Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/63/1142/613943/
Timestamp: 2020-04-07 05:59:34
Document Index: 254400489

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 960', '§ 952', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 2', 'art:\n18', '§ 924', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 3501', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 3501', 'art, 779']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Julio Luciano-mosquera, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Raul Lugo-maya, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Rafael Pava-buelba, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Pagan-san-miguel, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Edgar Gonzalez-valentin, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Pagan-san-miguel, Defendant, Appellant, 63 F.3d 1142 (1st Cir. 1995) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1995 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Julio Luciano-mosquera, Defendant, Appellant.united States of...
United States of America, Appellee, v. Julio Luciano-mosquera, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Raul Lugo-maya, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Rafael Pava-buelba, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Pagan-san-miguel, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Edgar Gonzalez-valentin, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Pagan-san-miguel, Defendant, Appellant, 63 F.3d 1142 (1st Cir. 1995)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 63 F.3d 1142 (1st Cir. 1995) Argued June 8, 1995. Decided Aug. 28, 1995
The five appellants, Luciano-Mosquera, Lugo-Maya, Pava-Buelba, Pagan-San-Miguel and Gonzalez-Valentin, were found guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 960 and 963 (Count 1); importing 232.8 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting) (Count 2); possessing the cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 3); and of knowingly carrying or aiding and abetting the carrying of firearms in relation to the drug trafficking crime of importing the cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts 4 and 5).
Appellants' principal focus is on the denial of their Rule 29 motions at trial for acquittal on Count 4, the M-16 firearm count. Each appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under Count 4 for carrying, or aiding and abetting the carrying of, the M-16 during and in relation to the drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Section 924(c) (1) provides, in pertinent part:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). Section 2(a) provides: "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).
The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is familiar. "Our task is to review the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, taken as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow a rational jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty as charged." United States v. Mena-Robles, 4 F.3d 1026, 1031 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied sub nom. Rivera v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 1550, 128 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1994).
The facts of this case do not require us to define the precise contours of the meaning Congress intended the phrase "carries" to have, and we note the variety of views on both that issue and the meaning of its companion term "use" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). See generally United States v. Joseph, 892 F.2d 118, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (to prove carrying, the government must show that the defendant had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the firearm and that the firearm was within easy reach to protect the defendant during the drug trafficking offense); United States v. Evans, 888 F.2d 891, 895 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (carrying comprehends more than actually physically wearing or bearing a gun on one's person), cert. denied sub nom. Curren v. United States, 494 U.S. 1019, 110 S. Ct. 1325, 108 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1990); see also United States v. Bailey, 36 F.3d 106, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Williams, J., dissenting) (stating that carrying included situations (1) where a weapon was within easy reach of the defendant, (2) where a defendant had sufficient control over confederates carrying weapons to establish constructive possession, or (3) where a defendant had transported a weapon by motor vehicle and had ready access to the weapon as if it were in his pocket), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1689, 131 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1995); Bailey, 36 F.3d 106 at 114-15 & n. 1 (stating that what constitutes "use" depends upon the nature of the underlying substantive offense); United States v. Paulino, 13 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 1994) (focussing on whether the firearm was available for use in connection with the narcotics trade). Suffice it to say that actual physical carrying of the gun comes within the scope of the statute. See Joseph, 892 F.2d at 126.
Our initial focus then is on the sufficiency of the evidence on the aiding and abetting charge. Aiding and abetting requires that "the defendant [have] associated himself with the venture, participated in it as in something he wished to bring about, and sought by his actions to make it succeed." United States v. Alvarez, 987 F.2d 77, 83 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 147, 126 L. Ed. 2d 109 (1993). Mere association with the principal, or mere presence at the scene of a crime, even when combined with knowledge that a crime will be committed, is not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability. Id.; see also United States v. de la Cruz-Paulino, 61 F.3d 986 (1st Cir. 1995). The defendant must have taken some affirmative action that facilitated violation of Sec. 924(c) (1).3 Of course, knowledge that a gun would be carried is also required. See United States v. Torres-Maldonado, 14 F.3d 95, 103 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 193, 130 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1994); see also United States v. DeMasi, 40 F.3d 1306, 1316 (1st Cir. 1994) (knowledge that co-conspirators would be using a gun may be inferred from defendant's activity in planning and attempting to rob a Brink's armored truck guarded by two armed guards), cert. denied sub nom. Bonasia v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 947, 130 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1995).
