FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APR 21 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Anne C. Conway, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ 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. 04- 15727

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 0 7 6 5 - C R - UU B 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 E H R Z A D A R B A N E , a .k .a . T o n y , a .k .a . E l T u r c o , a .k .a . A c h i S a b 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 r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 21, 2006) B ef ore B A R K E T T and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O N W A Y , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: M e hr z a h A rba ne a ppe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on, f ol l ow i ng a j ur y tr i a l , f

or c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t f

iv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e in to th e U n ite d S ta te s in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 952( a ) , 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) , a nd 963. O n a ppe a l , A rba ne arg u es t h at : (1 ) w e l ack j u ri sd i ct i o n t o try, i m p ri so n , an d p u n i sh h i m b ecau se h is p r e s e n c e in th e U n ite d S ta te s w a s p r o c u r e d in v io la tio n o f th e e x tr a d itio n tr e a ty be tw e e n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd E c ua dor ; ( 2) the tr i a l c our te r r e d i n a dm i t t i ng e v id e n c e o f

p r io ru n r e la te d c r im e s in v o lv in g a lie n s m u g g lin g a n d f a ls e d o c u m e n ts w hi l e e xcl ud i ng evi dence of A rbane’ s a cqui t t al i n an E cuadori an cr i m i nal tri bu nal f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

th e d ru g s in q u e s tio n in th is c a s e ; ( 3 ) th e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in d en yin g A rb an e’s m o ti o n fo r m istrial b as ed o n testim o n y h ig h li g h ti n g A rb an e’s i nv ocat i on of hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l enti n t he cont extof t he E cuadori an cr i m i nal pr oc e e di ngs ; ( 4) the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe c onvi c t i on; a nd ( 5) the t ri al courter re d i n i m po si ng a 235 -m on th sent ence i n v i ol at i on of U ni t ed S t at es v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d B la k e ly v . W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e a d m itte d a t tr ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t h is co n v i ct i o n fo r co n sp i racy t o i m p o rtco cai n e i n t o th e U n i t ed S t at es, th u s w e ad d ress on l y A rbane’ s a rgum ent s on j uri sdi ct i on and suffi ci ency of t he evi dence. I . B AC KG R OU ND3

A rba ne w a s i ndi c t e d on one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o i m por tf

i ve ki l ogr a m s or m o r e o f c o c a in e . T h e in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d th a t A rb a n e w a s g u ilty o f a c o n s p ir a c y to i m por tc oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s w hi c h c om m e nc e d i n O c t obe r2001 a nd en d ed o n Jan u ary 8 , 2 0 0 2 . D u ri n g A rb an e’ s tri al , th e g o v ern m en t ’ s k ey w i tn ess w as Jose Ja i ro V el ez , a gov er nm enti nform antw ho t es t i fi ed t hathe and A rbane had e nga ge d i n va r i ous c r i m i na l a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng the e xpor t a t i on of c oc a i ne f

r om E c u a d o r . A rb a n e w a s c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d to 2 3 5 - m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, a f iv e - y e a rte r m o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e , a $ 1 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t, a n d a $ 5 ,0 0 0 f in e . H e n o w b r in g s th is tim e ly a p p e a l. I I . DI S C US S I ON A . J ur i s di c t i on A rba ne f i r s tc ha l l e nge s w he the rthe r e w a s j ur i s di c t i on t o tr y hi m i n the S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da be c a us e of

the m a nne ri n w hi c h hi s pr e s e nc e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w a s obt a i ne d. A f t e rA rba ne w a s a c qui t t e d on drug pos s e s s i on c ha r ge s br oughti n E c ua dor , he w a s or de r e d de por t e d t o I r a n. E n r out e t o I r a n, A rbane’ s pl ane l anded for a st op ov eri n H ou st on , T exas , w here A rbane w as a r r e s te d o n th e in s ta n t in d ic tm e n t a n d r e m o v e d to th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a . A rbane ar gu es thatbeca use he a rr i ved i n t he U ni t ed S t at es ou t si de of t he no rm al j udi c i a l a nd tr e a ty pr oc e s s e s , the c our tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o tr y , c onvi c t , a nd4

im p r is o n h im . W e c on cl ud e thatthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. A l vare zM a c ha i n, 504 U . S . 655 ( 1992) , pr e c l ude s r e l i e f on thi s ba s i s . I n A l va r e z - M a c ha i n, the C our the l d tha tunl e s s a n e xtr a di t i on tr e a ty c ont a i ns a n e xpl i c i tpr ovi s i on m a ki ng the tr e a ty the e xc l us i ve m e a ns by w hi c h a de f e nda nt ’ s pr e s e nc e m a y be se cure d, ext ra -tre aty s ei zure s a re perm i t t ed. Id. at66 4. A l vare z- M ac hai n w as forc i bl y a bd uct ed fr om M exi co atthe behestof the D E A t o st and t ri al i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s . T h e C o u r t d is m is s e d A lv a r e z - M a c h a in ’s c la im b e c a u s e o u rtr e a ty w ith M e x ic o d id n o t e x p r e s s ly f o rb id a b d u c tio n s to s e c u r e a d e f e n d a n t’s p r e s e n c e . I d . W he r e a s the de f

e nda nti n A l va r e z - M a c ha i n w a s a bduc t e d by l a w e nf or c e m e nt agent s, A rbane w as si m pl y pl ac ed, by E cuadori an offi ci al s, on a pl ane thatst op ped in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A rb a n e d o e s n o t a n d c a n n o t c la im th a t o u re x tr a d itio n tr e a ty w ith E c u a d o rc o n ta in s a c la u s e e x p r e s s ly r e q u ir in g th a t w e s e c u r e h is p r e s e n c e in acco rd an ce w i th th e t reat y. A rbane l i kew i se ca nn otpo i ntt o a l aw w hi ch di vest s us of j uri sdi ct i on un der the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s . “ [ T ] he pow e rof a c our tt o tr y a pe r s on f orc r i m e i s not i m pa i r e d by the f

a c ttha the ha d be e n br oughtw i thi n the c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on by r e a s on of a ‘ f or c i bl e a bduc t i on. ’ ” F r i s bi e v. C ol l i ns , 342 U . S . 519, 522 ( 1952) ( c itin g K e rv . I llin o is , 1 1 9 U .S . 4 3 6 , 4 4 4 ( 1 8 8 6 ) ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t'sWe reviewde novo the suff iciency of evide nce to support c onvictions. United States v. 1 Pineiro, 389 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 2004). We re solve all rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the jury ’s verdict. I d. “Theevidenc e is sufficie nt so long a s a re asonabletrier of fac t, choosing amongrea sonable interpretations of the e vidence , could find guilt beyond a re asonabledoubt.” I d. Ar

ba nea lso argue s th at th e rewa s in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

his int e nt t o im

po rt dr ug s to 2 the United States. B eca

use weconcludethat therewas insuffic ient evidenc e of a culpable c oconspirator , we ne ed not address Arba ne’s other arguments concerningsufficie ncy of the evidenc e. The g overnme nt presente d the testimony of an Ecuadoria

n police off

icer who seized 3 222 packag es from an apa rtment in Guayaquil, Ecua dor that Jos e L opez-Posada wa s renting from Ar bane. An Ecuadorian forensic c hemist testified that the substanceseized was coc aine. Neither of these w itnesses testified as to a c onspiracy or agree ment involving Ar bane. The g overnme nt also offe red thevideotaped deposition of J ose L opez-Posada. Howe ver, 5 K er -F ri sbi e doct ri ne ho l ds thata c ri m i nal defe nd antca nn otdefe atpers on al j ur i s di c t i on by a s s e r t i ng the i l l e ga l i ty of the pr oc ur e m e ntof

hi s pr e s e nc e i n the re l evantj uri sdi ct i on — here , the U ni t ed S t at es . S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. N ori ega, 117 F . 3d 1206, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . T hus , A rba ne i s note nt i t l e d t o di s m i s s a l f or l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on. B . S uffi ci ency of t he E vi dence 1 A rb a n e a r g u e s th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t’s e v id e n c e is in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t h is conspi ra cy conv i ct i on beca use the go vernm entfa i l ed t o p rove t hathe conspi re d w ith a n y o n e o th e rth a n a g o v e r n m e n t in f o r m a n t, w h ic h is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n f

o rc o n s p ir a c y a n d r e q u ir e s r e v e r s a l. 2 T h e e v id e n c e o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n s p ir a c y in th is c a s e w a s p r e s e n te d o n ly throu gh the t es t i m on y of c on fi dent i al i nform antJose Ja i ro V el ez . V el ez t es t i fi ed 3L op e z-Po sa da te sti fi e d th at hewa s a

fa rm e r f ro m Co lom

bia wh o w a s p a id $ 1, 00 0 p e r m onth t o reside in the a

partment in Gua

yaquil, Ecua dor whe re thecocaine was f ound. He state d that he used $300 to pay

the re nt and used the remainingmoney for e xpenses. Hedenied a ny involvement in drugtransac tions. Arba ne did not testify

on his own behalf.

