The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the * lis ti ng o f the p ar ti es abo ve. 1 08-1817-cr(L), 08-3121-cr( Con) USAv. Ro mer o- Pa di lla UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m, 200 9 (A rgue d: Sep te mb er

1, 2 009 De cid ed: Oct ob er 7, 2 009 ) Docket Nos. 08-1817-cr(L) ; 08-3121-cr(Con) U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee ,
v. J AI ME E NRI QUE R O M ERO -P ADI LL A ,

De fe ndant -A ppe lla nt , J UA N C AR LO S C A R DONA ,

Defenda nt. * B ef or e: C AL AB RE SI , C AB R ANES , and H ALL , Circuit Jud ges . App eal f r om a ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e So uther n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Denis e Cot e, Judge

) entered June 19, 2008, a fter a jury found defendant-appella nt guilty of manufacturing or distr

ibuting five kilog rams or

more of cocaine with the knowle dge or intent that the

coc ain e wo ul d b e un lawf

ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es , see 21 U.S.C . § 959(a

), and of conspiring
to do th e s ame , see

21 U.S.C . § 963. W e hold that a c onviction under 21 U.S. C. § 959(a) requires proof beyond rea sonable doubt that a defenda nt actuall y knewor intended that a substance manufac tured or di s tr ib ut ed i n v

io lat io n o f that

Sect io n wo ul d b e un lawf

ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es . Affirmed.T he ap peal of def end ant -a pp ell ant

J uanCarlo s Car do na wa s di s mi s s ed b y a J uly 16 , 20 08 1 order of this Court. Accordingly, this opinion address es only the appe al of defenda nt-appellant J aim e Enr ique Ro mer o- Pa di lla
. 2 M I CHAEL A. Y OUN G (J oyc e C. L on do n, on the brief ) J oyc e C. Lo nd on , P .C., New

Yor k, N Y, for Jaime Enriqu e RomeroPadi lla
. M ARC P. B ER GER , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney (Michael J. Gar cia, Unit ed S tat es At to r ney fo r th e So uther n D is tr

ict of New York, and Ke vin R. Puva lowski, Assis tant Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , on the brief ), for app ellee. P ER C URI AM : In this appea l, we c onsider pr incipa lly whe ther 21 U.S.C. § 959(a) requires proof beyond a
r eas on abl e do ub t that

a def end ant kn ew o r in te nd ed that

a s ub s tan ce m anu fa ct ur ed o r di s tr ib ut ed i n vio lat io n o f that

Sect io n wo ul d b e un lawf

ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es . BAC KGROUND On May 4, 2006, a grand jury indic ted defendant-appe llant Jaime E nrique Romero-Padilla and 1 six other individuals for

conspiring to manufacture or distribute five kilograms or mor e of coca ine with th e kn owl edg e or

in te nt th at the c ocai ne w ould be u nl awf ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es , see 21 U.S.C . § 963, a nd with the subst antive offense of manufacturing or distr ibuting five kilog rams or

more of coc ain e with the kno wled ge o r in te nt th at the c ocai ne w ould be u nl awf ully i mp or te d t o the U ni te d States in violation of id. § 95 9. T he g ov er nm ent all egedth at Ro mer o- Pa di lla , f or mer ly anant i- nar cot ics officer in the Colombia n National Polic e (“CNP”), a nd his co-defendants participated in a scheme to
mo ve l arge quan ti ti es of

coc ain e f r om Col om bi a to M exi co w ith the kno wled ge that

th e co cain e wo ul d then be imported into the United States. Of the seven indicte d defendants, only R omero-Padilla we nt to trial. Thr ee of Rome ro-P adilla ’s co-conspir ators t estified agai nst him, as did two police officers who haddeal t w

ith h im as un der cov er

agen ts . Am on g other

thin gs , the j ur

y als o h ear d wi r et ap r eco r di ngs of Romero-Padilla a nd his allege d co-conspirators and saw surveillanc e videos that showed him with3

the alle ged co-conspirators. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts of the in di ct men t, th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr ict Cou r t f or th e So uther n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Denis e Cot e, Judge

