1

0 7

- 2 9 1 2

- c r ( L ) , 0 8

- 6 2 1 0

- c r ( C ON) U SA v. R am i r ez 1 UN ITED STA TES COURT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SECOND CI RC UI T 3

_____________________ 4 August Term, 2009 5 (Argued: Dec ember 17, 2009 Dec ided: J une 29, 2010) 6 Docke t Nos. 07-2912-c r(L ), 08-6210- cr( CON) 7

_____________________ 8 U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA , 9 Appellee , 10 — v .—

11 A R C ADI O R AM I RE Z , J O S É LU I S R ODRI GUEZ , 12 Ap pe lla nts -D e

fe nd an ts, 13 A L EX L UNA , 14 Defendant

.

15 B e fo re : C A LA BR ESI , C ABRANES , AND B.D

. P ARKE R , Circuit Judges

. 16

___________________ 17 Appea l from convictions for conspirac y

to distribute cocaine , challeng ing the admission of police 18 office r’s re buttal testimony under the “impeac hment by contra diction doctrine.” Affir med. 19

___________________ 20 Robert J . Sulli van, Jr., W estport, CT, for 21 Defendant- Appellant Rodriguez

. 2 2 B ar r y A

. We in s te in , G o ld s te in

& We in s te in , B r o n x, 23 NY, for De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt R am ire

z.2 1 Har old H. Chen, Assistant United States Attorney 2 (Will iam J . Nar dini, Assist ant United States 3 Attorney , on the brief ), for N o r a R

. D an n e h y, 4 Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y , D ist ri c t of Conne c tic ut, 5 New H aven, CT, for Appellee United States of 6 America

. 7

________________________________________________________________________ 8 B AR R I NGTON D. P ARKE R , C I R C UI T J UDGE : 9 This appea l stems from the def endants' convictions in the Unit ed S tates Dist rict C ourt for the 10 District of Connecticut ( Under hill, J. ) for

their par ticipation in a l arge -sca le coc aine tra fficking 1 1 c o n s p i r a c y. T h e i n d i c t m e n tc h ar g e d R o dr i g u e z w i thb e i n g a

m a j o r s u p p l i e r o f c o c a i n e t o a

D anb u r y, 12 Connecticut drugdistribution network fr o m 2 0 0 2 to 2 0 0 5 , a nd char g ed Ramirez with simil ar c onduct 13 from 1998 to 2005. Ultimately , Rodrigue z was convicted of conspirac y to distribute 5 kilograms of 14 coca ine or 50 g rams of coca ine base, and Ramirez f or 500 g rams of coca ine or 5 g rams of c ocaine 15 base. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1), 846. 16 On appe al, Rodriguez ch all eng es his conviction on two sepa rate g rounds, while Ramirez 17 challeng es his sentenc e. Rodrig uez argues that two re buttal witnesses – police off icer Waldo Cuba 18 and Ma

ri a Rob le s – sh ou ld no t have be e n pe rm itt e d to te sti fy a bo ut c oll a te ra l matte rs , and tha t th e ir 19 testimony

sever ely prejudice d his defense . He also complains that the bi ll of par ticulars filed by

the 20 g overnme nt on the eve of trial was inade quate, a

nd that the indictment should have be en dismissed. 21 Ramirez, for his part, c laims that the sentenc i n g j u dg e improper ly found him responsible for 15 2 2 k i l o gra m s o f c o ca i n e, re s u l t i n g i na 20 4 -m o n th s en t en ce , af t er th e ju ry ex p re s s l y

re j ec t eds u ch a l ar ge 23 drugquantity

in its special interrog atory response s. Thus, acc ording to Ramirez, the district c ourt 2 4 i mp ro p er l y

re l i edo n"ac qu i t t edco n d u ct " t o es t ab l i s hdru g qu an t i ty at s en t en ci n g. 25 We find that the district court er re d i n admitting Of fice r Cuba' s testimony

to impeach 26 Rod

ri g ue z. Non e the le ss, we a ff ir m his c on vic tio n, ult imate ly fi nd ingthi s e rr or