6 thathe and A rbane m eti n 1 99 9 and began eng agi ng i n v ar i ou s i l l egal cond uct throu gh ou tC ent ra l A m er i ca , S ou th A m er i ca , and M exi co. E vent ual l y, they e n g a g e d in th e d ru g tr a d e . H e a n d A rb a n e s h ip p e d d ru g s f r o m E c u a d o rto M e x ic o , f r o m M e x ic o to G u a te m a la , f r o m G u a te m a la to P a n a m a , a n d f r o m P a n a m a to E c u a d o r . T h e s e tr a n s a c tio n s b e g a n in 1 9 9 9 a n d e n d e d in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 0 . I n e a r l y 2000, V e l e z a nd A rba ne pur c ha s e d a nd s hi ppe d c oc a i ne f r om E c u a d o rt o Me x i c o , wh e r e th e y s o l d f i f t e e n k i l o g r a m s t o J o s e L u i s J i m e n e z , k n o wn as the E ng i neer . Justbefore E as t eri n 2 00 0, the E ng i neertra nspo rt ed t he fi ft ee n ki l og ra m s t o N ew Y ork, w here they w er e s ol d. V el ez t es t i fi ed t hati n t he sum m er of 2000, V e l e z s how e d tw o m e n how t o va c uum s e a l the drugs s o the y c oul d f i ton the E ngi ne e r ’ s a i rpl a ne . H e t e s t i f i e d tha tone of

the s e m e n “ ha d s or tof

a s w a r thy o rd a r k is h s k in ” a n d th e o th e r“h a d p e r h a p s I n d ia n f e a tu r e s ” a n d “w a s c a lle d J o s e .” A c c or di ng t o V e l e z , the E ngi ne e rboughtt e n m or e ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne f r o m h im a n d A rb a n e in e a r ly D e c e m b e r2 0 0 0 a n d a n a d d itio n a l a m o u n t in la te D e c e m be r2000, both of w hi c h he i m por t e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T hi s w a s theThis evidencepertaining to the prior importation of drug s into the United States was 4 admitted pursuant to Fe deral Rule of Evidence404(b). Thedistrict court cor rec tly instructed the jury , without objection from the g overnme nt, that it was not permitted to consider e videnceof Arba ne’s prior ac ts simi lar to those cha rg ed in the indictment but committed on other occ asions except for the pur

pose of de terminingArba ne' s intent, and only

if they found beyond a rea sonable doubt from other evide nce in the c ase that Arbanedid commit the acts cha rg ed in the indictment. We agreewith the district court that the e videnceof Arba ne’s prior drugdealing was properly

admitted as probative of intent. See Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1332. We also agree with the district court that evide nce of prior bad a cts without evidencethat Arba ne committed the ac ts charg ed in the indictment is insufficient to sustain a convic tion. The e videnceof a prior conspira cy to import drugs throughout South America a nd even to import drugs into the United States f rom 1999 through 2000 with the assistanceof the En g ine e r c ann ot s up po rt

thec on sp ir a c y

a c tually c ha rg e d. Th e g ov e rnme nt p re se nte d all evidenc e re g ardingthe Eng ineer as 404(b) evidenc e pre cisely beca use it predated the period of illegal activity

alleg ed in the indictment. The noticerequire ment within Rul e 404(b) as we ll as thefa c t th at Ru le40 4(b) e xpre ssly ba rs e vid e nc e of

prior ba d a c ts f

ro m be ingus e d to su g g e st a c tio n in c on fo rm ity

therewi th m ake s c le ar t

hat 40 4(b) e vid e nc e c ann ot, by its e lf , s e rv e a s a basis for a

conviction. See United States v. Terre ll, No. 04-12882, 139 Fe d.Appx. 208 (11th C ir. 2005) (a pprovingjury

instruction that prior conviction alonecould not be basis to deter mine guilt for charg ed off

ense) . 7 fi nal i nst ance w hen t hey s ol d d rugs t o t he E ng i neer . 4 V el ez t es t i fi ed t hatt ow ar ds the end o f 200 0, A rbane di sc usse d w i th V el ez th e p o s s ib ility o f

s to r in g d ru g s f

o rs h ip m e n t to M e x ic o o rp o s s ib ly M ia m i in c o n ta in e r s o f

f r o z e n s e a f

o o d : [A rb an e] h ad at t em p t ed t o sp eak w i th a n au t i cal sh i p p i n g co m p an y, an d I sp o k e w i th an o th er n au t i cal sh i p p i n g co m p an y i n M ex i co C i ty, s o the r e w e r e tw o pos s i bi l i t i e s of br i ngi ng the drug s over: O ne w as br i ngi ng i ta m ong a l oa d of f r oz e n ve ge t a bl e s i nt o the por tof M a z a t l a n, M e xi c o, a nd a nothe rone w a s on a s hi p i n a l oa d of s e a f ood a n d f is h c o m in g in to th e c ity o f M ia m i. I n o n e o f m y tr ip s in to E c u a d o rin th e y e a r2 0 0 0 , [ A rb a n e ] to o k m e to show m e a st orage pl ac e f or cont ai ners , w hi ch w as a hi dd en c om pa r t m e ntthi s c ont a i ne rha d, a f r oz e n c ont a i ne r , ne xtt o theOctober 2001 through J anuar

y 2002 were the dates of the c onspiracy charg ed in the 5 indic tme nt. 8 r e f r i ge r a t i on uni t , a nd i tw a s the r e w e w e r e gonna s t or e , putthe drugs i n tha tw e w e r e gonna br i ng t o M i a m i . A nd i n tha ti ns t a nc e onl y T ony a nd I w oul d be the onl y pe opl e i nvol ve d. D es pi t e the di sc ussi on re gardi ng the po ss i bi l i ty of i m po rt i ng drug s t o t he U ni t ed S ta te s b y b o a t, V e le z te s tif ie d th a t th e y d id n o t d o s o a t th e tim e : Q : S o, bet w ee n O ct ob er20 01 and January of 20 02 , you and [A rbane] 5 ne ve rha d a n a gr e e m e ntdur i ng tha tt i m e f r a m e t o br i ng drugs i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s , di d y ou? A: No t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d n o tt o a n y wh e r e e l s e , b e c a u s e we c o u ld n ’t. I n J u n e 2 0 0 1 , th e E n g in e e rw a s a r r e s te d a n d d e ta in e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . V e le z te s tif

ie d th a t th e E n g in e e rw a s th e o n ly c o n d u it th e y u s e d to b r in g d ru g s to the U ni t ed S t at es by pl ane: Q : S o t he on l y c on nect i on you h ad t o b ri ng drug s i nt o N ew Y ork w as th e E n g in e e r , c o r r e c t? A : Y es , si r.

. . . Q : O the rtha n the E ngi ne e r , the r e w a s nobody e l s e t o t a ke i tt o the U n ite d S ta te s . A m I c o r r e c t? A : T he r e w e r e m or e pe opl e , butw e di dn’ tw or k w i th a ny one e l s e but the E ng i neer . J us ta f t e rthe E ngi ne e rw a s a r r e s t e d, V e l e z be ga n c oope r a t i ng w i th the g o v e r n m e n t a s a n in f

o r m a n t a n d th e n b e g a n ta p in g c o n v e r s a tio n s b e tw e e n h im s e lfIn the springof 2000, Ve lez and his wife had attempted to buy a false visa from a

n 6 underc over ag ent. Vele z left the United States and waited for his wife ’s leg al problems to clea r up. His wife wa s subsequently arrested, a

nd both he and his wifewere cha rg ed. Ve lez then returne d to the United States in the summer of 2001 a nd beca me a g overnme nt informant. 9 a n d A rb a n e . A t tr ia l, th e g o v e r n m e n t in tr o d u c e d th e s e r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a tio n s .

6 V el ez t es t i fi ed t hatdu ri ng these conv er sa t i on s, A rbane com pl ai ned t hati tw as c o s tin g h im a lo t o f

m o n e y to p a y L o p e z - P o s a d a f o rth e s to r a g e o f

th e d ru g s in E c ua dor . H e a l s o e xpl a i ne d tha tdur i ng one of the s e c onve r s a t i ons , he a nd A rba ne w e r e d is c u s s in g th e p o s s ib ility o f im p o r tin g d ru g s to th e U n ite d S ta te s v ia b o a t. V el ez expl ai ned t hatal tho ug h h e t ol d A rbane duri ng the conv er sa t i on thatthere w as a thi rd party w ho w ou l d rec ei ve t he drug s once the shi p arr i ved ati t s f i nal de s t i na t i on a nd w ho w oul d r e c e i ve 30% of the i rpr of

i t s , i n r e a l i ty the pl a n w a s f or U .S . C u s to m s to r e c e iv e th e s h ip a n d u n lo a d th e d ru g s u p o n th e s h ip ’s a r r iv a l. T h e q u e s tio n b e f

o r e u s is w h e th e rV e le z ’s te s tim o n y s u f f ic e s to s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n f

o rth e c h a r g e d c o n s p i r a c y t o i mp o r tc o c a i n e i n t o th e Un i t e d St a t e s . To s uppor ts uc h a c onvi c t i on, the gove r nm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt thatthere exi st ed an agree m entbet w ee n t w o o r m ore pers on s t o i m po rtnarc ot i cs in to th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily pa r t i c i pa t e d i n tha ta gr e e m e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O br e gon, 893 F . 2d 1307, 1311 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) .10

I ti s a xi om a t i c tha ty ou c a nnotha ve a c ons pi r a c y w i thouta n a gr e e m e nt be tw e e n tw o orm or e c ul pa bl e c ons pi r a t or s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K e l l y , 888 F . 2d 73 2 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). If there ar e onl y tw o m em bers of a c on spi ra cy , nei ther m ay be a gov er nm entagentor i nform antw ho ai m s t o frustra t e the conspi ra cy . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W r i ght , 63 F . 3d 1067, 1072 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . T he gove r nm e nt m a y pr ove the e xi s t e nc e of a n a gr e e m e ntby c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e thr ough

