Opinion ID: 158633
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction to proceed with the second trial

Text: Mr. Valadez first argues that his filing of a notice of appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds divested the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with the second trial. He seeks an application of the general rule that “the district court is divested of jurisdiction to proceed to trial by the filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal raising a double jeopardy . . . issue.” Stewart v. Donges, 915 F.2d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court’s determination that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the retrial is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. See United States v. McAleer, 138 F.3d 852, 855 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 133 (1998). As Mr. Valadez acknowledges, see Aplt’s Br. at 9, there is an exception to the general rule divesting the district court of jurisdiction. “[W]here . . . the district court has considered the double jeopardy claim after a hearing and, for substantial reasons given, found the claim to be frivolous, the court should not be held divested of jurisdiction by [a double jeopardy] appeal.” United States v. Hines, 689 F.2d 934, 937 (10th Cir. 1982). That exception arises out of the competing considerations involved when a defendant seeks to appeal the denial of a double jeopardy claim. On the one hand, there are strong policies reasons to allow the appeal to proceed before the trial is scheduled: The Double Jeopardy Clause protects the individual against more than being subject to double punishment; it is also a guarantee against twice being put to trial for the same offense. We must further consider the danger of unlawfully subjecting 9 the defendants to the embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling them to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as the enhancement of the possibility that even though innocent they might be found guilty. Id. at 936 (citations omitted). Moreover, “‘if a criminal defendant is to avoid exposure to double jeopardy and thereby enjoy the full protection of the Clause, his double jeopardy challenge to the indictment must be reviewable before that subsequent exposure occurs.’” Id. (quoting Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977)). On the other hand, “Rules implementing the Double Jeopardy Clause must also be fashioned in light of the public policy favoring rapid disposition of criminal cases . . . . There must be a reasoned choice so that the divestiture of jurisdiction rule, applicable generally when a defendant files a notice of appeal, should not leave the trial court powerless to prevent intentional dilatory tactics by enabling a defendant unilaterally to obtain a continuance at any time prior to trial merely by filing a motion, however frivolous, and appealing the trial court’s denial thereof.” Id. at 936-937. The frivolousness exception to the general divestment-of-jurisdiction rule seeks a balance between these two competing considerations. It has been applied by numerous courts. See e.g., United States v. Brooks, 145 F.3d 446, 456 (1st Cir. 1998); United States Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 539 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Cannon, 715 F.2d 1228, 1231 (7th Cir. 1983). In cases decided after Hines, this circuit has continued to follow the frivolousness exception to the jurisdictional rule. See Kamplain v. Curry County Board of Com’rs, 159 F.3d 1248, 1250 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Hines, and noting 10 that “the district court retained jurisdiction pending this appeal after certifying that the appeal was frivolous”); United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 73 F.3d 1023, 1024 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Hines, observing that a district court order certifying that an appeal was frivolous “had the effect of reinstating jurisdiction in the district court so that the trial could proceed, even while [the defendant’s] interlocutory appeal was pending in this court[,]” but further noting that this court had subsequently granted a writ of prohibition temporarily staying the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the interlocutory double jeopardy appeal). In this case, Mr. Valadez argues that this frivolousness exception is not applicable for several reasons. First, he observes that Chief Judge Conway did not make a finding that the double jeopardy argument was frivolous until after Mr. Valadez filed the notice of appeal. Next, he observes that the judge who conducted the trial (Judge Vasquez) was not the one who issued either the initial order denying his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds or the subsequent order finding the motion to be frivolous. He maintains that it was error for the district court deny his request that Judge Vasquez conduct the proceedings regarding his double jeopardy argument. Finally, he argues that the district court failed to provide substantial reasons for its finding that the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was frivolous. We are not persuaded by these arguments. As to the fact that the district court entered its finding of