ha rm le ss. B e c a

us e3 1 we re

je c t Ro dri guez 's oth e r c la ims , a s w e ll a s Ramir e z' s se nte nc ingc ha lle ng e , th e de fe nd ants ' 2 convictions and sente nces a re a ffirme d. 3 I. BACK GR OUND 4 The de fenda nts were char g ed and c onvicted for their roles in a

drugdistribution conspiracy 5 inv olv ingthe we e kly tr ans po rt of c oc a ine fr om B ro ok ly

n, Ne w Y or

k to Da nb ur y , Co nn e c tic ut. 6 Co-conspirator J osé Adam es (a l s o known as " Pompa" or "Ponpa" ) led the tra ffickingoperation. 7 F r o m2 0 0 2 t o 2 0 0 5 , R o dr i g u e z w a s a l l e g e d t o b e A d am e s ' s dr i v e r f

o r m an y o f th e tr i p s t o D anb u r y, 8 wh e re the dr

ug s w e re purc ha se d f

or re sa le by Al e x L un a , a

no the r c o- c on sp ir a tor . Ra mir e z, in his 9 role, a l s o o ft en ac companied A dames to Connecticut, a nd was re sponsible for supplying a nd 10 distributing coc aine in B rookly n over a n even long er pe riod. 11 Rodrigue z was arr ested in M as s achuse tts and, acc ording to the testimony of one of

the 12 arr esting office rs, conf essed to his role in the c onspiracy while beingtransporte d back to Connec ticut 13 for pr osecution. At trial, the g overnme nt a lso of fer ed the testimony of three other c o-conspirators 14 who desc ribed Rodriguez's involveme nt wi t h Ad am es, L una, and Ramirez in reg ular c ocaine 15 tr ans a c tio ns . F ina lly , th e g ov e rnme nt p re se nte d v ide o s ur ve ill anc e of

Rod ri gue z me e tin g wi th 16 Ad ame s and

Lun a in D anb ur

y , a lth ou g h th e vid e o d id n ot s ho w a ny dr ug s c ha ng ingha nd s. 17 Rodrigue z testi fied in his own def ense. H e for eswore an y k n o wing involvement in the 18 narc otics conspirac y and denie d the alleg ed confe ssion. Instead, he claimed that, a lthough he had 19 a c te d a s A dame s' s d ri ve r o ve r a

pe ri od of y e ars , h e ha d n o k

no wl e dg e of

any dr ugtr ans a c tio ns . 20 Acc ording to Rodrigue z, h e ca m e to know Adames socially , throug h friends a nd family ; when 2 1 R o dr i g u e z l a t e r l o s th i s j o b , A d am e s b e g ant o a s k R o dr i g u e z t o dr i v e h i mp l a c e s , i n c l u d i n g D anb u r y, 22 to vis it re lativ e s. Rod ri g ue z te sti fi e d that he ne ve r sa w or kn e w of any c oc a ine on th ese t ri ps . 23 B e c a

us e he wa s w ith out w or

k, Rod ri g ue z sa y s he c on tin

ue d to c ha ff

e ur Ad ame s pe ri od ic a lly

un til4 1 late 20 04 wh e n Ro dr igue z' s mo the r wa rn e d him that A dame s w a s th ou g ht t o b e inv olv e d w ithdr ug s. 2 Rodrigue z claims that he confr onted Adame s about these r umors and, althoug h they wer e denie d, 3 that he su

bs e qu e ntl y

dis tanc e d h ims e lf

fr om A dame s. 4 Th e g ov e rnme nt s ou g ht t o und e rm ine Rod ri g ue z' s defens e by , amon g oth e r t hin g s, 5 cross-e x amining him about his contac t with drug s during this period. Relying on Rodriguez's de nial 6 of any

involvement with coca ine on both direc t and cross-examination, the gove rnment also soug ht 7 to i ntr od

uc e the re butta l te sti mony of po lic e of fi c e r Wal do Cub a

and Al e x Lun a ’s g ir lf

ri e nd , M ari a 8 Robles. I n particula r, Off icer Cuba repor

ted see ing Rodriguez handling c ocaine during an unre lated 9 drugstop shortly afte r t he conspiracy had ende d. Robles, for her part, testified a

bout Rodrigue z’s 10 inv olv e me nt w ithdr ugtr a ff ic kin g duri ngthe ind ic te d pe ri od