)

s ent enc ed Ro mer o- Pa di llapr in cip ally t o 1 80 m on th s ’ im pr is on men t. DISCUSSI ON On appea l, Rome ro-P adilla contends that (1) the evidence presented at his tr ial w as not suff icient to establish his knowledge or intent that the narcotics he helped to distribute would be im po r te d into the United Sta tes , as opposed to another country; (2) the Dis trict Court err ed in admitting in to evi den ce at

hi s tr ial pr oo f that

Rom er o- Pa di llaandon e He nr y F er r o- Var on(“ Fe r r o”) , anall eged co-conspirator in the ins tant matter, plotted to tr ansport narcotics t o the United States via Mexico and th e Do mi ni can Re pu bl

ic as par t o f s epar ate tr ans act io ns no t c har

ged inthis cas e; an d ( 3) th e Di s tr ict Cou r t e r r ed i n f

ail in g t o gi ve the j ur y a “m ul ti pl e co ns pi r acy i ns tr uct io n. ” Ap pellan t’ s B r . 47
. As an i ni ti al m att er , we c on s id er whe th er an o ff ens e un der

21 U .S. C. § 9 59(a), whi ch p r ov id es that it is “unlawful for any person to manufacture or dis tribute a controlled subst ance . . . (1) intending th at s uchs ub s tan ce o r

che mi cal w

ill be u nl awf

ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es . . . or (2) kno wi ng th at s uchs ub s tan ce o r

che mi cal w

ill be u nl awf

ully i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es ,” id. § 95 9( a)( 1) -( 2) (emphasis added), requires pr oof of actual (as opposed to constr uctive) knowl edge w here the gov er nm ent

do es no t p r ov e in te nt . Ro mer o- Pa di llaargue s , an d the g ov er nm ent agr ees , that

§ 95 9( a)
r equ ir es pr oo f b eyo nd a r eas on abl e do ub t that th e de fe nd ant

act ually knew or intended that a
con tr olleds ub s tan ce h e di s tr ib ut ed o r man uf act ur ed w ould be ille gall

y im po r te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es . Although our Court has not previously address ed this iss ue, we agree with the parties that § 959 mea ns what it says. As the D.C. C ircuit put it, “[b]y its ter ms, this provision r equires proof of actual, not
con s tr uct ive , kn owl edg e.” Uni

te d St ate s v . Chan Chun- Yin , 95 8 F .2d440 , 44 3 ( D. C. Cir . 19 92) ; see also United Sta tes v. M

artinez , 476 F.3d 961, 96 8 (D.C. C ir. 2007). Acc ordingly, we hold that in order to4

ob tai n a co nv

ict io n f or an o ff ens e un der

§ 95 9( a), th e go ver nm ent

mu s t p r ov e t he d ef

end ant ’s act ual knowledg e or intent beyond a reasonable doubt. View in g all th e evi den ce inth e li ght

mo s t f avo r abl e t o the g ov er nm ent anddr awin g all
r eas on abl e in fe r enc es init s fa vo r , see United States v. Autuori , 21 2 F .3d105 , 11 4 (

2d Cir . 20 00) , we h ol d th at Ro mer o- Pa di llahas no t m et th e “h eavy

bu r den ,” id. , o f d emo ns tr ati ng that th e evi den ce p r es ent ed at trial wa s ins ufficient for any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that RomeroPa di lla act ually knew

or in te nd ed that

th e co cain e at

is s ue w ould be i mp or te d i nt o the U ni te d S tat es . Se e g en er all y Ja ck so n v. V

ir gi nia , 44 3 U. S. 3 07, 319 (1 979 ). I n p ar ti cul ar , we n ot e t hat Rom er o- Pa di llado es not dispute that the government adduced the following evidence at trial: (1) as an officer in the CNP, he w as in s tr uct ed that

lar ge s hi pm ent s of

nar cot ics or igi nat in g inCol om bi a ar e of

te n t r ans po r te d th r ou gh M exi co an d that

nar cot ics tr ans po r te d f

r om Col om bi a to M exi co t ypi cally do no t r emainin Mexico bec ause their value is considerably higher in the Unite d States; (2) he discuss ed with a llege d coconspirator F erro the pos sibility of import ing narcotics to the United State s thr ough Mexico; (3) he
com men te d t o F er r o that

co- def end ant Le onid as M ol

in a- T r ian a, wh o o r che s tr ate d the c har ged
con s pi r acy, fr equ ent

ly i mp or te d d r ugs to th e Unit ed S tat es ; (4) he e xp r es s ed c on cer n t o s ever al alleg ed co-conspirators that the Drug Enforcement Age ncy might be investigating their ac tivities; and (5) on
mo r e t hanon e oc cas io n h e han dl ed U .S. cur r enc y as par t o f the alleg ed c on s pi r acy. Fr om th at evidenc e, a rationa l trier of f act coul d have i nferred Romero-Padilla’s actual knowledg e that the narcotics at issue were bound for the United States. Romero-Padilla’s contention that the jury w as not required to make that inference is irr eleva nt. See United States v. Salm onese , 352 F.3d 608, 61 8 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[T]he task of choos ing among pe rmis sible competing inferenc es is f or the jury, not a reviewing

cou r t . . . . ”) ; cf

. Chan Chun- Yin , 958 F.2d at 443 (“[P]roof [of knowledge] may take the form of cir cum s tan ti al as well

as di r ect evi den ce.” ).5

We reje ct Romero-Padilla ’s contention that evidenc e of his previous plans with F erro to impor t
nar cot ics in to th e Unit ed S tat es th r ou gh M exi co an d the D om inicanRepu bl ic wa s evi den ce o f “ other crimes” and inadmissible under Federal R ule of Evide nce 404 (b). Although the evide nce did not
conce rn the charged conspiracy , it was releva nt background evi dence inasmuch as it corrobor ated the char ge that Fe r r o an d Ro mer o- Pa di llawer e par tn er s du r in g t he c har

ged con s pi r acy an d es tab lis hedth at Romero-Padilla’ s participation in the cha rged conspiracy w as at lea st in part m otivated by hi s desir e to acqu ir e t he f un ds nec es s ary t o co mp let e t he o th er con te mp lat ed tr ans act

io ns with F er r o. Acco r di ngl y, th e evi den ce f

ell ou ts id e t he am bi t o f Rule 4 04( b) ’s pr oh ib it

io n o n “o th er

cr im es ” ev id enc e. See United States v. Gonzales, 110 F.3d 936, 94 2 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[E]vi dence of uncharged crimina l activi ty is not considered ‘other crimes’ evidence under Fed. R. E vid. 404(b) if it arose out of the same transaction or

s er ies of tr ans act io ns as th e ch arged of

fe ns e, i f i t [

is ] i nex tr icab ly i nt er tw

in ed w ith the e vid enc e
r egar di ng the c har

ged of fe ns e, o r if it is nec es s ary t o co mp let e t he s to ry of th e cr im e [o n] tr

ial .” (i nt er nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ). M or eov er , p r oo f o f the p lan nedtr ans act io ns was adm is s ib le as evi den ce o f Ro mer o- Pa di lla ’s kn owl edg e t hat th e nar cot

ics inth e ch arged con s pi r acy wo ul d ult im ate ly be tr ans po r te d t o the U ni te d S tat es . Cf. U nit ed S tat es v. B ran d , 467 F.3d 179, 19 7 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[P]rior
act evidence is generally

admissible to prove that the defendant ac ted with the state of mind necessary
to com mi t the o ff

ens e ch arged .” (

in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks om it te d) ). T he p r ob ati ve v alu e of

this evi den ce, m or eov er , was no t s ub s tan ti ally ou tw eig hedby a r is k o f u nf air pr eju di ce. See Fed. R. E vid. 403
. T he D is tr

ict Cou r t did no t e r r

inno t i ns tr uct

in g the j ur y t hat it could fi nd th at m ul ti pl e conspiracies existed in the instant case—one to transport narcotics f rom Colombia to Mexico a nd a

s epar ate con s pi r acy t o t r ans po r t them to th e Unit ed S tat es . Wh er e, as her e, “ on ly o ne c on s pi r acy h as bee n alleg ed an d p r ov ed[ ,]
. . . def end ant s ar e no t e nt

it ledto a mult

ip le co ns pi r acy ch arge. ” United States v. Maldonad

o-Rivera , 922 F.2d 934, 96 2 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation ma rks om itted). In any6

event, the District Court’s jur y instructions addressed Romero-Padilla’s conce rn that the jury be in fo r medth at “ it

hadto acqu

it [d ef end ant ] u nl es s it fo un d that

he w as a me mb er

of th e co ns pi r acy charged i n the indictment.” A ppella nt’s B r. 49. Romero-Padilla w as charged with conspiracy to manufacture or distr

ibute drugs that he knew woul d be imported into the United States, and the Di s tr ict Cou r t i ns tr uct ed the j ur

y t hat it could on ly f

in d h im guilt

y if it fo un d b eyo nd a r eas on abl e do ub t that

he w as awar e t hat

he w as jo inin g a co ns pi r acy t o i mp or t n ar cot ics in to th e Unit ed S tat es . CONCLUSI ON Fo r r eas on s s tat ed ab ov e, the J un e 19 , 20 08 j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF FI RM ED.