“ i nfer ence s f

rom the cond uctof t he al l eged part i ci pant s or f rom ci rc um st ant i al e vi de nc e of

a s c he m e . ” O br e gon, 893 F . 2d a t1311 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a m a r g o , 6 7 2 F .2 d 8 8 7 , 8 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ) . I n thi s c a s e , w e do notf i nd s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

the r e l e va nta gr e e m e nt be tw e e n A rba ne a nd a ny one othe rtha n V e l e z , a gove r nm e nti nf or m a nt , dur i ng the r e l e va ntt i m e pe r i od. T he gove r nm e ntc onc e de s tha tV e l e z c a nnotbe a c oco n sp i rat o r b ecau se h e w as a g o v ern m en ti n fo rm an t . T h e g o v ern m en tl i k ew i se c onc e de s tha tthe E ngi ne e rw a s nota m e m be rof the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n the in d ic tm e n t b e c a u s e th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t h e h a d a c o n tin u in g r o le o rin te r e s t in a r e l a t i ons hi p w i th A rba ne a nd V e l e z a f t e rhe w a s a r r e s t e d a nd de t a i ne d i n J une 2 0 0 1 . T h e g o v ern m en tassert s th e ex i st en ce o f t h ree p o ssi b l e co -co n sp i rat o rs — ( 1) J os e L ope z - P os a da , the m a n r e nt i ng the hous e w he r e the drugs w e r e f ound, ( 2)The g overnme nt did not argue in its brief that “ Rene”was a member of

the conspira cy 7 and raised that possibili ty for the f irst time at oral argument. The indictment alleg ed that Ar bane c onspired with “other persons both known a

nd 8 unknown,” but did not name a ny co-c onspirators. While it is the law of this Ci rcuit that “a

n individual can be c onvicted of c onspiracy with ‘unknown per sons’ ref erred to in the indictment,” United States v. Figueroa , 720 F.2d 1239, 1244- 45, 1245 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1983), the g overnme nt has not proven theexis tenceof unknown pe rsons and ha s only proff ere d the threenamed possible co-c onspirators discussed herein. While in its brief, the g overnme nt argues that Arba ne “wa s paying a

lot of money” to safe guard thecocaine, the evide nce at trial reve aled only that L opez-Posada wa s paid to guard thehouse whe re thecocaine was f ound and did not reve al the exis tenceof any

other pe rsons, known or unknown, who were re sponsible for any thing relating to drug s. Furthe rmore, theg overnme nt did not argue either in its briefs or at oral argument that th e r e w e r e unn ame d

c o - c o n s p irato r s - - th e y

o n ly argu e d th at Ar b an e c o n s p ire d

w it hL o p e zPosado and L

uis Castil lo Amen, and at oral argument, Rene. Ac cording ly , the g overnme nt has waived a ny arguments pertainingto additional co-c onspirators. See Ma rek v. Sing letary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 ( 11th Cir.1995) (“I ssues not clea rly raised in the briefs are conside red abandone d.”). In any

event, wehave reviewe d the entirerec ord and f ail to find any

other c on sp ir ator

to i mpo rt dr ug s into t heUn ite d St ate s.

11 L ui s C a s t i l l o A m e n, A rba ne ’ s s e c r e t a r y i n E c ua dor , a nd ( 3) “ R e ne , ” one of 7 V e l e z ’ s c ont a c t s w ho c oul d a l l e ge dl y tr a ns por tthe drugs outof M e xi c o. H a vi ng

8
r e v ie w e d th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to prov e the exi st ence of a c o-conspi ra t or t o i m po rtdrug s i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es ot her th a n V e le z . W i th ref er ence t o Jose L op ez -P osado, the go vernm entpres ent ed evi dence tha the w a s a r r e s t e d w i th A rba ne i n E c ua dora nd tha the t ook c a r e of the a pa r t m e nt i n E cu ad o r w h ere t h e d ru g s w ere k ep t . S p eci fi cal l y, V el ez t est i fi ed th atJo se L o p ez-P o sad o w as “ th e g en t l em an w h o t o o k care o f o r w h o g u ard ed th e h o u seIn addition to the testimony of Ve lez, the government pre sented at trial the testimony of 9 an Ec uadoria

n police off

icer , who testified that on January 8, 2002, the National Police of Ecua dor sea

rche d the apa

rtment where Jose L opez-Posada lived and disc overe d 222 packag es containinga total of 261 kilograms of c ocaine . Both L opez-Posada and Arbanewere detained that day . Arba

ne later g ave a statement to Ecua dorian prose cutors. Ar bane stated that he sublet th e ap artm entt o L o p ez -P o s ad a un d er ano ra lagr ee m entan d

d en i edany

i nv o l v em entwi thdru gs o r dru g tra ff

i ck i n g. 12 w here the drug s w er e kept . ” H ow ever , the go vernm entpres ent ed no evi dence that 9 L op ez -P osado w as a par t i ci panti n, or had k no w l edge of, a c on spi ra cy t o i m po rt d ru g s in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . E ven i f one w er e t o i nferthatL op ez -P osado k new thatthe ho use he w as g u ar d in g co n tain ed d ru g s, th er e is n o ev id en ce th at L o p ez -P o sa d o p o ss es se d “a ge ne r a l unde r s t a ndi ng of the unl a w f

ul purpos e of

the pl a n, ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i r a nda , 425 F . 3d 953, 958 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , nor“ know l e dge tha th[ i s ] a c t i ons w o u ld f u r th e rth e v e n tu r e ,” U n ite d S ta te s v . P e d r ic k , 1 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). T here w as si m pl y no evi dence i nt rodu ce d attri al fr om w hi ch t he j ury coul d h ave f

ou nd beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatL op ez -P osada knew or i nt ended ora gr e e d i n a ny w a y t o i m por tdrugs t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . A c c or di ngl y , the go vernm entdi d n otm ee ti t s burden t o sho w an agree m entbet w ee n t w o o r m ore c ul pa bl e c o- c ons pi r a t or s t o c om m i tthe i l l e ga l a c tc ha r ge d. T he c rux of

the a gr e e m e nte l e m e nti n a c ons pi r a c y c a s e i s tha tthe g o v e r n m e n t m u s t p r o v e a “m e e tin g o f th e m in d s ” to a c h ie v e th e u n la w f u l r e s u lt.13

U ni t ed S t at es v. A dk i nson , 15 8 F . 3d 11 47 , 11 54 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C ha ndl e r , 388 F . 3d 796, 806 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he gove r nm e ntm us t. . . s how c i r c um s t a nc e s f r om w hi c h a j ur y c oul d i nf e rbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe r e w a s a ‘ m e e t i ng of the m i nds ’ ” t o c om m i tthe unl a w f ul a c t c h a r g e d ) . W h ile it is tru e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t n e e d n o t p r o v e th a t a co n sp i rat o r k n ew al l o f t h e d et ai l s o r p art i ci p at ed i n ev ery asp ecto f t h e co n sp i racy, i tw a s the gove r nm e nt ’ s bur de n t o pr ove the “ e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt ” of “ a n agr e e m e nt bet w ee n t w o o r m ore pers on s t o v i ol at e [ U ni t ed S t at es ] narc ot i cs l aw s. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. F e r na nde z , 797 F . 2d 943, 948- 49 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ; s e e a l s o M i r a nda , 425 F . 3d a t959 ( not i ng tha te a c h c ons pi r a t or“ kne w the e s s e nt i a l na tur e of the conspi ra cy ”) (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. G ar ci a, 40 5 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 69 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ) . T he onl y c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n thi s c a s e w a s a c ons pi r a c y t o i m por tdrugs i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es . T he vent ure or pl an t o w hi ch t w o cul pabl e c o-conspi ra t ors m usthave agree d i s thu s the i m po rt at i on of drug s i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a dol a t o, 701 F . 2d 915, 919- 20 ( 11th C i r . 1983) , r e he a r i ng deni ed, 70 8 F . 2d 73 4 (“ T he m ostbasi c e l em entof such a c on spi ra cy i s a n a g r e e m e n tb e twe e n two o rm o r e p e r s o n s t o v i o l a t e f e d e r a l n a r c o t i c l a ws . ” ) . Of c our s e , c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s drugs i n E c ua dor , t o e xpor tdrugs f r om E c ua dor , orThe dissent sug g ests that this opini on “see ms to read a new e ssential element into the 10 offe nse of c onspiracy-to-import: knowledg e on the a rt of an unindicte d co-c onspirator a s to the intended destination of the dr ug s.” This is simpl y

not the case . The re ason that the de stination of the drug s is significa

nt hereis beca

use the agree ment to import is the esse nce of the cha rg ed conspirac y . In fac t, the only rea son we have subjec t-matter jurisdiction in this case is the law s of the United States are alleg ed to havebeen violate d. In a conspira cy to import drugs into the United States, the esse ntial nature of the conspira cy

is the importation of narc otics into the United States. Such a c onspiracy require s the agree ment of two or morepeople to violate the l aw s o f th e Un i t e d

S t at e s . T h e c o - c o n s p i r at o r n e e d n o tkn o we v e r

y f a c ta b o utth e c o n s p i r a c y – for e x ample, he ne ed not know the de tails of when the dr ug s will be imported into the United States or who elseis involved in the importation, but he mustat the ver y least know that the dr ug s w illbeimp or

te d into t heUn ite d St ate s. This is, of course, not mea nt to sugg est that in ever

y drugprosec ution the government need prove an agree ment about the intended de stination of drugshipments, for example, in case s involving ac tions which take plac e wholly within the borders of

the United States. Howe ver, the grava men of a drugimportation crime, which permits the caseto be brought in U.S. courts, is the imp or tatio n into t

heUn ite d St ate s. For these re asons, I

fully agreewith Judg e Conway ’s spec ial concur renc e. 11 14 t o di s tr i but e drugs i n S outh A m e r i c a a r e notc r i m e s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he 10 gove r nm e ntw a s the r e f

or e obl i ga t e d t o pr ove tha ttw o c o- c ons pi r a t or s a gr e e d t o a U n ite d S ta te s c r im e – to b e p r e c is e , th e c r im e c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. 11 T h e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t p r o v e a n a g r e e m e n t to th e b a s ic c ons pi r a c y i s nota ne w one . T he gove r nm e ntha s uni ve r s a l l y be e n he l d t o the bur de n of

s how i ng tha ta tl e a s ttw o pe r s ons ha ve a gr e e d t o the ba s i c obj e c tof the c ons pi r a c y . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r i c k, 588 F . 2d 531, 535 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( “ T he g o v e r n m e n t m u s t s h o w th a t e a c h m e m b e rp a r tic ip a te d in th e c o n s p ir a c y w ith know l e dge of

i t s i l l e ga l purpos e a nd notm e r e l y tha ta m e m be ra s s oc i a t e d w i th a bad p er son. ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. D avi s, 18 3 F . 3d 23 1, 24 4 (3d C i r.The dissent see ms to be bifurcating the agree ment and knowledg e ele ments, arguing 12 that therecan bean agree ment between two persons e ven if onedoes not haveany knowledg e of the basic pur

pose of the agree ment. See DissentingOpinion at n.1. The dissent cites numerous case s in which we ha

ve discussed theg overnme nt's ne ed to provethe d e fen d a n t' s re qu isi te kn ow le dg e , b ut o f c ours e no neof tho sec a se s a

ree xclu siv e of

theg ov e rnme nt' s o bli g atio n to prov e an agre e me nt b e tw e e n th e de fend ant a nd at le a st o neoth e r c o- c on sp ir ator . In f a c t, i t is impossibl e to havean agree ment absent knowle dg e by both parties as to what it is they have agree d to acc omplish. There e x ists no scenario where a person will haveagree d to a conspira cy without knowledg e of theessential nature of theconspirac y – the ver y definition of an “agree ment” is a mee ting of the minds, and therecan beno meetingof the minds if only one min d c onta ins kn ow le dg e of theob je c t of theagre e me nt. 15 19 99 ), op i ni on am ended, 19 7 F . 3d 66 2 (3d C i r. 19 99 ) ( “ [A ] pers on ca nn otconspi re w i th hi m s e l f

