FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 12 59 3
D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 02 45 -WPD-6 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff - App el le e,
vers us RAFAEL FERNANDEZ G ARCIA, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (Oct ob er 2 7, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN an d S UHRHEINRICH, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Defen da ntRafa el Fern an de z Garci a an d h is co -co ns pi rat or s wer e ch arg ed

Honora ble Richard F . Suhrheinrich, United States Circ uit J udg e for the United States * Court of Appea ls for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by desig nation.wit h v ari ou s d ru g a ndfir earm off en se s fo r co ns pi rin g t o ro b adru g s ta sh ho us e
an d s te al co cai ne . Garci a’s ro le in th e co ns pi racy was to im pe rs on at e a p ol ic e of fic er co nduc ti ng a “ rai d” on th e h ou se . He app eal s h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itrob be ry by tak in g c oc ai ne by force fro m anin di vi du al be li ev edto be en ga ge d i n n arco ti cs tra ffi ck in g, i n v io la ti on of the Hob bs Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a); co ns pi racy to p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e k il og ram s o r
m or e o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), 8 46 ; at te m ptto po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), 8 46 ; an d c on sp ira cy to us e an d c arry a firea rm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce an d adru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A), 9 24 (o ). The ju ry acqui tt edhi m

of u se an d
carry in g o f a fi rearm

du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce an d adru g tra ffi ck in g c rime, in v io la ti on of 2 1 U.S.C. § § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A), 2. Garci a rai se s s ix is su es on ap pe al . Firs t, Garc iacla im s t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro ve th atGarci a kne w th atth e o bjec t o f th e co ns pi racy
was to st eal co cai ne . W e d is ag ree. Co de fen da ntAm au ry Hern an de z te st ifi edat tri al , st at in g t ha t o n t he da y of t he pl an ne d ro bb ery, all of t he co -co ns pi rat or s m et
an d “ sp ok e ab ou t t he rob be ry we were g oi ng to do to ge t t he co cai ne an d wh at each on e was go in g t o d o, t he ir r ol e.” Su ch di rectev id en ce i s s uf fic ie ntto pro ve
2th atGarci a was ful ly aware th atth e g oa l o f th e co ns pi racy was to rob co cai ne .

Seco nd , Garci a arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n ad m it ti ng Garci a’s in vo lv em en t i n t hr ee p rio r vi ol en t k idnapi ng in ci de nt s u nd er Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). W e rejectth is arg um en t. Garc ia ’s def en se at tria l was th at he was n ota kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ntin th e co ns pi racy bu t m erel y in th e wro ng pl ace atth e wro ng ti m e. The e vi de nc e es tabl is he d t ha t Gar ci a’s ro le in th e co ns pi racy
was to dre ss as alaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer, an d tha t h e an d h is co -co ns pi rat or s, i n ad di ti on to st eal in g c oc ai ne , pl an ne d t o k id nap t he st as h h ou se gu ard s an d h ol d th em forran so m . The p rio r ba d a ct s wer e v ery si m il ar t o t he ch arg edcri m in al
co nduc t. Garc ia ’s 20 08 pri orco nv ic ti on als o i nv ol ve d i m pe rs on at io n o f a p ol ic e of fic er an d k id napi ng anin di vi du al . On Aug us t 1 3, 2 00 9, Gar ci a was dre ss edas
an un de rco ve r po li ce o ffi cer dur in g ano th er at te m pt edki dn ap in g a lo ng with s om e of hi s co -co ns pi rat or s. Th e Aug us t 2 5, 2 00 9 i nc id en t es tabl is he d tha t Gar ci a
co nt in ue d t o c on sp ire wit h s om e o f th e sa m e co -co ns pi rat or s i n p la nn in g a no th er ki dn ap in g. Tak en as awho le , th e 4 04 (b ) ev id en ce was off eredforth e p erm is si bl e pu rp os e o f pr ov in g asi m il ar m odus op eran di , wit h m an y of t he same coco ns pi rat or s, an d t o re fu te Garci a’s “ m ere p res en ce” d efen se . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Dia z-Li za ra za , 98 1 F .2d12 16 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (h ol di ng th atev id en ce o f a pr io r arre stforpo ss es si on of m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te was a dm is si bl e to
3sh ow t he de fen da nt ’s in te ntto co m m itth e ch arg edcri m e o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss
an d d is tri bu te co cai ne wher e th e d efen da ntcla im edhe was s im pl y no t i nv ol ve d i n al le ge d d ru g- rel at edact iv it ie s s in ce t he in te ntele m en t was id en ti cal ); Uni te d St at es v. Abr am , 17 1 F . App ’x 30 4, 3 15 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th atad m is si on of p rio r un ch arg edrob be rie s i n abankrob be ry pro se cu ti on was n ot
an ab us e o f di sc ret io n b ecau se th e u nc ha rg edact s wer e v ery si m il ar t o t he ch arg ed act s an d e st ab li sh eda si m il ar m odus op eran di ). Cf . Uni te d Sta te s v. La il , 84 6 F .2d 12 99 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y ad m it ti ng pri orun ch arg edact s b ecau se th ere wer e m ajordi ss im il ari ti es be twee n th e ch arg edan d u nc ha rg edoff en se s) . Garci a al so cla im s h e su ffer edun du e pr ejud ic e b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t p la y edth e v id eo of the Aug us t1 3, 2 00 9 ki dn ap in g. Si nc e Garci a rep la y edth e g rap hi c v id eo du rin g h is cro ss -ex am in at io n of Hern an de z, itis di ffi cu ltfor hi m to no w cla im

un du e p reju di ce. Fi na ll y , th e jud ge ga ve li m it in g i ns tru ct io ns bo th du rin g Herna nd ez’s t es ti m on y an d t he en d o f tri al
. Se e Dia z-Li

za ra za , 98 1 F .2dat 1 22 5 (h ol di ng th atjury in st ru ct io ns on th e li m it edus e o f 40 4( b) ev id en ce m it ig at edan y pre jud ic e ). Thi rd , Garci a arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g hi s m ot io n t o s tri ke a juro r fo r cau se . To th e co nt rary, the d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n, l etalo ne pl ai nl y err, b y fai li ng to rem ov e juro r Cas te ll an os . 4The reco rdrev eal edno actua l o r im pl ie d b ia s n ordi d i t s ho w th atCas te ll an os ha d a sp eci al rel at io ns hi p wi th Dete ct iv e Gan da ril la s. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Rh odes , 17 7 F .3d96 3, 9 65 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (s ta ti ng th ata di st ric t co urt ab us es it s di sc ret io n fo r fai li ng to di sm is s a ju ro r fo r cau se on ly if th e p ro sp ect iv e juro r sh ows actua l b ia s o r whe n b ia s i s i m pl ie d b ecau se of s om e sp eci al rel at io ns hi p t o a pa rty). Garciadi d n otob ject t o t he di st ric t co urt’s co ll oquy with Cas te ll an os . Nex t, Garc iaco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Garci a’s m ot io n fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng an d m ot io n fo r a m is tri al ba se d o n t he jury’ s q ue st io n c on cern in g p os t-v erd ic t s afet y . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr os pe ri , 20 1 F.3 d 1 33 5, 1 34 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (in ve st ig at io n o f al le ge d ju ro r m is co nduc t i s
co m m it te d t o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is cret io n) . Howev er, n ot hi ng in th e rec or d
su gg es ts th atth e jury was subjec t t o i m pr op er ex te rn al in flu en ces or t ha t t he juro rs
were n otparti ci pa ti ng inde li be rat io ns . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Watch mak er , 76 1 F.2 d 1 45 9, 1 46 5- 66 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (ab se ntev id en ce tha t t he jury was subjec te d to ou ts id e so ur ces , th e d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto ho ldanev id en ti ary he ari ng ). Any safet y

co nc ern s wer e b as edon th e rec or d e vi de nc e o f Garci a’s vi ol en t cri m in al be ha vi or . Fin al ly, th e jury ent ereda sp li t v erd ic t, d em on st rat in g t ha t t he jury’ s v erd ic t was ba se d o n c aref ul co ns id erat io n o f th e ev id en ce ra th er t ha n
ex te rn al fact or s. Cf