. Th e tr ia l cou rt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th is 11 te sti mony

ha d th e po te nti a l to be e xtre me ly dama g ing ; no ne the le ss, ov e r R od ri g ue z’s ob

je c tio ns , it 12 admitted the testimony of both witnesses. 13 Ul tim a te ly , th e jur y c on vic te d e a c h d e fe nd ant o f c on sp ir a c y to p os se ss wit h int e nt t o 14 distribute c ocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. Rodrigue z wa s subseq u en t l y sentenc ed 15 to 120 months i mprisonment, while Ramirez was sentenc ed to 204 months imprisonm ent. 16 II. RO DRIG UE Z 1 7 A

. A dm i s s i o no f i mp e a c h m e n tt e s t i m o n y 18 Rodrigue z claims that the district court err ed whe n it permi tted the re buttal testimony of 19 Cuba and Robles. The testimony of both w itnesses was offe red to pr ove that Rodrigue z had had 20 pr e vio us c on ta c t w ithdr ug s, the re by imp e a c hin g his state me nts to t he c on tr ary

a s w e ll a s h is o ve ra ll 21 c re dib ili ty . O ff ic e r C ub a pr ov ided te sti mony

de sc ri bin g Rod

ri g ue z' s invo lve me nt i n a se pa rate 22 drug -re lated st op in Quee ns on Marc h 30, 2005. I mportantly , this stop occur red after the per iod of 23 the c ha

rg e d c on sp ir a c y

and , in fa c t, a ft e r A dame s h a d a lr e a dy be e n a rr e ste d. Cub a

te sti fi e d th a t,5 1 wh ile po ste d w ith the Spe c ia l Na rc oti c s En fo rc e me nt Un it, he ha d se e n Rod ri g ue z outsi de a

ve hic le 2 pla c ingwh a t a

pp e are d to be plasti c ba g s o f c oc a ine int o a sma ll p la sti c bo x. Cub a su bs e qu e ntl y 3 followed the ve hicle and r adioed his fe llow office rs, who pulled Rodrig uez o v er a nd arr ested the 4 SUV ' s tw o o c c up ants

. Th e arr e st re po rt ind ic a te s that Rodr igue z late r r e c e ive d a n a djo ur nme nt i n 5 contemplation of dismissal ( "A CD") and that all rec ords relating to the incident wer e seale d. I n view 6 of

thi s fa c t, the pr os e c uti on wa s un a ble to a c c ount fo r ho w it ha d re c e ive d a c op y of the se a le d a

rr e st 7 repor

t, claiming that it my steriously arr ived by

fax with no identifiable source

. 8 I n her te stimony , Maria Robles, br iefly descr ibed a conver sation with Rodrigue z while the 9 c on sp ir a c y

wa s o ng oin g , in

wh ic h h e re c ounte d s wa llo wi ng" ba lloon s" o f c oc a ine in o rd e r t o 10 smugg le them into the country from the Dominica

n Republic. She also repor ted see ing Rodriguez 11 acc ompany

Adames on dr

ug deliverie s to Danbury

on a weekly

basis, and stated that Rodrigue z had 12 ma de de liv e ri e s a lon e on tw o o r t hr e e oc c a sio ns . 13 1. Standard of r eview 14 I n g ener al, we will not overturn the district court' s decision t o admit or re ject evide nce a

bsent 15 an abuse of discre tion. Se e Un ite d S tates v . E sd ail le , 769 F.2d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1985). Even if we 16 conclude that the admission of the rebuttal testimony here was in er ror, the g overnme nt contends that 17 any such err or wa s harmless. SeeF e d. R. C ri m. P . 5 2( a ); Un ite d States v . M ad or i , 419 F.3d 159, 168 18 (2d Cir. 2005). B roadly speaking , the er

roneous a dmission of e v i d en ce is ha rmless wher e it "ha d 19 no substantial and injurious effe ct or influenc e on the jury verdic t," judg ed i n relation to t he total 20 evidenc e on the issue in question. Un ite d States v. Garc ia , 413 F.3d 201, 217 ( 2d Cir. 2005) 21 (quotation marks omitted). 22 2. An a ly sisWe hav e pre v iously held that a de fendan t’s statem ents o n cro ss- exam ination m ay be im peach ed 1 by ev idence otherw ise su