; a tl e a s ttw o c ons pi r a t or s m us tha ve s uf f i c i e ntknow l e dge i n or de rf or the r e t o be a c ons pi r a c y . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e ndr i c ks on, 26 F . 3d 321, 333 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( “ [ I ] ti s a xi om a t i c tha tno c ons pi r a t or i a l a gr e e m e nt e xi s t s unl e s s a tl e a s ttw o c ul pa bl e c o- c ons pi r a t or s a gr e e , a nd c ons e que nt l y , the de f e nda nt ' s a gr e e m e ntm us tbe w i th s om e one othe rtha n a gove r nm e nta ge ntor i nform ant . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . 12 A s the S upr e m e C our tha s s t a t e d, “ I ti s i m pos s i bl e i n the na tur e of thi ngs f or a m a n t o c ons pi r e w i th hi m s e l f . . . . [ C ] ons pi r a c y i m por t s a c or rupta gr e e m e nt be tw e e n notl e s s tha n tw o w i th gui l ty know l e dge on the pa r tof e a c h. ” M or r i s on v. C a l i f or ni a , 291 U . S . 82, 92 ( 1934) ( e m pha s i s a dde d a nd c i t a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he S upr e m e C our t ’ s a na l y s i s of the f a c t s i n M or r i s on i s pa r t i c ul a r l y a pt . T w o m e n, G eo rg e M o rr iso n an d H . D o i, w er e c o n v icted o f c o n sp irac y to v io late C alifo rn ia’s16

A l i en L and L aw . T hatst atut e m ade i ta c ri m e t o k no w i ng l y c on spi re t o p l ac e a n a l i e n J a pa ne s e , i ne l i gi bl e f orc i t i z e ns hi p, i n the pos s e s s i on a nd e nj oy m e ntof agri cul tural l and w i thi n t he st at e. B ec ause M orri son d i d n othave kn ow l edge t hat D o i w as in elig ib le fo r c it izen sh ip , th e C o u rt re v er se d ea ch ’s co n v icti o n sin ce “[i] n C al i fo rn i a as el sew h ere co n sp i racy i m p o rt s a co rru p tag reem en tb et w een n o tl ess than t w o w i th g ui l ty kno w l edge on the partof ea ch. ” 291 U . S . at92 . T he C ou rt c onc l ude d tha t“ D oi w a s nota c ons pi r a t or , how e ve rgui l ty hi s ow n s t a t e of m i nd, un l es s M orri son h ad shar ed i n t he gu i l ty kno w l edge and d es i gn . ” I d. at93 ; se e al so 15 A C . J. S . C on spi ra cy § 1 11 (200 5) (“ W hen k no w l edge i s a n ess ent i al e l e m e ntof

the unde r l y i ng s ubs t a nt i ve of f e ns e , a l l c o- c ons pi r a t or s m us tpos s e s s the re qu i si t e kno w l edge, as a per son canno tconspi re w i th h i m se l f or her se l f, and at l ea sttw o con spi ra t ors m usthave suff i ci entkn ow l edge i n o rderfor there t o b e a c ons pi r a c y . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a z e l , 102 F . 3d 1120, 1139- 40 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( a f

f i r m i ng j ur y i ns truc t i on tha t“ a pe r s on w ho ha s no know l e dge of a c ons pi r a c y , butw ho ha ppe ns t o a c ti n a w a y w hi c h a dva nc e s s om e purpos e of on e, do es no tthere by becom e a conspi ra t or”) . I n thi s c a s e , the r e c or d i s de voi d of a ny e vi de nc e tha tL ope z - P os a do kne w of th e e x is te n c e o f

a p la n to im p o r t th e d ru g s in to th e U n ite d S ta te s , m u c h le s s its purpos e orhi s r ol e i n f

ur the r a nc e the r e of

. F ori ns t a nc e , the r e c or de d c onve r s a t i onsAs noted in footnote 10, the e ssential element of the cha rg ed conspira cy

to which two 13 or more pe rs on s mu st h avea gre e d w a s im po rt atio n o f n arc oti c s into t heUn ite d St ate s. Ev e n if it could be inferre d that L opez-Posada wa s the man “c alled Jose” with “Indian fe ature s” who Ve lez taught to vacuum seal drug s to fit on the Eng ineer ’s airpla ne in 2000, this is at best evidencethat in 2000, L opez-Posada knew that Arba ne and V elez intended to e x po rt drug s from Ecuador on the Eng ineer ’s airpla

ne. The re w as absolutely

no evidenc e that the man “ called Jose” knew where the airplane w as hea ded. Thefac ts that the drug s werevacuum pa cked, se aled with tape , and covered in a

n oily substance to mask thesmell are likew ise evidenc e that L opez-Posada may have known the drug s would be exported, but not that he knew the y were headed to the United States. Mo re ov e r, e ve n if therewa s e vid e nc e that L op e z-Po sa da wa s p art of thec on sp ir a c y

to import drug s to the United States with the Eng ineer , that conspirac y occur red prior to the period of conspira cy

alleg ed in the indictment, and there wa s no evidenc e that L opez-Posada knew of or was pa rt of the c harg ed conspira cy to import drugs to the United States by boat from Oc tober 2001 to J anuar

y 2002. See F erna

ndez, 797 F.2d at 949 (holding that pa st involvement in drug activity does not qualify

as evide nce of

an agree ment to import). As we have stated, the e vid e nc e re g ardingtheEn g ine e r w a s introd uc e d a s 4 04 (b ) e vid e nc e , whic h c ann ot b e theso le b a s i s t o c o nv i c tAr

b an e o f th e c h arg e d

c o n s p i r a c y. 17 bet w ee n V el ez and A rbane re veal an agree m entbet w ee n t he t w o m en t o i m po rt drugs , butthe onl y i nvol ve m e ntof L ope z - P os a da a ny w he r e i n the s e c onve r s a t i ons i s A rba ne ’ s m e nt i on tha tL ope z - P os a da w a s gua r di ng the hous e w he r e the drugs w e r e s t or e d. N e i the rthe c onve r s a t i ons the m s e l ve s , norV e l e z ’ s e xpl a na t i on of them du ri ng hi s t es t i m on y a ttri al , re veal an agree m entby L op ez -P osada t o i m po rt drugs i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he f a c ttha tL ope z - P os a da r e nt e d a nd gua r de d the h o u s e f r o m A rb a n e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t a n a g r e e m e n t o n L o p e z - P o s a d o ’s p a r t to b e lo n g to a c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t d ru g s in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . E v e n if w e c o u ld i nf e rtha tL ope z - P os a da kne w tha tthe drugs w e r e l e a vi ng E c ua dor , the r e w a s no ev i d en ce t h atL o p ez-P o sad a k n ew th ey w ere h ead ed t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. W e 1318

r e c ogni z e tha tc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove a n a gr e e m e nt , butthe go vernm entpres ent ed no evi dence - nei ther di re ctno r c i rc um st ant i al - t o sup po rt an ag reem en tb y L o p ez-P o sad a t o i m p o rtd ru g s i n t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. I n tha tr e s pe c t , thi s c a s e i s unl i ke thos e c a s e s w he r e w e ha ve f ound s uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o con vi ctcr ew m em bers aboard shi ps w hi ch w er e hea ded t o t he U ni t ed S t a t e s a s know i ng pa r t i c i pa nt s i n a drug c ons pi r a c y . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ruz- V al dez, 77 3 F . 2d 15 41 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ) ( en banc); U ni t ed S t at es v. M un oz, 16 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 24 -25 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ); bu tse e U ni t ed S t at es v. V i dal -H un gri a, 794 F . 2d 1503 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ( r e ve r s i ng c onvi c t i ons of s e ve n c r e w m e m be r s f

or c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s a nd pos s e s s i ng m a r i j ua na , on the gr ound tha tthe ci rc um st ance s of the di sc ov er y of the m ar i j uana “ do es no tl end i t se l f t o an i nf e r e nc e tha ta l l pe r s ons on the ve s s e l ne c e s s a r i l y kne w of the pr e s e nc e of

the m a r iju a n a ” ) . I n b o th C ru z - V a ld e z a n d M u n o z , th e c o - c o n s p ir a to r s w e r e a r r e s te d in a boa tw hi c h the e vi de nc e s how e d w a s he a de d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I nde e d, the defe nd ant s i n C ruz- V al dez a nd M un oz never cont ended t hatthe go vernm enthad fa i l ed t o p rove t hei r kno w l edge t hatthe shi p o n w hi ch t hey w er e a l l ar re st ed w as he a di ng t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I n f a c t , w e ha ve on l e a s tone oc c a s i on a f f i r m e d a conspi ra cy conv i ct i on on l y a ft eranal yz i ng w het her the go vernm entm eti t s burden of i nt rodu ci ng suff