The evidence is also sufficient to show that Gonzalez-Valentin knowingly assisted the carrying of the weapon. Gonzalez-Valentin is chargeable with knowledge of the M-16, since the M-16 was displayed in his presence during one of the meetings at his house and the jury could infer that he was present. Moreover, by providing his house for the meeting at which the guns were displayed and discussed, Gonzalez-Valentin assisted the substantive Sec. 924(c) (1) offense.
As for Luciano-Mosquera, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that he either carried or aided in carrying the weapon to or from the beach and hid the M-16 under the jeep at the time he hid or had placed it there sometime before the arrests. The weapon was directly above him in the undercarriage, no more than an arm's span away. It was also placed up in the undercarriage between the chassis and the springs, so clearly someone took some effort to place the weapon there. He was at the beach with Pagan-San-Miguel to meet the yawls; he arrived at the beach with Pagan-San-Miguel, who supplied the weapon; magazines from the M-16 were nearby; beepers were found near the gun (suggesting a connection between the gun and the drug offense); and the call tipping the conspirators off that the police were watching came into a car phone in his car. This evidence supports the reasonable inference that his proximity to the weapon was more than a mere fortuity. A jury could conclude from these circumstances that Luciano-Mosquera either placed the weapon in the jeep before the arrest signals were given or that he carried the weapon from the beach and hid it underneath the jeep as he was hiding from the police. From these circumstances, a jury could reasonably conclude that Luciano-Mosquera had carried the weapon sometime during and in relation to the offense or at least that he aided in the carrying of the weapon during and in relation to the drug offense. See United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 974 (1st Cir. 1995) (evidence must be taken as a whole, in cumulation).
All of the appellants have argued that, regardless of whether the evidence was sufficient to show aiding and abetting "carrying," it was insufficient to show that any carrying was done "during and in relation to" the drug importation offense. They argue that, because their importation efforts ended the moment the flares went up, the subsequently found M-16 machine gun could not have "related to" the drug trafficking. That argument is inventive, but wrong. The jury could easily infer from the discovery of the weapon in close proximity to the offloading operation after the arrest signals were given that it had been carried at a time when the offense was in progress, particularly in light of the evidence that it was brought by the conspirators to a planning meeting and shown off, ammunition for it was found nearby, and it was found close to the bales of cocaine. Further, the legislative history of the 1984 amendment to Sec. 924(c) is explicit that where the defendant had a gun during the underlying offense (even if the gun had not been displayed), the section is violated "if from the circumstances or otherwise it could be found that the defendant intended to use the gun if a contingency arose or to make his escape." S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, 314 n. 10 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3492 n. 10; see also United States v. Feliz-Cordero, 859 F.2d 250, 254 (2d Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, there was no evidence that Pava-Buelba ever had actual possession of the weapon. With Luciano-Mosquera lying underneath the gun, it is far from clear that Pava-Buelba was in a position to exercise dominion and control over the weapon. Even if his proximity to the M-16 under the jeep gave him sufficient possession, at most, a theory of constructive possession might have been argued. In this case, however, the district court specifically instructed the jury that a conviction for "carrying" a firearm could not be based on constructive possession of the firearm. Such an instruction sets the benchmark against which the sufficiency of the evidence must be measured. United States v. Gomes, 969 F.2d 1290, 1294 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1196-97 (1st Cir.) (appellate determination of sufficiency must be constrained by trial court's instructions; "otherwise ... we would be sustaining a conviction on appeal on a theory upon which the jury was not instructed below"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 845, 111 S. Ct. 130, 112 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). While the correctness of that instruction might otherwise be open to question, the government did not object to the instruction at trial nor does it argue on appeal that the instruction was error. See Saylor v. Cornelius, 845 F.2d 1401, 1408 (6th Cir. 1988) (although reversal due to a trial error normally does not raise double jeopardy concerns, double jeopardy bar would be triggered where government had failed to object to the error).