ppresse d under the ex clusion ary rule. S ee U

nited States v. Atherto n , 9 36 F.2 d 72 8, 73 4 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 1) (c i t i ng United States v. H

avens , 4 46 U

. S

. 6 20 ( 19 80 )) ; B ev er ly , 5 F. 3d at 63 9- 40 (stating , in

dicta, that "[t]he sam e ho lds true for defend ant' s false statem ents o n cro ss- exam ination"). How ev er, lik e oth er co urts, we hav e be en re luctant to ex tend this p rinciple to ev idence prohib ited b y the Fede ral R ules o f Ev idence, w hich often serv e differe nt po licy g oals. See United

States v. La wso n , 6 83 6 1 Gene rally , theF e d e r a l R u les of Evidenc e bar

the admission of extrinsi c evide nce, like O ffice r 2 Cuba’s testimony , related to the past conduc t of a witness. The g overnme nt co n ce d es as much, 3 acknow ledg ing that the testimony related to an entire ly

collater al m atter and did not serve a s proof 4 of the c harg ed off ense. Indeed, be cause Rodrigue z's Marc h 30, 2005 arr est occ urre d after the end 5 of the indicted c onspiracy , Offic er Cuba's rebuttal testimony would normally

have be en pre cluded 6 by

Fe dera l Rule of Evid en ce 6 0 8 (b), whic h prohibits ex trinsic evidenc e of e x actly this kind. 7 Nonethele ss, the g overnme nt argues that t his evidence was a dmissibl e for the purpose of 8 "impea chment by contra diction," whic h operates as a limited excepti o n t o Ru l e 608(b). "Wher e a 9 defe ndant testifies on direc t about a spec ific fac t, the prosec ution is entitled to pr ove . . . that he lied 10 as t o t hat fact ." Un ite d S tates v . B e v e rly , 5 F.3d 633, 639- 40 (2d Cir. 1993) (pe rmitting use of 11 extrinsi c evide nce) . More precisely , this doctrine provides that when a witness puts certa in fac ts at 12 iss ue in h is t e sti mony , th e g overnm ent m ay se e k to re but th os e fa c ts, inc lud ingby re so rt ingto 13 e xtri ns ic e vid e nc e if ne c e ssa ry . Ac c or din g to t

he g ov e rnme nt, the po int

of thi s e xce pti on

is that a 14 defe ndant may not invoke the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence in order to shield h i s perjury from 15 contra diction. 16 The g overnme nt contends that Rodrig uez's statements on both direct a nd cross-e x amination 17 trig g ere d the exception, but the trial rec ord simply does not b ea r out this rationale. I t is an open 1 8 que s ti o n in o u r Co u rt w h e th e r th e g o v e r n me n t c an p r e s e n t e xtr in s ic e v id e n c e to im p e a ch by 19 contra diction a statement made by the def endant on c ro ss -e xami natio n, wh e re su c h e vid e nc e wo uld 20 otherwise be barr ed by the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence

. We ne ed not r esolve this que stion because , 1F. 2d 68 8, 69 2 ( 2d Ci r . 1 98 2) (d i s t i ngu i s hi ng Hav ens b ec au se “ [a ] pr in ci pa l p ur po se o f th e ex cl us io nary ru le und er Miranda i s to de t e r po l i c e of f i c e r s whi l e Ru l e s 41 0 a nd 11 ( e ) ( 6) ar e de s i gne d t o e nc ou r a ge pl ea b ar g ai ni ng ”) ; see a lso W alder v. United

States , 3 47 U. S. 62, 66 (19 54) (prohib iting im peach m ent ev idence whe re the g ov ernm ent h ad “ sm ug g le[d] in” the im

peach ing op portun ity

in the co urse o f cross

e xa min a t i on ) (c i t i ng Agn ello v. U nited States , 2 69 U

. S

. 2 0, 3 5 (1 92 5) ); U nited States v. Pan tone , 6 09 F

. 2d 6 75 , 6 83 ( 3d

C ir

. 1 97 9) ; United

States v. W

arledo , 5 57 F

. 2d

7 21 , 7 26 ( 10 thC ir

. 1 97 7) ; United States v. Lam bert , 4 63 F

. 2d 5 52 , 5 57 ( 7th C ir

. 1 97 2)

.

