FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 15160 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 2 0 3 1 8 - C R - AJ 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 R O B E R T O G E R A R D O B A R R A G A N L E O N , 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 rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 18, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R , an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ob ert o G er ar do B arra gan L eon app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on for a gg ra vat ed2

i de nt i ty the f

ta nd the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on j ur or m is c o n d u c t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 A . L e o n ’s ap p e a l p r e s e n ts tw o is s u e s . F ir s t, a l though L e on a r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i on u n d e rth e a g g r a v a te d id e n tity th e f t s ta tu te a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it i ns truc t e d the j ury on thi s c ount , the s e a r gum e nt s on appe a l a tbott om pr e s e nt i s s ue s of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on: w he the rthe t e r m “ know i ngl y ” i n s e c t i on 1 0 2 8 A ( a ) ( 1 ) ap p lie s o n ly to th e w o r d s “tr a n s f e r s , p o s s e s s e s , o ru s e s ” o rw h e th e rit appl i e s t o the e nt i r e pr e di c a t e i n the s t a tut e , i nc l udi ng w he the rthe “ m e a ns of i dent i fi ca t i on ” bel on ged t o “ anot her per son. ” S ec on d, L eon argues thatthe di stri ct c our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d L e on’ s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on al l eged expo sure of the j ury t o ext ri nsi c e vi dence and al l eged prem ature d e l i b e r a t i o n s b y th e j u ry . W e d i s c u s s e a c h i s s u e i n tu rn a n d a f f i r m. O ura na l y s i s of

the i s s ue of

s t a tut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s gove rne d by our de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ur t a do, 508 F . 3d 603 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . I n H ur t a do, w e hel d thatt o sat i sf

y the kn ow l edge requi re m entof the aggravat ed i dent i ty theft s t a tut e , the gove rnm e ntdi d notha ve t o pr ove tha tthe de f e nda ntw a s a w a r e tha tthe id en ti fica ti o n d o cu m en ts h e k n o w in g ly “tra n sf er r[ ed ], p o ss es s[ ed ], o r u se [d ]” b e lo n g e d to a n o th e ra c tu a l p e r s o n . I d . a t 6 1 0 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 A ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t “k n o w in g ly ” m o d if ie d o n ly th e v e rb s in th e s ta tu te , s o th a t a3

d efen d an tw h o “ k n o w i n g l y tran sfers, p o ssesses, o r u ses, w i th o u tl aw fu l au th o ri ty” the m ea ns of i dent i fi ca t i on of anot her per son w hi l e he c om m i t s a no ther f el on y c an be c onvi c t e d of

a ggr a va t e d i de nt i ty the f te ve n i f he doe s notknow tha tthe i de nt i f i c a t i on be l ongs t o a nothe ra c tua l pe r s on. T he r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

r om w h ic h th e ju ry c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t L e o n k n o w in g ly u s e d th e P u e r to R ic a n b ir th c e r t i f i c a t e of G i l be r t o M a r t i a nd a F l or i da i de nt i f i c a t i on c a r d i n the na m e of Gi l b e r t o Ma r t i wh i l e h e ap p l i e d f o ra Un i t e d S t a t e s p a s s p o r ta n d c o m m i tt e d two othe rf e l oni e s : know i ngl y m a ki ng a f a l s e s t a t e m e nton a pa s s por tappl i c a t i on a nd f a l s e l y a nd w i l f

ul l y r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m s e l f t o be a c i t i z e n of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . 18 U . S . C . §§ 91 1, 15 42 . T here w as al so suff i ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j ury c oul d c onc l ude tha tL e on us e d the bi r th c e r t i f i c a t e “ w i thoutl a w f

ul a uthor i ty . ” T he di re ct or of the veri fi ca t i on and i nv es t i gat i on di vi si on of the P uert o R i ca n D ep ar tm en t o f H ea lth D em o g ra p h ic R eg istry tes ti fied th at th e e x isten ce o f M ar ti ’s bi r th c e r t i f

i c a t e m e a nttha tthe r e w a s a “ r e a l G i l be r t o M a r t i , ” tha tonl y the in d iv id u a l h im s e lf

, h is p a r e n ts , o rh is c h ild r e n m a y r e q u e s t a c o p y o f a b ir th c e r tif ic a te , th a t s o m e o n e c la im in g to b e M a r ti h a d r e q u e s te d a c o p y o f th e b ir th c e r tif ic a te u s in g a d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e is s u e d to M a r ti, a n d th a t a P u e r to R ic a n b ir th c e r tif ic a te c a n n o t la w f

u lly b e tr a n s f

e rr e d f r o m o n e p e r s o n to a n o th e r . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d L e on’ s m ot i on4

for anew tri al base d o n al l eged j uror m i sc on du ct . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that L eon d i d n otpres entsubst ant i al evi dence of a s peci fi c i m prop ri ety thatre qu i re d further i nq ui ry abou tthe verdi ctof the j ury. S ee F ed. R . E vi d. 60 6(b). T he di stri ct c o u r t f u r th e rc o n c lu d e d th a t, b a s e d o n th e te s tim o n y o f a n a lte rn a te ju r o rw h o it foun d cre di bl e, the evi dence di d n otes t abl i sh thatthe j uror w ho se cond uctw as at i ss ue had exp re ss ed hi s vi ew s abo utthe evi dence i n the ca se or i nfl uenced the vi ew of any other j uror, so no extri nsi c e vi dence i nfl uenced the tri al j urors a nd there w e r e no pr e m a tur e de l i be r a t i ons by the j ury . “ W hi l e w e c onc e i va bl y m i ghtha ve fol l ow ed a di ff

er entcourse and even arri ved ata di ff er entre sul tthan t he di stri ct c our tdi d i f

w e ha d be e n pr e s i di ng ove rthe tr i a l of thi s c a s e , ” a f

t e ra r e vi e w of

the i nqui ry c onduc t e d by the di s tr i c tc our ta nd the othe rr e c or d e vi de nc e , w e c a nnot co n cl u d e th atth e d en i al o f th e m o t i o n fo r a n ew tri al b y th e d i stri ctco u rt“ w as a c le a re rr o ro f

ju d g m e n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . D o m in g u e z , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in th e s e s itu a tio n s to in v e s tig a te a nd r e m e dy j ur orm i s c onduc t , a nd thi s “ di s c r e t i on i s a ti t s br oa de s tw he n the al l egat i on [of j uror m i sc on du ct ] i nv ol ves i nt ernal m i sc on du ctsuch as prem ature d e lib e r a tio n s .” I d . a t 1 2 4 6 . W e a f f ir m th e d e n ia l o f

L e o n ’s m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l. L e o n ’s c o n v ic tio n is A FFI R M ED .