e rf o rW o r l d wi d e Fl i g h t Se r v i c e s a t t h e Cy r i l E. K i ng A i rpor ton St
. T hom as . H e w as char ged i n tw o count s of an 11- counts uper s edi ng i n d i c t me n tf

o rh i s i n v o l v e me n t i n a c o c a i n e s mu g g l i n g o p e r a t i o n a tt h e a i rp o r t . Be c a u s e weT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a n d 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 1612( a)
. W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 2 w r i t e o n l y f

o r t h e p a r t i e s , we a s s u me f a mi l i a r i t y wi t h t h a t o p e r a t i o n . Cou n t One o f t he i n d i c t me n tc h a r g e d Ga b r i e l wi t h c o n s p i r i n g t o p o s s e s s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e f i v e k i l o g r a ms
orm or e of c ocai ne, fr om a “t i m e unknow n and cont i nui ng t o S ep t ember [] 2004. ” C ount E l even c har ged t haton M ar ch 10, 2004, G abr i el ai ded and a bet t ed the pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e of 500 gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne. G abri el w as convi ct ed on both count s and
n o w a p p e a ls
. W e w ill a f f ir m . 1 Fi r s t , G abr i el chal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on on C ount O ne. “W hen t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence t o s uppor ta j ur y ’ s ver di cti s chal l enged,
w e m u st v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t an d m u st s u sta in t he j ur y ’ s ver di cti f a r eas onabl e j ur ybel i evi ng t he governm ent ’ s evi dence coul d fi nd bey ond
a r eas onabl e doubtthat t he gover nm ent pr oved al l t he el ement s of t he off ens e. ” U ni t ed Stat es
v . S y me , 276 F. 3d 131, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n deci di ng w het her a convi ct i on r es t s on s uffi ci entevi dence , w e dr aw “al l avai l abl e i n fe ren ce s i n favorof t he gover nm ent . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ddi ck , 156 F. 3d 505, 509 ( 3d C i r . 1998)
. “W e do notw ei gh evi denc e ordet er m i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es i n m aki ng t hi s det er m i nat i on. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . B e c ke tt , 2 0 8 F
. 3 d 1 4 0 , 1 5 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). U ndert hi s s t andar d of r evi ew , w e musts us t ai n G abr i el ’ s convi ct i on on C ountO ne. B r entD onovan, w ho l i ke G abr i el w as a bagga ge handl er at t he ai rpor t , t es t i fi ed thatG abr i el pai d hi m t o r emove i nt act fl i ght t ags fr om chec ked l uggage on t hr ee oc cas i ons i n N ovemberT hos e t ags w oul d t hen be tr ans ferr ed t o coca i ne- fi l l ed s ui t cas es s uppl i ed byot her 2 m e m b e r s o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y. 3 and D ece m berof 2002. A ccor di ng t o D onovan, G abr i el pai d hi m amount s r angi ng fr om 2 $500 t o $4, 000 forhi s eff or t s . T hi s evi dence al one w as s uffi ci ent t o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on, bu tt here w as m ore. D on ov an als o tes t i fi ed thaton cert ai n o ccasi on s, G abri el act ed as a l ookout w hi l e he r emoved fl i ghtt ags fr om l uggage i n t he bag r oom . Fur t her m or e, t her e w as evi dence t hat G abr i el admi t t ed as m uch t o A gentD arnel l B l ake j us taft erhi s arr es t . A gent B l ake t es t i fi ed thatG abr i el bl ur t ed outt o offi cer s : “I have don e it , ac ted as a l ookout
. ” A
r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have c oncl uded fr om t hi s evi dence t hatt he governm entpr oved bey ond
a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th e e le m e n ts o f th e d ru g s m u g g lin g c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e d in C o u n t O n e . L i kew i s e, t her e i s s uffi ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n G abr i el ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o n Cou n tEl even. M el eek Sy l ves t ert es t i fi ed t hat on M ar ch 9, 2004, A l r i c Thom as pai d hi m $4, 000 and gave hi m t w o ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne. Sy l ves t er w as t o br i ng t he coc ai ne t o t he ai rpor tt he nextday and , w it h h elp from R ober tR aw l i ns , ens ur e thati tm ade i tont o Fl i ght1902 t o N ew ar k. R aw l i ns backe d out , how ever , l eavi ng Sy l ves t ert o load t he coc ai ne i nt o a s ui t cas e by h im s e lf. H e d id s o i n t h e b a g ro o m , w h ile G a b ri e l a n d R o b e rt R a w lin s w e re p re s e n t. S y lv e ste r to ld th e m th a t h e w a s lo a d in g tw o k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e in to a su itca se . B o th R aw l i ns and G abr i el t ol d hi m , “go ahead. D o y our t hi ng. ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned that
a r eas onabl e j ur y coul d have found fr om t hi s evi dence t hat G abr i el w as act i ng as a l ookout fo r S y lves ter. W e a g ree , esp ec ial lyin li g h t of D o n o v an ’s t esti m o n ythat b ag g ag e h an d lers inv o lve d in th e c o n sp ir ac yo ften ac ted a s loo k o u ts fo r ea ch o ther w h il e c o -co n sp ir ators4

carr i ed out t hei r w or k i n t he bag r oom . For exampl e, D onovan t es t i fi ed thathe had s er ved
as a l ookoutforM er vi n D or i val , and t hat D or i val , G abr i el , and R ober t R aw l i ns had al l act ed
as l ookout s forhi m . U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , a r eas onabl e j ur y coul d have f ound G abr i el g u ilty o f a id in g a n d a b e ttin g c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n , a s c h a rg e d in C o u n t E le v e n . G abr i el nextcl ai m s t hatt her e w as a pre j udi ci al var i ance betw een the i ndi ct m entand t he tr i al evi dence
. C ountO ne of the i ndi ct m entcha rged a s i ngl e cons pi r acy . T he D i s t r i ct Co u r tc o n c l u d e d , a n d t h e g o v e r n me n tc o n c e d e d , t h a tt h e t r i a l e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t wo
co n spi r aci es . O ne i nvol ved C l y de Edi nbor ough, D annyR aw l i ns , D or i val , and D or i v al’s
cr ew of bagga ge handl er s . T he otheri n v o l ved Thom as , Sy l ves t er , D or i val , and other b a g g a g e h a n d le rs . G a b ri e l co rr e c tly p o in ts o u t th a t th is d is c re p a n c yc re a te d a v a ri a n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 4 5 (3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g th a t “[ w ]h e re a sin g le
c o n sp ira c yis a lleg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, th e re is a v a ria n c e if th e e v id e n c e a t trial p ro v e s o n ly t he exi s t ence of m ul t i pl e cons pi r aci es ”)
. N eart he end of t he t r i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcur ed t hi s va r i a n c e b yd i s mi s s i n g Cou n tOne a s t o Ed i n b o r o u g h
. Gab r i e l c l a i ms t h a tt h i s w as i nadequa t e. H e poi nt s out that the C o u r t ’ s r emedy“di d notr emove t he evi dence al r eady admi t t ed thates t abl i s hed m ul t i pl e conspi r aci es [. ] ” H e ar gues t hat he w as pr ej udi ced byt he

“ s p i l l o v e r ” e f

f e c to f t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o t h e E d i n b o r o u g h c o n s p i r a c y. W e ar e unper s uaded. G abr i el n ev erexpl ai ns how evi dence of t he Edi nbor ough
cons pi r acy“s pi l l ed over ” orot herw i s e pr ej udi ced hi m . In fact , he conc edes t hatt he g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e in n o w a y tied h im to E d in b o ro u g h
. T h a t as se rtio n is c o n sis ten t w ith
ourr evi ew of t he r ecor d, and i ts i gni fi cant l yw eake ns G abr i el ’ s s pi l l overcl ai m . I f none of5

th e e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g E d in b o ro u g h ’s c o n sp ira c yim p lica ted G a b rie l, th e n it is d if f icu lt t o
s ee how G abr i el w as pr ej udi ced byi t . G abr iel is left w it h t he bar e as s er t i on t hati tw as “im p o ssible f

o r t h e juryto se p ara te t h e ind ividu als ch arg ed an d the o ff en ses th eyw ere char ged w i t h. ” G abr i el offe r s no r eas on for us t o bel i eve t hi s w as t he cas e, nordo w e fi nd anyi n t he r ecor d. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hati tw as t o
a n a ly z e th e e v id e n c e in th e c a se se p a r a te lya s to e a c h d e f e n d a n t. A l t hough y ou’ l l s ee [s ever al ] peopl e l i s t ed as defe ndant s , y ou’ l l have t o look at i tas U nit ed S t at es o f A m eri ca versus w ho ever i s i n the fi rs t s l ot , as i f nobodyel s e e x ist ed; and then U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca ver s us t he nextper s on, as i f n o b o d y el s e w as a def endanti n t he ca s e, in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r o r n o t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s . . . m a d e o u t it s b u rd e n o f

p ro o f
. W e g e n e r a l ly p re s u m e th a t ju ri e s f o llo w th e irin s tr u c tio n s , S y me , 276 F. 3d at155, and G a b ri e l o f

f e rs n o c o m p e llin g re a s o n to d e p a rt f ro m th a t r u le h e re . N ext , G abr i el ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t im p rop er l yadmi t t ed a t ape- r ecor ded
conver s at i on betw een hi m s el f and i nfor m antD annyR aw l i ns . A tt he r eques tof i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s , R aw l i ns as ked G abr i el i f “a ny t hi ng coul d go now
. ” G abr i el t ol d hi m no, and that i t w as nece s s ar y t o “l ayoff f ora w hi l e. ” R aw l i ns t es t i fi ed thathe under s t ood t hi s t o m ean t hatno drugs coul d be m oved t hr ough t he ai rpor t at t hat t i m e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadmi t t ed t he r ecor di ng overG abr i el ’ s obj ect i on beca us e i tconclud ed t hatt he r ecor di ng w as an “admi s s i on of know l edge” of a drug s m uggl i ng cons pi r acy , and re l evant beca us e i ts how ed