7 1 as a f

actua l matter, Offic er Cuba did not impeach either Rodriguez's te stimony on direc t examination 2 or his response s on cross-e x amination. 3 By

h i gh l i gh t i n g R o dri gu ez ’s u n re l at ed s t o p wh i l e i np o s s es s i o no f c o ca i n e, Of fi ce r C u b a's 4 rebuttal testimony was purpor

tedly offe red to impeach Rodrigue z's statements that he had neve r see n 5 or handle d drug s. Yet Rodrig uez never g ave the testimony

that the g overnme nt ascribe s to him. The 6 transcr ipt is pellucid that on both direc t and cr oss-examination, Rodriguez was r esponding to a serie s 7 of questions about his work for Adames a

nd the t ime-per iod cover ed by the alleg ed conspira cy . For 8 ins tanc e , at th e e nd of a le ng thy c oll oq

uy fo c us e d on

Ad ame s' s a c tiv iti e s f

ro m 20 01 to 2 00 4, de fe ns e 9 c o u n s e l a s k e d

Ro dr igu e z: 10 De f. Couns e l: During the t ime that you were just desc ribing , did you see any deliverie s of 11 drug s of any kind? 12 Rodrigue z: No, I never see no dr ug s. 1 3 G o v ' t Ap p ' x a t 1 1 8

- 1 9 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e g o v e r n m e n tp i n s i t s r e b u t t a l c l a i mo nt h i s t e s t i m o n y, 14 y et it i s abundantly clea r fr om the context that R odrig uez was not issuing a blanket denia l of eve r 15 havingseen dr ug s. 16 The ve ry same is true of Rodrigue z's cross-e x amination testimony , wher e he was a sked about 1 7 h i s a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g t h e c h ar g e d

c o n s p i r a c y: 18 Go v' t: Mr

. Rod ri g ue z, y ou ' re c la imi ng y ou ne ve r sa w a ny dr ug s in this w hole time 19 period , c or re c t? 20 Rodrigue z: No, neve r. 21 Go v' t: Exc e pt f or mari jua na . Y ou sa w m ari jua na , r ig ht? 22 Rod

ri g ue z: Ye s.8 1 Gov' t: Okay , but y ou never saw c ocaine ? 2 Rodrigue z: No. 3 Gov' t App' x at 134 (e mphasis added) . The g overnme nt points t o n o i n s t ances wher e Rodriguez 4 forswor e, as a

universal matter , ever

h av i n g s ee n drug s of any kind. Compare W

alder v. United 5 States , 347 U.S. 62, 65 (1954). Nor did his ref

ere nce to having ha d “a little problem be fore ” provide 6 a predic ate for a dmitti ng Offic er Cuba' s testimony about the ar

rest. The g overnme nt contends that 7 this “litt le problem” ref err ed to t he drug stop, which opened t he door to its rebuttal testim ony . But 8 rea ding Rodriguez’s statement in context, ag ain, makes clear that he wa s ref err ing to a n ear lier eve nt 9 – a s h e a ll e g e d ly d e c id e d to d is ta n c e h im s e lf

f r o m A d ame s –

n o t a nar r e s t t h a t o c c ur r e d a f te r the 10 conspirac y ' s conclusion: "[Y]ou know, Idon' t want to g et no more trouble, so I think Mom was rig ht 11 at that ti me ." Most of a ll, none of these statements show that Rodrigue z stake d his credibility befor e 12 the jury

on any expansive assertion about life l o n g avoidanc e of dr ug s. I ndeed, the g overnme nt 13 inacc urate ly

char acte rizes the trial rec ord whe n it sugg ests as much. 14 As a result, we see no basis for admitti ng Offic er Cuba's testimony under the "impea chment 15 by

contra diction" doctrine and conclude that it should have been barre d by Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 1 6 6 0 8 ( b )

. O nt h e o t h e r h an d , w e s u s t a i nt h e d i s tr i c t c o urt ’ s a dm i s s i o no f M ar i a R o b l e s ' s t e s t i m o n y. 17 That testimony – descr ibing Rodriguez's tra nsport and delivery of coca ine – related to the char g ed 18 c on sp ir a c y , a

nd c on tr a dic te d R o d

r i g u e z ' s s t a t e m e nt o n d ir e c t e xami natio n th a t he ha d n o c on ta c t w ith 19 dr

ug s d ur ingthe re le va

nt p e ri od . We c ann ot s ay that th e a dmi ssi on

of thi s e vid e nc e wa s a

n a bu se 20 of discre tion. 21 3. Har mless Error 22 "Adistrict court' s err oneous admission of e vidence is harmless if the a ppellate c ourt ca

n 23 con clu de w it h fai r as su ranc e th at t he ev id ence d idno t s ub st ant ial ly in fl uen ce t he j ury ." United States 24 v. Al-M

oayad , 545 F.3d 139, 164 (2d C ir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In revie wing9 1 for ha

rmless err or, "we principally consider ( 1) the ove rall streng th of the prose cution' s case ; (2) the 2 prosec utor' s conduct with re spec t t o the improperly admitted evidenc e; (3) the importance of the 3 wr on g ly

a dmi tte d [e vid e nc e ]; and (4 ) whe the r s uc h e vid e nc e wa s c umu lati ve of ot he r p ro pe rl y 4 adm it tedevi den ce." United States v. Kaplan , 490 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) (inter nal quotation 5 mark s o mitte d) . We have fr e qu e ntl y state d that th e str e ng th o f t he g ov e rnme nt' s c a se is the mos t 6 critica l f

actor in assessing whether

err or wa s harmless. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . Lo mb ar

dozzi , 491 7 F.3d 61, 76 ( 2d Cir. 2007). 8 There is no question that a poli ce of fice r' s testimony

about a pr evious unrelated drugstop can 9 prove e x tremely damag ing to a

defe ndant at trial. It fu nctions essentially as evide nce of

criminal 10 propensity

and pre sents exactly

the risk of undue prejudice that the Fe dera l Rules of Evidenc e ar e 11 desig n ed t o g uard a g ainst. We do not treat the er roneous a dmission of such evidence lightly , and 12 we we igh its ef fec t on the jury

car efully

. Cf. United St ates v. Mc Callum , 584 F.3d 471, 478 ( 2d Cir. 13 2009) (" I n a diffe rent case , in which . . . the g overnme nt's othe r evide nce w as not overwhelming, or 1 4 w h e r e th e o th e r h ar ml e s s e r r o r f a c to r s ti lt e d mo r e s tr o n g ly in th e d e f e n d an t' s f av o r , o r wher e the 15 g overnme nt's summation emphasized the prior [m isconduct], a differ ent re sult could well be 16 indicated." ). 17 Ev e n w iththe se pr e c a uti on s, we c on c lud e tha

t th e g ov e rnme nt' s e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie ntl y 18 conclusive and its case sufficie ntly robust such t hat t he error in Rodrigue z's case was harmless. The 1 9 g overnme nt introduced a series o f c o -c o n s p i ra t o rs wh o t es t i fi edt o R o dri gu ez 's k n o wi n g i n v o l vement 20 in the coca ine traf fickingoperation. Nelson Rosa testified about coca ine deliverie s Rodrigue z made 21 to h im i n D anb ur y , a bo ut m on e y

that Ro dr igue z re c e ive d f ro m A le x Lun a in ex cha

ng e fo r d ru g s, 22 about how Rodrig uez would retrieve coca ine from the ve hicle he drove for Adames, a

nd about how 23 Rodrigue z helped Adames c ook coca ine into cra ck.10 1 José Pe na pr ov ided s im ila

r t e sti mony , d e sc ri bin g Rod ri g ue z' s r ole a s a

dr ive r who wo uld 2 often " bring down the mer chandise ," a nd who was f

reque ntly prese n t wh en Adames discussed 3 c oc a ine sa le s o r h and e d o ff dr ug s hi dd en in th e c ar' s se c re t c omp artme nt. Ni c ky Carr a sq uil lo 4 rec ounted for the jury how Rodrig uez a ccompa nied Adames on repe ated dr ug deliverie s, and how 5 he too had witnesse d Rodrigue z and Adames re moving dr ug s from sec ret compartments in two 6 ve hic le s. He a lso de sc ri be d s e e ingRod ri g ue z " c omp re ssi ng " c oc a ine a t A dame s' s h ou se – th a t is , 7 mixin g re lativ e ly pure c oc a ine wi th oth e r su bs tanc e s in or de r to inc re a se the ov e ra ll r e sa le pr of its