i ci entevi dence of an agre em entt o i m po rtt o U ni t ed S t at es19

spec i fi ca l l y. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D eW ee se , 63 2 F . 2d 12 67 , 12 71 -72 (5t h C i r. 1980) ( a f f i r m i ng c onvi c t i on f

orc ons pi r a c y t o i m por tba s e d on pr e s e nc e of navi gat i on al char t s a bo ar d t he bo atand exp er tt es t i m on y thatthe shi p w as headed t o t he U ni t ed S t at es and b as ed on the cl ose r el at i on shi p b etw ee n capt ai n and cr ew du ri ng the l on g v oyage) . N one of the e vi de nc e f

r om w hi c h w e ha ve pr e vi ous l y i nf e r r e d know i ng part i ci pat i on i n a conspi ra cy t o i m po rtw as pres enti n t hi s c as e. L op ez -P osada w as no tar re st ed aboard a shi p l aden w i th d rugs and h ea ded t o t he U ni t ed S t at es . T here w as si m pl y no ci rc um st ant i al evi dence tyi ng anyone ot her than A rbane and V el ez i n a ny w a y t o a n a gr e e m e ntt o i m por tdrugs i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he go vernm entm ay have prov ed a c on spi ra cy t o p osse ss drug s i n E cuador or expo rt the m f r om E c ua dort o a ny num be rof S outh A m e r i c a n c ountr i e s , buttha tw a s not the conspi ra cy char ged, no r c ou l d t he U ni t ed S t at es cr i m i nal i ze such cond uct w i thouta j ur i s i di c t i ona l ba s i s . F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e m us tc onc l ude tha tthe gove r nm e ntdi d notpr e s e nts uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n A rba ne an d L o p ez-P o sad a t o i m p o rtd ru g s t o th e U n i t ed S t at es. N or ca n t he evi dence s up po rtthe go vernm ent ’ s a l t er nat i ve cl ai m thatV el ez a n d A rb a n e c o n s p ir e d w ith L u is C a s tillo A m e n , A rb a n e ’s s e c r e ta r y in E c u a d o r . T h e o n l y ev i d en ce p ert ai n i n g t o L u i s i s th ath e fu n ct i o n ed as A rb an e’ s secret ary,20

f ore xa m pl e , by ke e pi ng V e l e z i n t ouc h w i th A rba ne . A c c or di ng t o V e l e z , A rba ne s to p p e d s e n d in g L u is m o n e y in E c u a d o r , s o V e le z “s e n t h im $ 5 0 0 s o th a t h e c o u ld w ork. ” V el ez st at ed t hathe desi re d t o send L ui s outof E cuador because he w as c o n c e r n e d th a t h e w o u ld ta lk to th e a u th o r itie s , th o u g h V e le z d id n o t te s tif y a s to w hatL ui s m i gh tsa y t o t he aut ho ri t i es . A s of D ec em ber 23, 20 01 , nei ther V el ez n o rA rb a n e h a d a te le p h o n e n u m b e ro ro th e rm e a n s o f c o n ta c tin g L u is . T h is ev i d en ce i s cl earl y i n su ffi ci en tt o d em o n strat e t h atL u i s C ast i l l o A m en w as a pa r t i c i pa nti n orha d know l e dge of a ny c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y , m uc h l e s s the one a l l e ge d he r e . W e ha ve l ong he l d tha tm e r e a s s oc i a t i on w i th pe r s ons e nga ge d i n a c o n s p ir a c y d o e s n o t q u a lif y s o m e o n e a s a m e m b e ro f th e c o n s p ir a c y . S e e , e .g ., K e l l y , 888 F . 2d a t740. F ur the r m or e , V e l e z ’ s f e a rtha tL ui s m i ghts pe a k w i th the a uthor i t i e s f

a i l s t o e s t a bl i s h the r e qui s i t e know l e dge ora gr e e m e nta bs e ntt e s t i m ony a s to w h a t L u is m ig h t s p e a k a b o u t. F i nal l y, atoral ar gu m ent , the go vernm entar gu ed for the fi rs tt i m e thata “R e n e ” c o u ld b e c o u n te d a s a c o - c o n s p ir a to rw ith V e le z a n d A rb a n e . A t tr ia l, V e l e z t e s t i f

i e d tha ts om e one na m e d R e ne ha d a c onne c t i on a ta por ti n M a z a t l a n, M e x ic o a n d th a t R e n e c o u ld s e n d d ru g s f r o m M e x ic o to th e U n ite d S ta te s . H ow e ve r , r a the rtha n pr e s e nt i ng e vi de nc e tha tA rba ne a nd R e ne w e r e c oc ons pi r a t or s , the gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e w a s t o the c ontr a r y . I n the tr a ns c r i ptof21

the D ec em ber 23, 20 01 conv er sa t i on bet w ee n A rbane and V el ez , i ti s e vi dentthat A rbane re

j ec t ed t he offerof w orki ng w i th R ene; w hen V el ez m ent i on ed t hathe had a fri en d w h o co u l d h el p b ri n g i t , o st en si b l y referring t o th e ab i l i ty o f R en e t o assi st i n b ri ng i ng drug s a cr oss the bo rder , A rbane t ol d h i m t o “ [f ] orgetabou tthat . ” W he n V e l e z t e s t i f

i e d tha tA rba ne s how e d hi m the s t or a ge c om pa r t m e nt s w he r e he c l a i m e d the y w e r e pl a nni ng t o putdrugs t o be br oughtt o M i a m i , he de s c r i be d the s c h e m e a s o n e in w h ic h “o n ly T o n y a n d I w o u ld b e th e o n ly p e o p le in v o lv e d .” I n s hor tthe e vi de nc e i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o de m ons tr a t e tha ta ny one othe rtha n a go vernm ent al i nform antw as i nv ol ved w i th A rbane i n an agreement t o i m po rt drug s i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es . A l tho ug h t here i s no d ou btthatA rbane had been i nv ol ved i n i l l egal cond uctel se w here , i tw as the go vernm ent ’ s burden t o p rove, be y ond a l l r e a s ona bl e doubt , tha tthe r e e xi s t e d a s pe c i f i c a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the d e f e n d a n t a n d a t le a s t o n e o rm o r e c u lp a b le c o - c o n s p ir a to r s to im p o r t n a r c o tic s in to th e U n i t ed S t at es. T h e g o v ern m en tfai l ed t o m eetth i s b u rd en . A cco rd i n g l y, A rba ne ’ s c onvi c t i on m us tbe r e ve r s e d. R EVER SED .C O N W A Y , D is tr ic t J u d g e , c o n c u r r in g s p e c ia lly :.

I c on cur i n t he re sul t . T here i s s uffi ci entci rc um st ant i al evi dence that A rba ne a gr e e d w i th V e l e z ( the c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt ) t o i m por tc oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es fr om E cuador. T here i s a l so suff i ci entci rc um st ant i al evi dence that othe rpe r s ons i de nt i f

i e d by the G ove r nm e nti n i t s br i e f w e r e pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the c ons pi r a c y t o i m por tdrugs outof E c ua dor . T he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha ta ny of the othe runi ndi c t e d c o- c ons pi r a t or s kne w tha tthe drugs w e r e t o be i m por t e d i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es . In order t o h ave a conspi ra cy t o i m po rtdrug s i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es a tl e a s tone pe r s on, othe rtha n the c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt , ha d t o a gr e e w i th A rba ne to th a t e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f th e c o n s p ir a c y .23

W I L S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng: I di ss entbeca use I am conv i nced t hatthe evi dence w as suff i ci entt o sup po rt A rba ne ’ s c onvi c t i on f

orc ons pi r a c y t o i m por tc oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he opi ni on c onc l ude s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o c onvi c tA rba ne be c a us e the gove r nm e ntf

a i l e d t o pr ove tha tA rba ne c ons pi r e d w i th a ny one othe rtha n the go vernm enti nform antV el ez . I di sa gree . I thi nk thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d fi nd thatA rbane conspi re d w i th Jose L op ez P osada, the m an w ho gu ar ded t he drug s, t o i m po rtcoca i ne i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es d u r in g th e in d ic tm e n t p e r io d .

“ T o p rove part i ci pat i on i n a conspi ra cy , the go vernm entm usthave prov en b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, e v e n if o n ly b y c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , th a t a c ons pi r a c y e xi s t e d a nd tha tthe de f e nda ntknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y j oi ne d the conspi ra cy . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 40 5 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 69 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per curi am ). T o m ee tthi s burden, “ the go vernm entneed no tprov e thatthe defendant [] kn ew al l of t he det ai l [s ] or part i ci pat ed i n every as pectof t he conspi ra cy . R ather, the gove r nm e ntm us tonl y pr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt [ ] kne w the e s s e nt i a l na tur e of the conspi ra cy . ” I

d. a t1269- 70 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he gove r nm e nt m ay prov e the exi st ence of a c on spi ra cy by “ di re ctor ci rc um st ant i al evi dence, i nc l udi ng i nf

e r e nc e s f r om the c onduc tof

the a l l e ge d pa r t i c i pa nt s orf r omJudg e B arke tt’s opinion seems to read a new e ssential element into the off ense of 14 conspirac y-to-import: knowledg e on the pa rt of an unindicte d co-c onspirator a s to the intended de sti natio n o f t

hedr ug s. Suc h a

re a din gpla c e s a

n e nh anc e d b urde n o n th e g ov e rnme nt t hat is not supported by

our pre cedent, which speaks in terms of the defendant’sknowledg e, not the knowledg e of a

n unindicted co- conspirator such as L opez-Posada. See Garcia, 405 F.3d at 1270 (“[T]he government must only prove that the de

fe nd an t[] knew the e ssential natureof the conspirac y .”) ( citation and quotations omitted) (empha sis added); United States v. Pedrick, 181 F.3d 1264, 1272 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he evidenceneed not show that eac h defendant knew of eac h phase of

the conspira cy , all of its details, all of the conspirators, or the pa rticipants in eac h event.” ) (e mphasis added) ; United States v. Brazel , 102 F.3d 1120, 1131- 32 (11th Cir. 1997) (“ A defendant may be culpa ble eve n if he . . . played a minor role in the conspira cy , since a conspirator

need not know thedetails of ea ch ac t making up theconspirac y .”) ( emphasis adde d); United Sta te

s v . Pan toja- So to , 7 39 F .2 d 1 52 0, 15 25 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 4) (“ [T]heg ov e rnme nt m us t demonstrate . . . that the accused had knowledg e of at least the esse ntial objective of th[e] a gre e me nt . . . .” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; United States v. Pintado , 715 F.2d 1501, 1503 ( 11th Cir. 24 ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s chem e. ” I d. a t1270 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons o m itte d ) . “I n d e e d , b e c a u s e th e c r im e o f c o n s p ir a c y is p r e d o m in a n tly m e n ta l in c om pos i t i on, i ti s f

r e que nt l y ne c e s s a r y t o r e s or tt o c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o pr ove i t s e l em ent s. ” I

d. ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T he op i ni on concl ud es thatthe re cord i s devoi d o f a ny evi dence thatL op ez P o sad a k n ew o f t h e ex i st en ce o f a p l an t o i m p o rtth e d ru g s i n t o th e U n i t ed S t at es, a nd tha te ve n i f

one w e r e t o i nf

e rtha tL ope z - P os a da kne w tha tthe a pa r t m e nthe w as gu ar di ng cont ai ned d rugs t hatw er e l ea vi ng E cuador, there i s no evi dence that L ope z - P os a da pos s e s s e d “ a ge ne r a l unde r s t a ndi ng of the unl a w f

ul purpos e of

the pl an, ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . Mi r anda , 425 F . 3d 953, 958 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , i . e . , tha tthe d ru g s w e r e to b e im p o r te d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h e o p in io n w r ite s th a t th e o n ly 141983) (pe r curiam) (“ To be guilty of a c onspiracy

a defendant

need not have knowledg e of e very detail of the c onspiracy . Knowledg e of theprimary objective of

the conspira cy

will suffice.” ) (empha sis added). In fac t, the opinion does not cite to a sing le conspira cy-to-import ca se, from any circ uit, in which the g overnme nt was re quired to provethat an unindicted c o-conspirator kn e w that th e dr

ug s w e rehe a de d f

or theUn ite d St ate s in

orde r t o e sta

bli shthede fend ant’ s guil t. Evidenceof an unindicte d co-c onspirator’s pa rticular know ledg e as to the obje ct of the a lle g e d c on sp ir a c y

(h e retheimp or

tatio n o f d

rug s into t

heUn ite d St ate s) is c e rt a inly re le va nt t o establishing theexis tenceof a c onspiratorial agree ment, but it is the agreem ent –not the unindicted co- conspirator ’s par ticular knowle dg e–that is the esse ntial element to be proved. Be causea conspiratorial agree ment can beestablished by circ umstantial evidence , one ca n co n ce i v e o f num er o u s p l au s i b l e s ce n ar i o s i nwh i chth e e x i s t en ce o f aco n s p i ra cy t o i mp o rtdru gs into the United States can beinferred without any specificshowingas to an unindicted c oconspirator ’s knowledg e of its object. Thequestion then bec omes whethe r the defendant knew the essential nature of theconspirac y and joined it voluntarily

–and even this can be proven by circ umstantial evidence . See U nited States v. Gonzalez , 810 F.2d 1538, 1542- 43 (11th Cir. 19 87 ) (pe r curiam) ; Un ited S tates v . D e W

e ese , 632 F.2d 1267, 1271- 72 (5th Cir. 1980). For example, in De W

e ese , the def

endant’ s intention to i mport drug s into the United States was proven w ith only

one Coast Guard Commander’s testimony , which wa s based on inferenc es drawn from navig ational cha rts discovere d aboard the boat, that the boat car rying thedrug s was headingtoward theUnited States, instead of Me x ico, Cuba, or the B ahama s. 632 F.2d at 1271. In this case, the jur

y was not instructed that in order to convic t Arbaneit mustfind that the g overnme nt proved L opez-Posada’s knowle dg e. Rather , the jury was instructe d properly

that in order to c onvict Arba

ne it must find “[t ]hat two or more per sons . . . came to a mutual understandingto try

to acc omplish a common and unlawful plan,”“[t] hat the Defendant , knowingof the unlaw ful purpose of the plan, willfully

joined in it; and [ t] hat the objec t of the unlawful plan w as to import . . . cocaine into the United States . . . .” (e mphasis added) . 25 evi dence concerni ng L op ez -P osada w as thathe w as ar re st ed w i th A rbane and t hat he w a s pa i d t o gua r d the hous e w he r e the drugs w e r e f ound. T he r e c or d doe s not s uppor tthe opi ni on’ s c onc l us i on ori t s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of the e vi de nc e . T he opi ni on e nt i r e l y di s r e ga r de d ourl ong- s t a ndi ng pr e c e de ntw i th r e ga r d t o our st andard of revi ew . W e m u st r e vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the g o v er n m en t an d d ra w all rea so n ab le fa ctu al in fe re n ce s in fa v o r o f th e ju ry ’s26

v e r d ic t. G la sser v. U

n i t ed S ta t es, 315 U . S . 60, 80, 62 S . C t . 457, 469, 86 L . E d. 6 8 0 ( 1 9 4 2 ) . F u r th e r m o r e , “[ a ] r e v e r s a l is in o r d e ro n ly if th e e v id e n c e , v ie w e d in the l i gh tm ostfa vo ra bl e t o t he [g] ov er nm ent , i s s uch t hata r ea sonabl y m i nd ed j ury m u st ha ve a r e a s ona bl e doubta s t o the e xi s t e nc e of the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e c harged. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Ke lly , 749 F . 2d 1541, 1545- 46 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T h e o p in io n c o m p le te ly ig n o r e d o u ro b lig a tio n to sust ai n t he j ury’ s ver di cti f any re as on abl e c on struct i on of t he evi dence al l ow ed th e m to f in d g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, s e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B e ll , 678 F . 2d 547, 549 ( F or m e r5th C i r . U ni tB 1982) , a nd i ns t e a d r e - w e i ghe d the e vi de nc e i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to th e d e f

e n d a n t. “I t is n o t f

o ru s to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o rto det er m i ne t he cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tness es . ” G lasse r , 315 U . S . a t80. T he e vi de nc e vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the gove r nm e nt e s t a bl i s he d f

a c t s f r om w hi c h the j ur y c oul d r e a s ona bl y i nf e rtha tA rba ne know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y c ons pi r e d w i th L ope z - P os a da t o i m por tc oc a i ne . T he g o v e r n m e n t p r e s e n te d s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t its th e o r y th a t A rb a n e p a id L o p e z - P o s a d a to g u a r d th e c o c a in e , w h ic h w a s v a c u u m - s e a le d , w r a p p e d in s m a ll pa c ka ge s a nd s t or e d i n a n a pa r t m e nti n G ua y a qui l , E c ua dor , unt i l i tw a s t i m e f or the drugs t o be s hi ppe d by pl a ne ( a nd l a t e r , by boa t ) t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . F or27

e xa m pl e , the gove r nm e ntof f e r e d L ope z - P os a da ’ s vi de ot a pe d de pos i t i on a nd the trial t es ti m o n y o f V elez an d an E cu ad o rian p o li ce o ff icer to p ro v e L o p ez -P o sa d a’s kn ow l edge of t he cocai ne he w as gu ar di ng and h i s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi ra cy t o i m po rt . L op ez -P osada t es t i fi ed t hathe w as a f ar m erfr om C ol om bi a w ho l ef t be hi nd hi s f

a m i l y t o l i ve i n a tw o be dr oom a pa r t m e nti n G ua y a qui l f or approx i m at el y t en m on ths. D uri ng thatt i m e, he w as pai d $ 1, 00 0 m on thl y t o st ay i n the a pa r t m e nt . H e us e d $300 t o pa y the r e nt , a nd the r e m a i ni ng m one y w a s f or hi s e xp ense s. H e t es t i fi ed t hathe di d n ot hi ng i n t he apartm entbu tw ai tt o b e t aken t o a f a r m w he r e he c oul d w or k. O n J a nua r y 6, 2002, A rba ne a r r i ve d a tthe a pa r t m e ntw i th a pl a s t i c ba g, a ty pe w r i t e r , a nd a nothe rba g, w hi c h L ope z - P os a da s t or e d f orA rba ne a tthe a pa r t m e nt . T ha tda y , L ope z - P os a da a l s o c ha nge d the a p a r tm e n t lo c k s . T w o d a y s la te r , o n J a n u a r y 8 , A rb a n e r e tu r n e d to th e a p a r tm e n t, and h e a nd L op ez -P osada w er e a rr es t ed t here w i th 2 61 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, w r a ppe d i n 222 pa c ka ge s . T he E c ua dor i a n pol i c e of f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha tthe packages w er e s ea l ed w i th si l ver w rapp i ng t ape a nd covered w i th an o i l y s ub st ance th a t h a d a s tr o n g , s p ic y o d o r . T h e p a c k a g e s w e r e f o u n d in th e b e d r o o m c lo s e ts . T h e p o l i c e a l s o d i s c o v e r e d i n th e a p a r t m e n ta r o l l o f s i l v e rp a c k a g i n g t a p e a n d two m ac hi nes use d for vacuum se al i ng . V el ez t es t i fi ed t hatthe vacuum m ac hi nes w er eThe opinion writes that Ve lez never ide ntified L opez-Posada as theman called “Jose” 15 and re fuses to infer

that Velez was referringto L opez-Posada whe n he testified that heshowed “Jose” how to vaccum-pac k the drug s. To be exact, Ve lez testified: On that trip that Itook to Guayaquil, [Arbane] took me to a house that had two floors. The dr

ug s werethereat that house, a nd two other pe ople were guarding the drug s. One pe rson had sort of a swa rthy or dar kish skin, and another person had per haps Indian fe ature s, and he w as called J ose. At that house I

inspected all the drug s with [ Arba ne], Geraldo and those other tw o, and Ia sk e d th e m to do mea

fa vo r. Ish ow e d th e m ho w t o ma nip ulatethi s vacuum pa cker , and weused two ty pes of wrappingtapes. Onewas fir st coffe e c olo r o r b ro wn , a

nd then th e oth e r o newa s gra y . And then w e le ft

thedr ug s a ll rea dy to that house. L ater , he testified: And [Arbane] told me we have morethan 200 kilos stored in Guayaquil and we need to pa

y for the se curity

for that. Hetold me that J ose, the person that I had met , was storingthe drug s at a house a nd that he moved it to another , but it was always with security , and he told me that that e ntailed some expense. (e mph a sis a dd e d) . N e xt, V e le z te sti fi e d: Therewere two different kinds of e xpenses. Onewas to takecare of theleg al 28 us e d t o “ va c uum pa c k, ” orc om pr e s s , the drugs s o tha tthe y c oul d f i ti nt o the E ngi ne e r ’ s pl a ne ’ s hi dde n c om pa r t m e nt , w hi c h c oul d onl y f i ta ppr oxi m a t e l y 200 k i l o g ram s o f d ru g s. V el ez fu rt h er t est i fi ed th ath e sh o w ed “ Jo se” (p resu m ab l y, L o p ez-P o sad a) h o w t o u se t h e v acu u m seal i n g m ach i n es t o co m p ress t h e d ru g s so thatthe packages w er e s m al l enou gh t o fi ti n t he hi dd en com partm entof t he pl ane, s e a l th e p a c k a g e s in s ilv e rta p e , a n d th e n c o v e rth e p a c k a g e s w ith a m ix tu r e o f o il, cr ea m , pepp er , and m ust ar d. T hi s oi l y s ub st ance w as used a r epel l antso thatthe 15problems that [Arbane] had in Gua yaquil, Ecua dor, and the n the other e xpenses was the person that was guardingthe drug s in the house, and all the expenses that were occurre d in Guayaquil. Velez unequivocally

identified L opez-Posada in a picture and e xplained that L opez-Posada wa s the man to whom he wa s ref erring when he te stified about the expenses involved in pay ing “ the person that wa s guardingthe drug s in the house.” F inally , Velez distinguished L opez-Posada from the only

other “ J ose” me ntioned regularly in this case, Jose Luis J imenez, also known as the Eng ineer : Q: And therewas mention in that phone c all [during which Arbaneand Ve lez discussed the e xpenses involved in guardingthe drug s in Guayaquil] of a man name d JoseLuis . A: Th e me nti on

wa s o f L uis and Jose–o f Jos e Luis . L

uis is o nepe rs on ; Joseis another . Q: I s this [ ref

erring to the photograph pic turingL opez-Posada] the J ose that wa s mentioned in that telephone c onversation? A: Yes, sir. Q: And who introduce d you to this J ose? A: [Arbane] in Guayaquil, Ecua dor. In li ght o f t

his te sti mony , to c on c lud e tha t “ Jose ” wa s a

nyon e oth e r t

ha n L op e z-Po sa da

wo uld itself be an unreasona

ble conc lusion. A reasona ble jury could infer

that J ose L opez-Posada, the man who guarde d the drug s, is the same “Jose” who Ve lez testified he showed howto pack the drug s wherethe drug s werebeingstored and guarde d. 29 d o g s in a n y a irp o r t w o u ld n o t p e r c e iv e th e s m e ll o f th e d ru g s . V ie w in g th is e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r n m e n t, a r e a s o n a b le ju r y c o u ld in f e rL o p e z - P o s a d a ’s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta r y p a r tic ip a tio n in th e c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t f r o m th e c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A ju r y c o u ld r e a s ona bl y c onc l ude tha tL ope z - P os a da kne w tha the w a s be i ng pa i d t o gua r d the c o c a in e a n d p r e p a r e it to b e im p o r te d . “[ A ] c o n s p ir a to ris n o t r e q u ir e d to part i ci pat e i n al l as pect s of a conspi ra cy and m ay be conv i ct ed as a c o-conspi ra t or .30

. . i f [ he ] pa r t i c i pa t e s i n s om e a f f i r m a t i ve c onduc tde s i gne d t o a i d the s uc c e s s of the vent ure w i th k no w l edge t hat[hi s] ac t i on s w ou l d furt her the vent ure. ” P edri ck , 181 F . 3d a t1272. L ope z - P os a da of f e r e d no othe re xpl a na t i on a s t o w hy he w a s be i ng pa i d $1, 000 m onthl y t o do nothi ng i n the a pa r t m e ntbutw a i t . F ur the r m or e , he d e n ie d a n y k n o w le d g e o f th e c o c a in e h id d e n in th e a p a r tm e n t c lo s e ts d e s p ite h a v in g liv e d th e r e f

o ra p p r o x im a te ly te n m o n th s . T h e ju r y w a s e n title d to u s e its c om m on s e ns e t o di s c r e di tthi s t e s t i m ony a nd i nf e rhi s know l e dge f

r om the te s tim o n y o f

V e le z a n d th e p o lic e o f f ic e r . S e e G a r c ia , 4 0 5 F . 3 d at1 2 7 0 (“ B ecau se c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons a r e the e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e of the f a c tf i nde r , w e c a nnot di sr egar d t he j ury’ s c re di bi l i ty det er m i nat i on un l es s i ti s unb el i evabl e on i t s f ac e. ”) (c i t at i on and q uo t at i on s om i t t ed). F urt herm ore, conspi ra cy ca se s i n w hi ch w e have found suff i ci entevi dence t o con vi cta c re w m em ber a bo ar d a shi p w i th d rugs bo un d for t he U ni t ed S t at es ar e a na l ogous a nd i ns truc t i ve . I n U ni t ed St at es v. C ruz- V

aldez , 773 F . 2d 1541, 1547 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e ) , we ru led th at “th e g o v er n m en t’ s b u rd en to p ro v e p ar ti cip atio n is re lati v ely lig h t[,] ” o n c e it h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s a c r e w m e m b e ra b o a r d a s h ip l a de n w i th a l a r ge qua nt i ty of drugs . W e m a y l ook t o c i r c um s t a nc e s s uc h a s the31

l ar ge qu ant i ty of drugs, suspi ci ou s behavi or before app re hensi on , i ncul pat ory s t a t e m e nt s m a de a f

t e ra ppr e he ns i on, w i tne s s e d pa r t i c i pa t i on a s a c r e w m a n, a nd w h e th e rth e d ru g s w e r e o b v io u s . Id .; s e e al s o, U ni t e d Stat e s v . Munoz , 16 F . 3d 1116, 1123- 24 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( a ppl y i ng C ruz- V aldeza n a ly s is in a c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c a s e ) ; G on zal ez , 81 0 F . 2d at15 43 (hol di ng thatevi dence thatthe cr ew m en w e r e a b o a r d a s h ip w ith a la r g e q u a n tity o f d ru g s , th a t th e o d o rw a s n o tic e a b le fr om the deck, and t hata c re w m an became nervou s upo n q uest i on i ng , am on g o ther evi dence, w as suff

i ci entt o sho w the cr ew m en’ s kno w i ng and v ol un t ar y p a r tic ip a tio n in th e c o n s p ir a c y to im p o r t) . W e a ls o h a v e f o u n d “p a r tic u la r ly p e r s u a s iv e ” th e a r g u m e n t th a t “it is illo g ic a l to b e lie v e th a t o n e p e r s o n w o u ld att em pt[t o i m po rta l ar ge qu ant i ty of drugs] t o t he U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utprear ra ng ed as si st ance . ” D eW eese , 6 3 2 F .2 d a t 1 2 7 2 ; se e al so, G on zal ez , 81 0 F . 2d at 15 43 (“ C ou rt s a nd j uri es al so m ay t ake not i ce of t he fa ctthatdrug sm ug gl er s a re unl i ke l y t o e m pl oy out s i de r s t o w or k a ve s s e l c a r r y i ng [ a l a r ge qua nt i ty of drugs ] . ” ) . S e ve r a l of

the f a c t or s c i t e d i n C ruz- V

aldez , w hi ch suff

i ce t o enabl e a r e a s o n a b le ju r y to f

in d g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, a r e a ls o p r e s e n t h e r e . L o p e z - P o s a d a w a s d is c o v e r e d w ith a la r g e q u a n tity o f c o c a in e in th e a p a r tm e n t, wh e r e th e d ru g s wo u l d h a v e b e e n o b v i o u s c o n s i d e r i n g th e i rs tr o n g , s p i c y o d o r . He32

e nga ge d i n s us pi c i ous be ha vi ori nc l udi ng s t or i ng i t e m s f orA rba ne a nd c ha ngi ng the l ocks on the apartm ent . H e m ade i ncul pat ory s t at em ent s a thi s deposi t i on such a s th e f a c t th a t h e w a s p a id $ 1 ,0 0 0 m o n th ly to d o n o th in g b u t w a it. M o r e o v e r , it is unl i ke l y tha tA rba ne w oul d trus ta n out s i de rt o pr e pa r e 261 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne and g uard i tfor 10 m on ths. T ho ug h “ a s ho w i ng of know i ng par t i c i pat i on [ i n a conspi ra cy ] i s r equi re d[, ] ” “ [c ] ul pabl e par t i ci pat i on need no tbe great . ” L y ons , 53 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 1 . “G u ilt m a y e x is t e v e n w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t p la y s o n ly a m in o rr o le and d oes notkn ow al l the det ai l s of the conspi ra cy . ” I d
. “ T he ve r y na tur e of c ons pi r a c y f