“ p a s ti n v o l v e m e n ta s w e l l a s i n t e n to rw i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n f u tu r e t r a n s a c t i o n s . ” We
r e v i e w t h i s ru lin g f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 3 8 8 F. 3 d 9 6 , 1 00 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).6

G abr i el ’ s ar gum entas t o w hy the co n v er s at i on s houl d have be en exc l uded ci t es no T hi r d C i r cui taut hor i t yand i s di ffi cul tt o fol l ow . H e s eem s to a r gue thatbeca us e D anny R aw l i ns w as an i nfor m ant , hi s conver s at i on w i t h G abr i el coul d n o t h ave cons t i tut ed a
cons pi r at or i al agreem en t, and w as t her efor e i r r el evantand i nadmi s s i bl e. W e di s agr ee. D annyR aw l i ns t es t i fi ed thathe under s t ood t he conver s at i on t o m ean t hat no drugs coul d be
m oved thr ough t he ai rpor t at t hat t i m e. T he j ur ycoul d have c oncl uded thatG abr i el s har ed t hatunder s t andi ng. A s t he D i s t r i ct C our t r eas oned, t he conve r s at i on ar guabl ydemonst r at ed G abr i el ’ s know l edge of t he drug s m uggl i ng consp ir ac y , and t ended t o pr ove thathe w as ei t heral r eadyi nvol ved i n t hatcons pi r acy or w i l l i ng t o par t i ci pat e i n t he fut ur e. T her efor e, th e C o u rt ’s a d m is s io n o f th e c o n v e rs a tio n w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Ga b r i e l n e x tc l a i ms t h a tt h e t r i a l j u d g e wa s b i a s e d i n f a v o ro f t h e g o v e r n me n t . He
con t e n d s t h a t t h e Cou r t ’ s i n t e r v e n t i o n o n b e h a l f o f t h e g o v e r n me n t was s o a g g r e s s i v e and p e rv a siv e th a t th e C o u rt e f f e c tiv e ly b e c a m e a n a d v o c a te f o r th e p ro se c u tio n . “[ I]n o rd e r to
r ever s e on gr ounds of exc es s i ve j udi ci al i nt er vent i on, t he r ecor d m us t ei t herdi s cl os e ac tual bi as on t he partof t he t r i al j udge [or ] l eave t he r evi ew i ng cour t w i t h an abi di ng i m pr es s i on t hatt he j udge’ s r emar ks and ques t i oni ng of w i t nes s es pr oj ect ed t o t he j ur yan appe ar ance of advoca cyorpar t i al i t y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l ens ky , 757 F. 2d 594, 598 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng W ar nerv. Trans am er i ca I ns . C o. , 7 3 9 F .2 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 1 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 )). N o “ a b so lu te, rig id
ru le e x ists” f

o r d e ter m in in g w h e n a trial ju d g e o v e rste p s h is b o u n d s a n d b e c o m e s a n a d v o c a te f o r o n e p a rt y . R i l ey v . G oodm an , 3 1 5 F
. 2 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 4 (3d C ir
. 1 9 6 3 ). Itis sett led, ho w ev er, that “the jud g e’s p arti cipa ti o n m u st ne v er rea ch the p o int w h ere itap p ea rs clear to th e jury7

t hat t he cour t bel i eves t he accus ed i s gui l t y . ” U n ited S ta tes v . B e a ty , 722 F. 2d 1090, 1093 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. W e fi nd no evi dence t hatt he D i s t r i ct J udge cr os s ed thi s l i ne. T he r ecor d s how s t hathe w as act i vel yi n v o lved i n t he tr i al , butat
no poi nt w as hi s i nvol vement s o per vas i ve or one- s i ded as t o pr oj ectpar t i al i t yt o ei t hert he p ro s e c u tio n o r t h e d e f

e n s e . G a b rie l als o a lleg e s p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t d u rin g th e trial. In c o n sid e rin g a c laim of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , our i nqui r yi s w hethert he pr os ecut or ’ s act i ons “s o i nfec t ed t he t r i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake t he re s ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s i n l i ghtof t he ent i r e pr ocee di ng. ” U

n it ed Stat es v. Mor ena , 547 F. 3d 191, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. A ft ercar eful l yexami ni ng the rec o r d, w e fi nd no evi dence of pr os ecut o ri al m i s conduct
. A ccor di ngl y , G abr i el ’ s r eques tforr el i ef on thi s bas i s w i l l be d e n ie d
. W e have cons i der ed the r emai nderof G abr i el ’ s chal l enges t o hi s convi ct i on and fi nd th e m to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. W e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n .