Issues of the sufficiency of the evidence necessarily involve the tension between deference to the jury's role under the Sixth Amendment as the finder of fact, see Olbres, 61 F.3d at 974-75, and the appellate court's role in providing meaningful review of whether the government has indeed met its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden is constitutionally mandated. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970). The Supreme Court has said that the relevant question is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) (emphasis removed). The difficulty of these questions of sufficiency of the evidence to draw reasonable inferences is illustrated in the case law. See, e.g., Stewart v. Coalter, 48 F.3d 610 (1st Cir.) (each of four courts reviewing a conviction reach different conclusions as to sufficiency, culminating in a split decision by a panel of this court upholding the conviction), petition for cert. filed, No. 94-9742 (U.S. June 19, 1995).
The appellants4 --principally Pagan-San-Miguel--have raised six other claims of error concerning the district court's conduct of the trial: (1) the limitation of Pagan-San-Miguel's cross-examination of two government witnesses, (2) the admission of an incriminating statement made by Pagan-San-Miguel, (3) the refusal to grant a mistrial after allegedly improper remarks were made during closing statements, (4) the jury instruction on Sec. 924(c) (1), (5) the jury instruction on the defendants' flight from the crime scene, and (6) the allowance of a read-back of testimony by a government witness to the jury during its deliberation. None of these claims of error provides a ground for reversal.
Although cross-examination is an important component of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the confrontation clause, a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses is not unlimited. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1435, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986). A district court is entitled to cut off cross-examination that may create prejudice or confusion of the issues, or may be harassing or unduly repetitive. Id. Assuming that the minimal constitutional threshold level of inquiry was allowed, as here, a trial court has discretion in limiting cross-examination. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is sufficient evidence before the jury (absent the excluded evidence) from which the jury could "make a discriminating appraisal of the possible biases and motivations of the witnesses." Brown v. Powell, 975 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 1035, 122 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1993). That was the case here.
Pagan-San-Miguel argues that the district court erred by not conducting a hearing out of the jury's presence, pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964), and 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a),5 to determine the voluntariness of his incriminating statements. Police Officer Samuel Jusino testified that Pagan-San-Miguel, while being held following his arrest, told Jusino that he "would make three hundred thousand dollars out of [the drug venture]" and, once the arrest signals were given, "that he ran and hid himself underneath a metal plank, and if he had found a hole he would have gone through that place."
Before the issue of a Jackson v. Denno hearing may be raised on appeal, the issue of voluntariness must have been placed before the district court in a timely and coherent manner. See United States v. Santiago Soto, 871 F.2d 200, 201 (1st Cir.) (failure to raise the issue of voluntariness in a way that would have alerted the trial judge that a Jackson v. Denno hearing was desirable waives right to hearing), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 831, 110 S. Ct. 103, 107 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1989); see also United States v. Berry, 977 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1992) (a generic objection to the admissibility of the confession was insufficient to put the court on notice that defendant sought a Jackson v. Denno hearing and therefore the court's ruling was reviewed for plain error). Pagan-San-Miguel failed to place the issue properly before the trial court here.
Fatal to Pagan-San-Miguel's claim, however, is that to "require a new trial, we must conclude ... that, despite the instruction, the misconduct was likely to have affected the trial's outcome." United States v. Capone, 683 F.2d 582, 585-86 (1st Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). In the context of the full record, these statements could not have had any impact on the outcome of the trial. The evidence of Pagan-San-Miguel's complicity on the drug counts was overwhelming. Moreover, a curative instruction would have solved any spillover problem created by the statements.
Pagan-San-Miguel also challenges the government's statement that "Carlos Pagan-San-Miguel can't deny his association with [Fontalvo], that terrible, terrible person that was described to you." Pagan-San-Miguel argues this was an impermissible comment from a prosecutor on an accused's failure to testify. We think it was not. The government did not say that Pagan-San-Miguel "didn't deny his association," only that he "can't deny his association." Even assuming that this comment cut too close to the line, "there is no reason to conclude that the prosecutor intentionally drew attention to the appellant's silence at trial." United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 980 (1st Cir. 1995). And the evidence was otherwise so overwhelming that this comment could have had no effect on the jury's judgment. Id. at 977.