. Ski ll in g v . Uni te d Sta tes , – U.S. – , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 89 6, 2 91 6
5(2 01 0) (sp li t v erd ic t i ll us tra te d t ha t t he jury was no t i m pr op erl y in flu en cedby
ne ga ti ve pre tri al publ ic it y ). Fi fth , Garci a as se rts th athe sh ou ldha ve rece iv eda two -le ve l re du ct io n
un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Man ua l § 3B 1.2 (b ) ba se d o n h is m in orrol e in th e o ffen se . The d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Gar ci a was no t l es s cu lp ab le th an hi s co de fen da nt s was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 37 -4 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (en ba nc ). The co urt fo un d t ha t Gar ci a’s
ro le of e nt eri ng th e st as h h ou se dre ss edas apo li ce o ffi cer was anin te gr al part o f th e p la n t o o ve rco m e th e g ua rd s an d m in im iz e th ei r res is ta nc e. Alt ho ug h h e was
on e o f th ree m en who wou ldbe un arm ed , th is alo ne di d n otsh ow h im to be les s
cu lp ab le th an m os t o f th e o th er p art ic ip an ts in th e sc he m e. Fi na ll y , Garci a arg ue s t ha t h is 29 2- m on th sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y
un reas on ab le be cau se itfai le d t o a de qu at el y tak e in to acco un t t he hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da ntan d the ne edto av oi d u nwarran te d s en te nc in g di sp ari ti es am on g d efen da nt s. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (a)( 6) . Spe ci fic al ly, Garci a co nt en ds th atth e co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly facto r in hi s s eri ou s h eart pr ob le m s, as well as t he gre atsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s b et ween hi m an d h is
co de fen da nt s. The sen te nc e im

po se d was subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . The co urt s ta te d t ha t
6Garci a’s pr io r co nv ic ti on forrob be ry an d i m pe rs on at in g apo li ce o ffi cer was an
ex tre m el y ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce, co m m it te d wh il e Garci a was on pro ba ti on . Inad di ti on , th e co urt n ot edth atde sp it e h is ser io us m ed ic al co nd it io n, Gar ci a was ab le to pa rti ci pa te in othe r vi ol en t fe lo ny offen se s. Alt ho ug h Gar ci a’s cri m in al hi st ory fav or eda se nt en ce i n t he m id dl e o r up pe r en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge , th e
co urt n on et he le ss sen te nc edhi m at t he lo w endof t he ran ge be cau se of h is m ed ic al pr ob le m s. Garci a was no t s im il arl y

si tu at edto hi s co de fen da nt s. Each ha d e it he r pr ov id edsubs ta nt ia l as si st an ce t o t he go ve rn m en t, h adno t b een co nv ic te d o f Co un ts 2 an d 3 , hadfewer c riminal hi st ory po in ts , hadpl ead edgu il ty, orha d s om e
co m bi na ti on of t he se fact or s. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 23 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (pe r curia m ) (h ol di ng th atth e d efen da ntwas n otsi m il arl y si tu at edto a co -co ns pi rat orfor pu rp os es of 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6) be cau se th e co co ns pi rat orha d p le ad edgu il ty pur su an t t o awrit te n p le a ag reem en t, an d h is
se nt en ce re fle ct edth e su bs tant ia l as si st an ce h e p ro vi de d t o the go ve rn m en t b y te st ifyin g a ga in stth e d efen da nt ). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, Garc ia ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e is AFFIRMED
.

7