09- 1060- cr

Un ite d S tat es v . M ed ley

(B ivi ns )

UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER

RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N O TA TI O N “ SUM M A R Y O R D ER ” ) . A PAR TY CI TI N G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST S ER V E A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Term of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y of New York, on the 28 day of July, two thousand and te n.

th Present: W ILFRED FEINB ERG,

RALPH K . W INTER, ROSEMAR

Y S. POOL ER, Ci rcu it J ud ges .

_____________________________________________________ UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, Ap pe lle e ,

-v- (09 -10 60 -cr) JOSEPH MEDL EY, Defendant-Appell ant

. Ap pe ari ngfo r App ell ee: Jo sep h J . K ara sze ws ki, As sis tant Unit ed St ate s A tto rne y (T err an ce P. Flynn, United States Attorney, on thebr ief ), Western Districtof New York, New York, N.Y

. Appearing for Appellant : Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, N.Y. Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the W estern Dist rict of New York (Elfvin, J. ). ON CONSIDERA TION WHEREOF, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED, ADJU DGED,Medley als o argues thatthe distr ict courtimproperly admitted the fact of his pri or 1 acq uittal . It wa s, ho we ve r, M ed ley ’s o wn att orn eywh o m ad e re fe ren ce t o th e ac qu itt al. 2 AND DE CREED that sa id D istric t C ourt’ s ju dg m ent be an d it he reb y is AFFIRMED , and the cau se REMAND ED for considerat ion of whether resent encing is appr opriate pur suant to Un ite d States v. Regal ado , 5 18 F. 3d 14 3 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ). On Novem

ber 12, 2008, this pa nel dismissed Joseph Medl ey’s appeal for lack of jur isd ict ion , and

rem an de d to the dis tri ct c ourt w ithdir ect ion s f or t he co urt to e nte r a n ew jud gm ent. T he dis tri ct c ourt d id s o, an d M ed ley fi led a ti m ely ap pe al. Th e ap pe al r eturne d to thi s pane l pu rsu ant to United States v. Jacobson , 15 F.3d 19, 21-23 (2d Cir. 1994). We assume the parti es’ fam ili ari ty w iththe fa cts , p roc eed ing s b elo w, an d th e is su es r ais ed on ap pe al. Joseph Medley appeals from a judgm ent of conviction e ntered on Jul y 1, 2005 in the United States DistrictCourt for the Western Distri ct of New York (Elfvin, J. ), f oll ow inga jury trial , for one count of conspiracy t o possess with i ntent to di stribut e five kilograms or more of cocaine in vi olation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) a nd (b)(1)( A), and two counts of use of a co mm un icatio n f

aci lity to co mm it a

dru g tr af fi ck ingof fe ns e in vio lat ion of 21 U. S. C. § 8 43 (b)

. I. Double Jeopardy Three weeks priorto the sta rt of the federal t rial, Me dley was tri ed in stat e court, and acquitte d of charges stemm ing from drugs found during a search of his home on October 8, 19 99 . T he Do ub le J eo pardy Cl au se d oe s n ot p rev ent su cce ssi ve pro sec uti on s o f an in div idu al for the same act by two different soverei gns. Heath v. Alabama , 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985). Medley, however, argues t hat the “st ate and federal prosecuti ons [were] so intertwined a s to undermine the ass um pti on that tw o s up po sed ly i nd ep en de nt c rim ina l ac tio ns we re p ros ecuted bysep arate so ve rei gn s. ” United States v. Coonan , 9 38 F. 2d 15 53 , 1 56 3 (2 d C ir. 19 91 ). Medley offers no basis t o conclude thatthe stat e and federal pros ecutors were doing anything otherthan cooperat ing. See id. (“The key cri terion i n determining whether the applicat ion of this except ion is warra nted is not t he extent of contr ol exerci sed by one prosecuti ng authorit y over the othe r but rat her the ult imate source of the power under which t he res pe cti ve pro sec uti on s w ere un de rtake n. ”) ( qu otatio n m ark s an d a lte rat ion s o m itt ed ). H is c lai m of collusion res ts on his observations tha t: (1) t he state t rial occ urred thr ee weeks priorto the fe de ral tri al; an d (2 ) th e f ed era l pr os ecutor

m ad e expli cit

ref ere nc e to the fa ct that Me dle y w as arr est ed on state c harge s. Th ese fa cts pro vid e n o b asi s f or a fi nd ingthat th e st ate an d f ed era l pro sec uto rs w ere act ingin c on cer t. 1 II. Extra- Record Information Med ley argue s th at the dis tri ct c ourt e rre d in no t gr antin g a

m istria l af

ter a juror vie we d Med ley in h an dc uf

fs . A lth ou gh“ex tra -re co rd i nf orm ati on that co m es t o th e attentio n o f a jur or i s presumptively prejudi cial . . . . the presumption may be rebutted by a showing thatthe inf orm ati on is h arm les s, ” Un ite d S

tates v . H illar d , 701 F.2d 1052, 1064 (2d Cir. 1983) (qu otatio n m ark s an d c itatio n o m itt ed ), and a “t ria l co urt ha s w ide dis cre tio n in

de cid ingho w t o3

pursu e an inq uir y into t he ef fe cts of ex tra -re co rd i nf

orm ati on .” Id. He re, the pro ba

bil ityof pre jud ice (or the lik eli ho od

that th e in fo rm ati on

wa s h arm fu l) i s practic ally non-exi stent as t he juror who all egedly saw Medle y was dismissed the same day and did not part icipate in deliber ations. There fore, any potentia l prejudi ce was harmless. III