4. Jury Instruction on 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1).
Pagan-San-Miguel argues that the court erroneously instructed the jury on an essential element of the firearms offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). That section requires that the defendant have carried the firearm "during and in relation to ... [a] drug trafficking crime." The district court, however, instructed the jury that it was enough if the defendant knowingly carried the firearm "during the commission of the crime of drug trafficking." In so doing, the district court appears to have relied on obsolete statutory language. Before 1984, Sec. 924(c) (1) provided that it was a crime to carry a firearm "during the commission of any [federal] felony." In 1984, however, Congress amended the language adding the phrase "during and in relation to," to make clear that the firearm must be linked to the underlying felony to come within the scope of the statute. S.Rep. No. 225, supra, at 312-13, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3490-92.
Because Pagan-San-Miguel did not object to the instruction, the instruction is reviewed for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Pagan-San-Miguel argues that the court's use of the phrase "during the commission of" was plain error, claiming it omitted an essential element of the offense and it broadened the scope of the conduct under which the jury could convict.
Pagan-San-Miguel also argues that the instruction allowed the jury to convict for a crime not charged in the indictment because the firearms charge was limited to Count 2 of the three drug counts. Pagan-San-Miguel has not and cannot articulate how, in the context of this case, such a possibility created a "miscarriage of justice" or "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings". See United States v. Olano, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1779, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993).
Pagan-San-Miguel also argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury about his flight and concealment. This argument is meritless. As long as there is an adequate factual predicate supporting an inference of guilt on the crime charged, as there was here, evidence of the accused's flight may be admitted at trial to show consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Hernandez-Bermudez, 857 F.2d 50, 52 (1st Cir. 1988).
It certainly would have been preferable for the district court to have taken some precautions. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1408-09 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversing a conviction where district court failed to take precautions to prevent undue emphasis on the witness testimony that jury reviewed during deliberation), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1147, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1106 (1995). But counsel did not object and the standard set by Olano is not met. In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt on the drug counts to which Castillo-Ramos' testimony went, the read-back did not result in a miscarriage of justice, nor did the absence of such precautions seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. There is no evidence that anything untoward happened in the jury room and no reason to think the reporter did anything other than properly read the pertinent portions of the record.
Pagan-San-Miguel and Luciano-Mosquera also argue they were never consulted by either of their attorneys or the court about whether they would waive their right to be present during the read-back. Although the defendant's right to be present at every stage of the proceedings may be waived by the defendant, it is less clear whether the defendant's attorney can waive it. See Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 418 & n. 24, 108 S. Ct. 646, 658 & n. 24, 98 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1988). Nevertheless, Pagan-San-Miguel and Luciano-Mosquera were present at the time Castillo-Ramos actually gave his testimony and so could "confront" their accuser. There was no plain error.
Pagan-San-Miguel challenges his sentence on two grounds, neither of which has merit. He asserts he should not have been given a four level increase as a leader or organizer of the activity under Sec. 3B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 3B1.1(a) (Nov. 1991). He also argues he should have been given a downward adjustment of two levels for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a). Absent a mistake of law, the district court's determination of a defendant's role may be set aside only for clear error. United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir. 1995). There was no error.
As to acceptance of responsibility, "the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review." U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 5). The fact that Pagan-San-Miguel in pre-trial plea bargaining unsuccessfully offered to plead guilty to the drug counts if certain conditions were met does not provide a sufficient basis to reverse the district court's decision. "This adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse." U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 2). His argument is not enough to reverse the district court's determination that he failed to "demonstrate[ ] a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct." U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a); see also United States v. Curran, 967 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1992).
Gonzalez-Valentin argues he was a minor participant and thus entitled to a two level reduction under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.2(b). The trial judge's determination was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d 1124, 1131 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 484, 121 L. Ed. 2d 388 (1992).
In addition to the mandatory sentence of 30 years on Count 4, Lugo-Maya was sentenced under the Guidelines on the drug counts, Counts 1-3. Lugo-Maya challenges on appeal the district court's calculation of his guidelines sentence on the drug counts. He argues the court erred in not giving him two-level reductions each for being a minor participant, pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.2(b), and for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a). As the district court properly found, Lugo-Maya was not a minor participant--he supplied the yawls, sailed one out to the mothership, helped to unload the drugs from the boat, sailed the drugs to shore and helped unload them to the land. As to acceptance of responsibility, Lugo-Maya's claim is factbound, and the district court's resolution of it is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990). His sentence on the drug counts is affirmed.
