Opinion ID: 200543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal — Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: 13 We review a district court's denial of a judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Collazo-Aponte, 216 F.3d 163, 193 (1st Cir.2000). In appealing the denial of a Rule 29 motion, a defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence must show no rational jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Rodriguez, 162 F.3d 135, 141 (1st Cir.1998); see United States v. Hernandez, 218 F.3d 58, 64 n. 4 (challenges to denial of Rule 29 motion and to sufficiency of evidence raise same question). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, drawing all inferences in its favor, and resolve all credibility determinations in line with the verdict. United States v. Piper, 298 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir.2002); United States v. Medina-Garcia, 918 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990) (Rule 29). 14 Count III charged a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), which makes it a crime to engage[ ] in any conspiracy to commit the substantive act of knowingly or recklessly transporting an illegal alien. The statutory basis for Count IV, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), provides that anyone who: 15 Knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law ... shall be punished. 16 As the district court instructed the jury, to convict on Count IV, the Government had to prove: (1) the alien named in the indictment (here, Francisco Rodriguez) was not lawfully in the United States; (2) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that fact; (3) defendants transported the alien into the United States; and (4) defendants acted willfully in furtherance of the alien's illegal presence in the United States. See United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 805 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 966, 122 S.Ct. 1385, 152 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002); Federal Jury Practice & Instructions, § 51B.06 (1999 Supplement). 17 Defendants take issue with the proof of the conspiracy element of Count III, the touchstone of which is an agreement to do an unlawful act. United States v. Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d 105, 113 (1st Cir.2002). The Government must prove a defendant's intent to agree and intent to commit the substantive offense with the named co-conspirators or unnamed others. United States v. Gomez-Pabon, 911 F.2d 847, 853 (1st Cir.1990). A defendant need not have knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy, the participants in the conspiracy, or their acts. United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 75, 86 (1st Cir.1986). The jury may infer an agreement circumstantially by evidence of, inter alia, a common purpose (such as a purpose to sell illicit drugs), overlap of participants, and interdependence of elements in the overall plan. Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d at 113-14. 18 Claiming they made no attempt to hide their activities, Defendants maintain they did not act in a manner consistent with a conspiracy to transport an illegal alien. 1 The van used to transport Francisco had windows, the doors were not bolted shut, and Francisco was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner. 2 Passengers were allowed to use the bathroom and purchase food at stores during the trip. Flash Van Tours operated openly in Houston; people were allowed to enter and exit the building freely. 19 Defendants concede the passenger manifest demonstrates their purported involvement in an alleged conspiracy, but maintain it is insufficient to satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly because the list did not state the nationalities or citizenship of passengers. Francisco's presence in the van resulted from the manager of Flash Van Tours' on-the-side deal with Martinez and Gomez, reached entirely without Defendants' involvement. Further, Defendants point to the fact the INS investigation of telephone records showed no calls between Defendants to Gomez or Martinez or vice versa. 3 20 In contrast, the Government urges there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy convictions. We agree. Together, Defendants transported Francisco within the United States, knowing or recklessly disregarding his illegal alien status in furtherance of his unlawful presence in this country. At least, Defendants agreed with each other to illegally transport Francisco — sufficient standing alone to satisfy a conspiracy charge. See United States v. Alemany Rivera, 781 F.2d 229, 234 (1st Cir.1985) (conspiratorial agreement may consist of no more than a tacit understanding). 21 Further, circumstantial proof indicates Defendants were part of a larger conspiracy involving Gomez, Martinez, and unnamed others. Gomez and Martinez facilitated Francisco's border crossing; Gomez negotiated Francisco's fare to North Carolina with Carmen; and Gomez delivered Francisco to the house where he was later collected by Guerra-Garcia. Defendants were aware of the terms of the deal Gomez had reached with Carmen, and, because many people had failed to pay them, refused, without consulting superiors at Flash Van Tours, to deliver Francisco unless full payment was tendered. The jury could have inferred Defendants were in league with Gomez, as bill collectors at minimum, or as agents or partners. Once the existence of a conspiracy is established, a defendant's connection to it need only be slight, if knowing and willing. United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 428 (1st Cir.1994) (once conspiracy and defendant's intent to further it is established, any connection between the defendant and the conspiracy, even a slight one, will be sufficient to establish knowing participation). 22 Defendants next contend the Government did not prove they knowingly and recklessly disregarded the fact that Francisco was an illegal alien. Although there is no direct evidence Defendants knew Francisco was an illegal alien, that they had knowledge of that fact or recklessly disregarded it may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including inferences from the surrounding circumstances. See United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 971 (1st Cir.1995). 23 Defendants maintain the surrounding circumstances reasonably did not cause them to question Francisco's alienage. First, they claim Francisco's inability to speak English bore no correlation to his illegal alien status because many United States citizens speak only Spanish. The fact he was carrying only a small bag and had no money did not indicate his status because many foreign-born travelers carry light luggage. Defendants suggest, for example, a Puerto Rican Spanish-speaker traveling from Houston, carrying only a small bag would not be an illegal alien. Second, their refusal to drop off Francisco without full payment from Carmen was not an indication Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded Francisco's illegal presence in this country. Defendants claim they were merely following orders from superiors at Flash Van Tours not to release any traveler without full payment. While acknowledging the practice is unusual, Defendants urge Flash Van Tours' collection of the bus fare at the point of destination does not support an inference that only illegal aliens would agree to such terms. Moreover, the fact that Defendants intended to return Francisco to Houston, in their view, is evidence they did not know he was an illegal alien. 24 By contrast, the Government points to numerous factors from which a jury could infer Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded Francisco's alien status. When Guerra-Garcia first met Francisco, they were in Houston, a border state city, in a room full of foreigners from Guatemala, Mexico, and Brazil. Francisco had no money, no luggage other than a small bag with a shirt and pants, and no bus ticket. See United States v. Shaddix, 693 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir.1982) (fact that individuals carried cloth sacks and spoke no English, among other things, indicated they were in the United States illegally). On the trip, Defendants acted as guards and guardians of their charges, directing passengers to the van, assigning seats, instructing them not to talk, and refusing to let male riders off for a bathroom break in North Carolina because people are somewhat racist and could say something. At another stop, Defendants bought hamburgers for the passengers and accepted on their behalf a dinner invitation at the Boston home of a Brazilian rider's sponsor. 25 The Government maintains Defendants' method of dropping off passengers was also far from that of a typical bus driver. Each passenger was delivered to his own unique spot, where others were not allowed to leave the van. Payment likewise was unusual. A rider's fare, which had to be paid in cash only, was prearranged with his contact person and collected at the end of the trip. 26 As the Government correctly states, while any one factor in evidence, standing alone, might not itself be proof of knowledge, the combination of all the circumstances equals more than the sum of its parts. United States v. De La Cruz, 996 F.2d 1307, 1311 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2000) (juries need not evaluate pieces of evidence in isolation, but may draw conclusions from the sum of an evidentiary presentation). Defendants' arguments on the issue of knowledge are not persuasive. 27 Finally, Defendants argue to be guilty of the in furtherance element of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), one must have knowledge of the alien's illegal status in the United States. Relying upon their theory that the prosecution did not prove their knowledge of Francisco's status, Defendants argue it follows the prosecution likewise did not prove the in furtherance element. The argument fails because it is based upon a faulty premise.