. 8 Finally , Maria R o b le s , a n o th e r c o o p e r a tingco-c onspirator, testified to see ing Rodriguez and Adame s 9 de liv e r c oc a ine , a pp ro ximate ly on e kil og ra

m at a tim e , to he r b oy fr ie nd

Al e x Lun a

on a we e kly ba sis

. 10 She a lso tol d th e jur y tha t Ro dr igue z an d Ada

me s onc e ra

n Lun a ' s dru g bu sin e ss in D anb ur y wh ile 11 she and L

una vac ationed in the Dominican Re public. 12 I n ad d ition to t hese w itnesses, the prose cution called Spec ial Ag ent Rodney Geor g e, who 1 3 d e s c r i b e d

s t a t e m e n t s R o dr i g u e z m a d e s h o rt l y a f t e r h i s ar r e s t

. A c c o r d i n g t o th i s t e s t i m o n y, 14 Rodrigue z confessed to his involvement in Adames' s drugtraff icking operat i o n while he wa s 15 transporte d from B oston, wh er e h e wa s arr ested, to Connecticut. As he rode w ith Age nt Georg e, 16 Rodrigue z alleg edly told him how he had bec ome awa re of Adames' s coca ine traf

ficking , had met 17 Adames' s supplier, and ha d driven Ada mes to make fr equent de liveries in Danbur y . 18 L astly , the g overnme nt prod u ced vide o surveillance of Rodrig uez and Adame s meetingLuna 19 in D anb ur

y . Thi s sur

ve ill anc e sh ow e d the thr e e me n ar ri vin g in a pa rk inglot , w ari ly

surv e yingthe ir 20 surrounding s, and then proc eedinginto an apar tment. W h i l e t h e fo o tag e, take n outside, does not 21 show any

drug s chang ing ha

nds, the meetin g fo llowed a phone call in which L una aske d Adames 22 to deliver 200 g rams of c ocaine

.11 1 To g e the r, a ll this e vid e nc e is at od ds wi th R od ri g ue z' s c la im that, a lth ou g h h e fr e qu e ntl y 2 drove A dames to Da n b u ry fo r a per iod of y ear s, he knewnothing of Adames' s drugtraff

icking 3 activities. Nee dless to say , g iven the sca le and f reque ncy of Adames' s coca ine deliver ies to Luna, 4 such a de fense strains belief. Ba sed on the streng th of the g overnme nt's e vidence to the contra ry , and 5 the many

witnesses who testified to Rodrigu ez 's knowing involvement, we c onclude that the 6 e rr on e ou s a dmi ssi on of Ag e nt C ub a ' s r e butta l te sti mony wa s h arm le ss. 7 B. Bill of par ticulars 8 W e c o n cl u d e t h at t h e d i s t ri ctc o u r t d i d n o terr i nd et erm i n i n g th atth e go v ern m en t 's 9 submissi on in response to the district c ourt' s order for a bill of pa rticulars was sufficie nt. T he district 10 court g rante d Rodrigue z's motion for a bill of particulars, and in response , the g overnme nt submit ted 1 1 a 6 2 -p age s u m m ary o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at i t i n t en d ed t o i n tro d u ce at t ri al