While these consolidated appeals were pending, Pagan-San-Miguel filed in the district court a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and set aside his conviction on the ground that the court reporter's delay in providing him with a transcript denied him his right to a timely appeal and, therefore, deprived him of due process of law.8 The district court denied the motion.9 On appeal, Pagan-San-Miguel argues that this was error.
Although extreme delay in the processing of an appeal may amount to a due process violation, and delays caused by court reporters are attributable to the government for purposes of determining whether a defendant has been deprived of due process, see, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 16 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1994), mere delay, in and of itself will not give rise to a due process infraction. The defendant must show prejudice. See United States v. Tucker, 8 F.3d 673, 676-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 1230, 127 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1994). Whether an appellate delay results in prejudice sufficient to warrant reversing a conviction rests, most importantly, on a showing that it has impaired the appeal or the defense in the event of retrial. See id. at 676.
The government now claims that, in any event, the order dismissing Count 5 is a nullity because the order was entered on the docket a few days after each appellant had filed his notice of appeal. Pointing out that as a general rule the entry of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to adjudicate any matters related to the appeal, see United States v. Distasio, 820 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1987), the government argues that the entry of the notices of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over the case and that, absent jurisdiction, the order on Count 5 can have no effect.
But the government forgets that a criminal judgment involving multiple counts is not final and appealable unless the record discloses the precise disposition (e.g., the sentence) for each count. See United States v. Wilson, 440 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.) (no final judgment where the court imposed sentence on three counts of a six count indictment and withheld sentence on three counts) (cited with approval in 15B Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3918.7 & n. 10 (2d ed. 1992)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S. Ct. 210, 30 L. Ed. 2d 163 (1971). The district court here had not specified the disposition of Count 5 by the time the notices of appeal were docketed. Absent a disposition on Count 5, there was no final judgment from which the defendants could appeal. Because there was no appealable order at the time the notices were filed, the notices of appeal could not have divested the district court of its jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction and its order dismissing Count 5 was not a nullity.
That the notices were premature does not affect this court's jurisdiction of these appeals. The notices simply relate forward to the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b); cf. Yockey v. Horn, 880 F.2d 945, 948 n. 4 (7th Cir. 1989) (where district court inadvertently failed to dismiss one count of a multi-count complaint, notice of appeal that was technically premature related forward after district court entered an order officially dismissing the remaining count). The notices of appeal are treated as if they were filed on the date the order dismissing Count 5 was entered on the docket.
A Pinkerton instruction was never given to the jury, nor did the government argue at trial or on appeal that Pinkerton liability should apply. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S. Ct. 1180, 1184, 90 L. Ed. 1489 (1946). We therefore could not support the convictions on a Pinkerton theory. See United States v. Torres- Maldonado, 14 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir.) ("On appeal, we will not infer either that the jury found guilt based on a theory upon which it was not instructed, or that the jury would have found guilt had it been given a Pinkerton instruction."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 193, 130 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1994)
Section 3501(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[b]efore such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness." 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a)
Faced with a similar challenge the Ninth Circuit has held that the change in statutory language was not substantive and that the requirement that the firearm be linked to the crime was already implicit in the statute. "Though the legislative history does not say so expressly, it strongly implies that the 'in relation to' language did not alter the scope of the statute, explaining that the original section was directed at persons who chose to carry a firearm as an offensive weapon for a specific criminal act." United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 539-40 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 867, 108 S. Ct. 192, 98 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1987)
We have held that absent extraordinary circumstances a district court should not entertain a Sec. 2255 motion while a direct appeal from the same conviction is still pending. United States v. Gordon, 634 F.2d 638 (1st Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, instead of dismissing Pagan-San-Miguel's motion as being premature, the district court denied the motion. In such a case, we may elect to reach the merits of the Sec. 2255 motion. See United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 991, 993 n. 1, 1000 n. 6 (1st Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015, 109 S. Ct. 808, 102 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1989); see also Rule 5, Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts Under Section 2255 of Title 28, United States Code, advisory committee note (1976)