r e que nt l y r e qui r e s tha tthe e xi s t e nc e of a n a gr e e m e ntbe pr ove d by i nfer ence s f

rom the cond uctof t he al l eged part i ci pant s or f rom ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s chem e. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . A y a la , 6 4 3 F .2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 ( 5 th C ir . U n it A A pr. 19 81 ). T he t a pe r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons be tw e e n A rba ne a nd V e l e z , a s de c ode d by V el ez attri al , further s up po rt ed t he concl usi on thatA rbane conspi re d w i th L op ez P os a da t o i m por tc oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . D ur i ng the s e c onve r s a t i ons , the tw o us e d c ode w or ds t o r e f e rt o the drugs . V e l e z e xpl a i ne d the m e a ni ng be hi nd the i rw or ds w he n he t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l . D ur i ng the i rD e c e m be r23, 2001, conv er sa t i on , A rbane s t at ed t o V el ez , “ L oo k, the t rut h i s thatI w antt o t ake outthat33

s hi tw e ha ve ove rthe r e , tha tw e ha ve ove rthe r e i n E c ua dor ” a nd “ I w a ntt o t a ke thatou tfa st . ” V el ez expl ai ned attri al thatA rbane w as re fe rr i ng t o t he drug s that th e y h a d b e e n s to r in g in G u a y a q u il. V e le z a s k e d , “W h a t a r e w e g o in g to d o w ith th a t s h it? . . . I h a v e s o m e o n e w h o c a n ta k e it o u t. . . . I ’ll p a y y o u if it g e ts lo s t. T hat ’ s the deal . ” A rbane re spon ded, “ ye s, ok ay , I’ l l pu ti ti n. ” T he t w o d i sc usse d the de t a i l s of

the de a l , a nd the n V e l e z a s ke d, “ W he n a r e w e goi ng, w he n c a n w e do i t ? ” t o w hi ch A rbane re spon ded, “ I . . . am avai l abl e t o d o i ton Ja nu ar y 15t h. ” V e l e z a gr e e d t o the da t e a nd the n s t a t e d, “ W e ha ve t o f a x hi m , f a x hi m the d o c u m e n t o f

th e v e s s e l a n d th e c o n te n ts o f th e c o n ta in e r , w h a t is u s u a lly d o n e . W e have t o send i tou tt o h i m and h e’ l l t ake i tou t . ” A ttr i a l , V e l e z de c i phe r e d the i rc onve r s a t i on. H e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe drugs w e r e to b e s h ip p e d b y b o a t f r o m G u a y a q u il to M e x ic o a n d f r o m M e x ic o to M ia m i, a n d th e n h e h a d s o m e o n e w h o c o u ld ta k e th e d ru g s o f f th e b o a t w h e n it a r r iv e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . A rb a n e w o u ld n e e d to f a x th e s h ip p in g d o c u m e n ts f o rth e b o a t, s o tha the “ w oul d know w ha tgoods the boa tw a s br i ngi ng tha tw a s c om i ng f r om G uaya qu i l t o M i am i –G uaya qu i l t o M exi co and M exi co t o M i am i . ” V el ez further te s tif ie d th a t s h o r tly a f

te rth a t c o n v e r s a tio n , in J a n u a r y o f 2 0 0 2 , A rb a n e tr a v e le d to G uaya qu i l t o fac i l i t at e m ov i ng the drug s outof E cuador (w here they w er e s t oredHowever, even on cross e x amination Velez testified that “theg oal was to bringthe drug 16 that w e ha d in

Ec ua do r t o th e Un ite d St ate s. ” In re sp on seto d e fens e c ouns e l’ s q ue sti on , “ Di d you ta lk o n dir e c t e xami natio n a bo ut t heop tio n o f h avin gdr

ug s o n a sh ip t o g o all thewa

y to Mia mi?” V e le z te sti fi e d, “ Ye s. Ie xpla ine d p re vio us ly . . . th at th e reweretw o o pti on s: O neto ta k e th e dr u g s to M azatl an , an d

th e o th e r o n e f r o m Gu aya qu ilto M ia

mi . ” H e r e it e r ate d , “ We had a pla n since De cembe r of the year 2000[,] ” whe n they

met in Ecuador

and discussed two op tio ns : “ On

a bo at–o n a

ve sse l . . . th at w ou ld m akea sto p in Me xico and

then w ou ld g o o n to the United States; or anothe r vesse l that would leave directly from Gua

yaquil to Miami.” Moreove r, on re direc t, he explained that once Arbanefix ed his problem in Ecua dor, “the agree ment” wa s to “[g]o back a nd pick up the drug s and send them to Mexico and then the United States or to Miami directly .” Theg overnme nt asked, “ had the situation with the 34 and g uarded by L op ez -P osada) and i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es . T w o d ay s bef ore A rba ne ’ s a r r e s t , on J a nua r y 6, 2002, the s a m e da y tha tA rba ne f i r s ta r r i ve d a tthe apar t m ent , V el ez and A rbane s po ke agai n, thi s t i m e a bo utw hatperc ent age e ac h w o u ld ta k e f

r o m th e s a le o f

th e d ru g s . A rb a n e a s k e d , “Y o u to ld m e th a t h e w a n ts thi rty, thi rty f

or you and thi rty f

or m e, l i ke t hat ? ” V el ez expl ai ned attri al that A rb a n e w a n te d to k n o w w h a t p e r c e n ta g e th e p e r s o n in th e U n ite d S ta te s w o u ld re ce i ve for t aki ng the drug s off the shi p; ea ch of them w ou l d rec ei ve on e- thi rd shar e. T he opi ni on s t a t e s tha tthe s e c onve r s a t i ons r e ve a l tha ts hi pm e ntof drugs by bo atre m ai ned o nl y a po ss i bi l i ty a nd thatA rbane di d n otagre e t o t he pl an. Itre l i es heavi l y on V el ez ’ s c ross exam i nat i on t es t i m on y duri ng w hi ch he t es t i fi ed t hat A rba ne di d notw a ntt o i m por tthe drugs t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s dur i ng the i ndi c t m e nt pe r i od. A l though the r e w a s c onf l i c t i ng t e s t i m ony i n thi s c a s e , pa r t i c ul a r l y dur i ng 16a gre e me nt c ha ng e d o n Jan

ua ry 6th ? ” to whic h V e le z re ite rate d, “No . [Arb ane ] wa s e xpe c tin gto or waiting until he g ot to Guayaquil . . . to fixhis personal proble m and immediately g et our drug s out of Ecua dor.” And, in response to the que stion “[W ]hat was the status with [ Arba ne] and the dr ug s” “a s of J anuar

y 6th[ ? ],” Velez responde d, “[Arbane ] was goingto ge t the drug s. He wa s g oing to move the m out of Ecuador . He wa s g oing to se nd them to Mex ico, and if the y couldn’t be g otten into Mex ico, he wa s g oing to se nd them to the United States.” 35 th e d ir e c t a n d c r o s s e x a m in a tio n o f V e le z , th e ju r y is e n title d to d r a w r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s f r o m c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . “E v id e n c e n e e d n o t b e in c o n s is te n t w ith ever y r ea sonabl e hypot hesi s e xceptthatof gu i l ti n o rdert o b e s uffi ci ent . T he j ury i s f re e t o cho ose a m on g rea sonabl e c on struct i on s of the evi dence. ” U ni t ed St at es v . L y ons , 5 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e c o n v e r s a tio n s , c o m b in e d w ith V e l e z ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n o n d i r e c te x a mi n a t i o n o f th e p l a n t o i mp o r tth e d ru g s t o M i a mi and t he fa ctthatA rbane tra vel ed t o G uaya qu i l t o fac i l i t at e the m ov e di re ct l y a ft er th e irc o n v e r s a tio n , r e v e a ls th a t A rb a n e d id in f a c t a g r e e to th e p la n a n d d e s ir e to im p o r t c o c a in e in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . In sum , the evi dence t o sup po rtthe charged conspi ra cy w as pres ent ed throu gh V el ez ’ s t es t i m on y thatL op ez -P osada w as the m an w ho w as pai d t o g uard the drug s, thatA rbane pl anned t o i m po rtthe drug s by boatt o M i am i , and t hat A rbane tra vel ed t o G uaya qu i l t o fac i l i t at e the pl an. T he t ape r ec orded c o n v e r s a tio n s b e tw e e n V e le z a n d A rb a n e d u r in g w h ic h th e y d is c u s s e d th e d e ta ils36

of t he i m po rt at i on , L op ez -P osada’ s vi deot aped depo si t i on du ri ng w hi ch he t es t i fi ed tha the w a s pa i d a l a r ge a m ountof m one y t o l i ve i n the a pa r t m e ntw he r e the drugs w e r e s e iz e d , a n d te s tim o n y o f th e E c u a d o r ia n p o lic e o f f ic e rw h o f

o u n d b o th L ope z - P os a da a nd A rba ne a tthe a pa r t m e ntw i th the drugs a l s o s uppor t e d the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge . T he r e w a s e vi de nc e a boutthe a m ountof drugs , the c a r e f

ul pa c ka gi ng of

the drugs , a nd the l e ngth of t i m e tha tL ope z - P os a da w a s gua r di ng the drug s. T hi s e vi dence w as suff i ci entci rc um st ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i on al j ury c ou l d i nferthatL op ez -P osada knew of t he cocai ne, kn ew thati tw as headed for the U ni t ed S t at es , and ass i st ed i n t hi s pl an. T he j urors had pl ent y of e vi dence o n w h i c h t o c o n v i c tA rb a n e , a n d th e r e f o r e , I w o u l d a f

f i r m.