frivolousness after Mr. Vasquez filed his notice of appeal, we note 11 that the same sequence of events occurred in Hines. There, after the district court overruled double jeopardy motions on August 20th, the defendants appealed on August 25th and 27th. The district court did not enter an order concluding that the double jeopardy motions were frivolous until September 14th. See Hines, 689 F.2d at 936. Yet, in spite of the fact that the frivolousness finding was made after the filing of the notice of appeal, we concluded that the district court retained jurisdiction over the case. Mr. Valadez suggests that Hines is distinguishable because, after they filed notices of appeal of the denial of their double jeopardy motions, the defendants “moved for abatement of the district court proceedings in the district court, pending appeal.” Id. at 936. According to Mr. Valadez, the filing of the motions for abatement indicates that the Hines defendants submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the district court, thereby authorizing the district court to make its findings of frivolousness. He notes that he filed no such motion for abatement here. In our view, the filing of the motions for abatement in Hines does not affect the jurisdictional analysis. There is no indication in the Hines opinion that it was the filing of these motions that vested the district court with the authority to rule on the double jeopardy motions. Moreover, Mr. Valadez cites no authority for the general proposition that the filing of a motion for abatement affects the jurisdiction of a federal district court to rule on the frivolousness of a prior motion. In the absence of such authority, we conclude that, just as in Hines, the district court retained authority to rule on the 12 frivolousness of the double jeopardy motion after the filing of the notice of appeal. Mr. Valadez’s objection to Chief Judge Conway (rather than Judge Vasquez) entering the finding of frivolousness is similarly unpersuasive. As the government notes, it prepared a transcript of the first trial and submitted it to Chief Judge Conway. At the hearing, Chief Judge Conway stated that he had read the transcript. See Aple’s Br., Ex. E, at 3, 15 (Transcript of Nov. 19, 1997 hearing). There is no reason to presume that Judge Conway was unable to assess the alleged frivolousness of the double jeopardy argument by reviewing the transcript and the relevant legal authorities, and Mr. Valadez fails to specify what information unavailable to Chief Judge Conway (because he did not preside at trial) could have affected the analysis of the frivolousness issue. Finally, we also disagree with Mr. Valadez that Chief Judge Conway failed to provide substantial reasons for his finding that the double jeopardy motion was frivolous. Chief Judge Conway conducted a hearing and entered a written order that characterized the prosecutor’s conduct as “negligence or mistake” and concluded that “there was absolutely no evidence of any attempt by the Government in this case to goad the Defendant into moving for a mistrial.” Aplee’s Br. at 23-24. These findings sufficiently explain the basis for the conclusion that Mr. Valadez’s double jeopardy motion was frivolous. Moreover, the district court’s findings are further supported by our conclusion in the prior opinion in this case. See Valadez-Camerena, 163 F.3d at 1163 (“The record here strongly supports the district court’s finding that the prosecution did not intend to 13 provoke the defense into moving for a mistrial.”) Accordingly, because it found Mr. Valadez’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds to be frivolous, we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed with the second trial. B. Sufficiency of the evidence on the charge of possession with intent to distribute Mr. Valadez next argues that the evidence presented by the government at trial is insufficient to support his conviction for knowing possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute it. We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, asking only whether, taking the evidence--both direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom--in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1524-25 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We determine whether the evidence is sufficient “by ‘consider[ing] the collective inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.’” United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1532 (10th Cir. 1986)). Here, we must apply that standard to the elements that the government was required to prove in order to establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A): (1) that Mr. Valadez knowingly possessed cocaine; (2) with the specific intent to distribute it. See United States v. Gonzales, 65 F.3d 814, 818 (10th 14 Cir. 1995). In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Mr. Valadez focuses on the element of knowing possession. He maintains that although there is no dispute that he had possession and control over the 1993 Grand Marquis, the government failed to prove that he knew about the cocaine. He urges us to apply a rule that knowledge of drugs cannot be inferred merely from the fact that a defendant has control over a car in which the drugs are concealed. See Aplt’s Br. at 17 (citing United States v. Resio-Trejo. 45 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1995)). Turning to the evidence introduced at trial, Mr. Valadez argues that the alleged unusualness of his itinerary from Mexico to the United States does not establish that he knew about the cocaine. He also catalogues evidence that was not introduced: there was no evidence that he nervous, no evidence that the compartments in the Grand Marquis were obvious upon a visual inspection, and no evidence that there was any detectable smell of contraband coming from the car. We are not persuaded by Mr. Valadez’s reading of the record. As the government contends, there is substantial circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Valadez knew about the cocaine. See United States v. HernandezRodriguez, 57 F.3d 895, 899 (10th Cir. 1995) (relying on circumstantial evidence to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for knowing drug possession). Here, a border patrol agent testified that the Grand Marquis had a lowered ceiling and a raised floorboard, both of which would be obvious to the driver. Mr. 15 Valadez gave inconsistent accounts of his travel plans, telling Ms. Tagle that he wanted to eat breakfast in Deming and telling the border patrol that he and Ms. Tagle were going to Yuma, Arizona. The contents of the trunk of the Grand Marquis--air fresheners but no luggage--were arguably inconsistent with Mr. Valadez’s account of his travel plans and suggestive of an effort to conceal the drugs contained in the hidden compartment. We therefore conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Mr. Valadez’s conviction for knowing possession of cocaine. C. Sufficiency of the evidence on the conspiracy charge Finally, Mr. Valadez advances a similar sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conspiracy conviction. He argues that the similarities between the five cars seized over a two week period (and the packaging of the cocaine in four of those cars) do not establish that he was involved in a conspiracy. In order to prove that Mr. Valadez conspired to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846, the government is required to prove the following elements: (1) that Mr. Valadez entered into an agreement with another person to break the law; (2) that Mr. Valadez knew of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) that Mr. Valadez was knowingly and voluntarily involved in the conspiracy; and (4) that there was an interdependence among the alleged conspirators United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113, 118 (10th Cir. 1996). “The jury may infer an agreement from circumstantial 16 evidence that indicates concerted action in furtherance of a common purpose.” United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999). “It may also infer guilty knowledge from the surrounding circumstances and presume that a defendant acting in furtherance of a conspiracy is a knowing participant therein.” Id. We agree with Mr. Valadez that there is no direct evidence in the record linking him to other individuals who were part of the alleged conspiracy. The government did not allege that Ms. Tagle was part of the conspiracy, and, although there were striking similarities in the transporting of the cocaine by Mr. Valadez and by the drivers of the three other cars stopped on Highway 11 around the same period of time, the government did not present evidence indicating that Mr. Valadez was involved with these other shipments. Nevertheless, there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Valadez’s driving the Grand Marquis containing 59.5 kilograms of cocaine was part of a conspiracy. As the government notes, although Mr. Valadez told Ms. Tagle that he did not have the $200 necessary to travel to Los Angeles, he was able to pay for plane tickets and separate hotel rooms on the same day. When Mr. Valadez and Ms. Tagle arrived in Ciudad, Chihuahua on March 9, 1997, Mr. Valadez somehow obtained the keys to the 1993 Grand Marquis. A jury could conclude from this evidence that other unknown individuals assisted with Mr. Valadez’s and Ms. Tagle’s trip from Tijuana into the United States. Combined with the evidence that Mr. Valadez knowingly 17 possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute it, a jury could further conclude that Mr. Valadez entered into an agreement with another person to break the law, that he knew of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, that he was knowingly and voluntarily involved in the conspiracy, and that there was an interdependence among the alleged conspirators. See Lopez, 100 F.3d at 118. The large amount of cocaine discovered in the car driven by Mr. Valadez provides further support for the jury’s verdict on the conspiracy charge. See United States v. Howard, 966 F.2d 1362, 1364 (10th Cir. 1992) (observing that “the huge quantity of crack cocaine involved in this case permits an inference of conspiracy, but by itself this is not enough to convict defendant” but adding that the evidence of conspiracy was further supported by the defendant’s lack of financial resources and by the fact that the jury could infer that the cocaine had been shipped by another, unknown conspirator). Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Mr. Valadez’s conviction on the conspiracy charge.