. Al th o u ght h e go v ern m en t 's 12 submissi on did not take the traditional format of a bill of par ticulars, the district cour

t found that the 13 g ov e rnme nt' s subm iss ion c on ta ine d suf fi c ie nt spe c if

ic ity to inf or m Rodr igue z of

the c ha rg e s a g a ins t 14 him and to prev ent undu e surp ri se a t tr ia l. I n li g ht o f t

he fa c t th a t Ro dr igue z ha s n ot, on a pp e a l, 15 identified " any particula r charg e on which f

urther de tail would have be en helpf ul," In reTe rro ris t 16 B o m b i n g

s o f U

. S

. E m b a s s i e s in E. Af

r. , 5 52 F.3d 93, 151 ( 2d Cir. 2008), we f ind no error

in the 17 district court' s ruling, a nd we will not overturn Rodriguez's c onviction on the g round that the 18 g ov e rnme nt' s su bmi ssi on wa s n ot f or matte d a s a

tr a dit ion a l bi ll o f p art ic ula rs . 19 Whether to g rant a bill of particular s is g ener ally a decision entruste d to the sound discretion 20 of the district cour t. See U nited States v. Barnes , 158 F.3d 662, 665-66 (2d Cir. 1998). That being 21 the ca se, a district c ourt' s determination that a bill of particulars is suffic ient would appea r to be 22 entitled to a

n even greater mea sure of defe renc e. See id. at 665 (" A di strict court judge . . . ha s the12 1 discretion to deny a bill of particula

rs if the infor

mation s o u gh t b y

defe ndant is provided in the 2 indictment or in some acc eptable a lternate form." (quotation marks omitted)). 3 I n this case, the bill of particula rs, though le ng thy , signific antly condense d the voluminous 4 discovery

produce d by

the prosec ution into a form that apprised Rodrigue z of what the g overnme nt 5 would seek to prove at trial. Se e Un ite d S tates v . D av ido

ff , 845 F.2d 1151, 1154 ( 2d Cir. 1988) (A 6 bill of particula rs enable s a "de fenda

nt to prepa

re for trial, to pr event surprise, and to interpose a ple a 7 of double jeopa rdy should he be prosecuted a second tim e for the same of fense ." ( quotation marks 8 omitted)). The district c ourt made cl ea r t h at i t order ed a bill of pa rticulars be cause so much 9 discovery

was produc ed to the def

endants, not too littl e. Tha t being the ca se, the bill, though not 10 formatted in the tr aditional fashion, adequately and appr opriately expli cate d the cha

rg es Rodrig uez 11 fac ed so that he could defend aga inst them. He cannot s how t hat he wa s entitled to any thing more

. 12 We h ave con sid e re d Ro dr igue z' s r e ma ini ngargume nts on a pp e a l and fi nd the m me ri tle ss. 13 We theref

ore a ffirm Rodriguez's c onviction. 14 III . RA M IREZ 15 Ramirez appea ls arguing that the district court er red by basing his sentence on a findingthat 16 he wa s responsible for at least 15 kilogr ams of coca ine. When a district c ourt makes a finding of fa ct 17 with respec t to the amount of drug s attributable to a de fenda nt, we re view that findingfor c lear err or. 18 United States v. Hazut , 140 F .3 d 187 , 190 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ); se e als o U nti e d S tates v . Ca v e ra , 550 F.3d 19 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) ( en banc ) ("A district cour t commits procedura l error [at sentencing ] where 20 it . . . rests its sentence on a clea rly err oneous find ing of

fac t.") . "T he cle arly

err oneous standar d 21 require s us to uphold the ruling of the court be low unless we a re ' left wit h t he def

inite and firm 22 con vi cti on th at a mi st ake h as b een co mm it ted .'" Un ite d S tates v . R e ill

y , 76 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( 2d Cir. 2 3 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Gy psum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).13 1 Having re v i ew ed the r ecor d, we c onclude that ther e wa s ample evide nce at trial, at 2 se nte nc ing , and in the PSR to su pp or t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ' s f

ind ingtha t Ramir e z co ns pir e d to dis tr ibute 3 (or c onspired to possess with intent to dist ribute) a n amount of coc aine that wa s "ve ry easily over 4 the 15-kilog ram minimum." We conc lude, ther ef o re, that the district court did not commit clear 5 e r

r o r . We h av e c o n s id e r e d Ra mi r e z' s a d d it io n a l ar g u me n ts o n a p p e a l an d f in d th e m m e r it le s s . We 6 aff

irm Ramirez's se ntence

. 7 IV . CO NC LU SION 8 For

the fore g oing r easons, the de fenda nts' c onvictions and sentenc es ar e AF F IRM ED

.