. Co ns tru cti ve Am en dm ent of the Ind ictm ent Med ley argue s th at the ind ictm ent w as c on str uc tiv ely am en de d b eca

us e it ch arg ed him wi th a co ns pir acy

inv olv ing5 k ilo gram s o f c oc ain e, un de r 21 U. S. C. § 8 41 (b) (1) (A ), b ut t he jur y convicted hi m of

a conspirac y involving 3.5 kil ograms of cocaine, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B). Th ere wa s n o e rro r he re. A c on sp ira cyinv olv ing3. 5 k ilo gram s o f c oc ain e is a le sse r included offense of a conspirac y involving 5 kil ograms of cocaine. Se e Fed. R. Crim. P . 31(c)(1) (“Ade fe nd ant m aybe fo un d g uil ty o f .

. . anof fe ns e n ece ssaril y in clu de d in the of fe ns e ch arg ed ”); Un ite d S

tates v . G as kin , 3 64 F. 3d

43 8, 45 3-5 4 (2 d C ir. 20 04 ); United States v. Diaz , 17 6 F .3 d 5 2, 10 0-0 1 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ). IV. Expert Testi mony Medley argue s that the distri ct court i mproperly admitted testimony by a case agent on the meaning of code words used by the part icipants in inter cepted tel ephone conversat ions because the a gent was not sufficientl y qualified as an e xpert and st rayed beyond the s cope of expert te stimony by testifying about t erms that were unique to t he conspirac y itself. “[W ]e have consistent ly upheld the us e of expert test imony to explain both the oper ations of dru g d eal ers an d th e m ean ingof co de d c onve rsatio ns ab out dr ug s. ” Un ite d S

tates v . Dukagjini , 326 F.3d 45, 52 (2d Cir. 2003). We have, however, also expre ssed concerns about the use of a case agent a s an expert wit ness because i t “incre ases the l ikelihood t hat inadmissible and pre jud ici al t est im ony w ill be pro ff ere d, ” id . 53, and that the case agent wil l “stra y from the scope of his expe rti se. ” Id. at 55. Medley, however , has not pointe d to parts of the a gent’s te stimony which eitherstrayed from the scope of the agent’ s experti se or were othe rwise inadmissible. The distri ct court di d not abuse it s discret ion in all owing the test imony. V. Su ff

ici en cyof the Ev ide nc e Med ley argue s th at the ev ide nc e w as i ns uf fi cie nt t o s ho w that he wa s p art of a co ns pir acy to distr ibute cocai ne or that he was the owner of the found cocaine. We disagree. It is well settle d that a defendant s eeking to over turn a convic tion based upon insufficiency of the evidenc e bears a hea vy burden. United States v. Santos , 541 F.3d 63, 70-71 (2d Ci r. 2 00 8). A c onvic tio n m us t be af fi rm ed if , “ af ter vie wi ng the ev ide nc e in

the lig ht m os t favorable to the prosecuti on, anyrational trierof fact could have found the essent ial ele ments of the cri m e b ey on d a

rea so na ble do ub t.” Ja cks on v . V

irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The evidence pre sented by the gove rnment included: transcr ipts of telephone4

co nv ers ati on s o n three sep arate d ate s b etw een Med ley an d c o-c on sp irator s B ivi ns an d C ast ill o that were drug-relat ed, as well as t estimony by Castillo tha t the conver sations r elated t o a two kilogram cocaine deal for $45,000; (2) tes timony that police se ized thre e ounces of cocaine and $11,000 in cash from Medley’s house on October8, the day after Bivi ns and Medley had a conversati on in drug-coded l anguage; (3) evidence tha t after Medl ey’s arr est, he had a t elephone conversati on with Bivins refere ncing seize d money. B ased on this e vidence, a ra tional t rier of fa ct c ou ld h av e f

ound that Me dle y w as p art

of a co ns pir acy

to p os ses s w ithint ent to dis tri bute co cai ne . T he ev ide nc e w as, the ref ore , s uf fi cie nt. V. Re m an d Un de r Regalado The parties agree thata remand pursuant to United States v. Regalado is warrant ed. 518 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). In Regalado we he ld t hat: Where a defendant has not preserved the argument that t he sentenci ng range fo r th e cr ack

co cai ne of

fe ns e f ail s to ser ve the ob jec tiv es o f s enten cin g und er § 35 53 (a) , w e w ill rem an d to giv e th e d ist ric t co urt anop po rtunit

y to ind icate wh eth er i t w ou ld h av e im po sed a n on -Guid eli ne s se nte nc e k no wi ng that it

ha d discret ion to deviat e from the Guidelines to serve those object ives. If so, the co urt sh ou ld v acate the ori gin al s enten ce and res enten ce t

he de fe nd ant. I f n ot, the co urt sh ou ld s tat e o n th e re co rd t hat it is d ecl ini ng to r ese nte nc e, an d it should provide a n appropriat e explanati on for this decis ion. Id . at 149. W e ag ree wi th t

he parti es t

hat a Regalado rem an d is ap pro pri ate he re. Accordingly, the judgment of the districtcourt here by is AFFIRMED, and the cau se REM AN DE D f

or c on sid eratio n o f whe the r re senten cin g is ap pro pri ate pursu ant to Regalado

. FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk