Opinion ID: 857819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: All four of the defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions on Counts 1 and 2. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. We review each challenge de novo, asking whether any rational factfinder could have found that the evidence presented at trial, together with all reasonable inferences, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, established each element of the particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Medina-Martinez, 396 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2005) 2 The district court also sentenced each defendant to a tenyear term of imprisonment on Count 2, to be served consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), (c)(1)(D)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(b)(1). None of the defendants challenge their Count 2 sentences on appeal. -10- (quoting United States v. Richard, 234 F.3d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court's only inquiry is whether the guilty verdict 'is supported by a plausible rendition of the record.' Poulin, 631 F.3d at 22 (quoting United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992)). We assume the credibility of all testimony favorable to the government. See United States v. Fenton, 367 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2004). Méndez, Rodríguez, and González present a common argument on the sufficiency of the evidence; Cabrera filed a separate brief with a similar point. Namely, they argue -- as they did in their motions for acquittal -- that the evidence did not prove that there was one single conspiracy, but rather that each defendant acted in the sole interest of his own drug sales. The argument is that there were many smaller conspiracies to distribute drugs, but not the cooperation and interdependence of an overarching conspiracy. They argue that there were separate brands of crack cocaine and marijuana, with different color-coded vials and baggies to maintain market differentiation.3 This purported variance between the conspiracy charged in the indictment and the evidence presented at trial requires, they argue, acquittals for all defendants on all counts. We will reverse a conviction based on a variance in proof 3 For instance, Méndez's vials of crack had blue caps, González's had green caps, and Cabrera's were smaller and had gold caps. Rodríguez's baggies of marijuana were purple, whereas Reyito's were green and other dealers used stickers. -11- only when there has been prejudice to the defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Soto–Beníquez, 356 F.3d 1, 27 (1st Cir. 2004). In determining whether a single conspiracy existed, we consider the totality of the circumstances, paying particular heed to factors such as the existence of a common goal, evidence of interdependence among the participants, and the degree to which their roles overlap. Fenton, 367 F.3d at 19. An agreement to join a conspiracy may be express or tacit . . . and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, United States v. Rivera Calderón, 578 F.3d 78, 88 (1st Cir. 2009), including evidence of acts committed by the defendant that furthered the conspiracy's purposes, United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 428 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Gómez-Pabón, 911 F.2d 847, 853 (1st Cir. 1990)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Further, each coconspirator need not know of or have contact with all other members [of the conspiracy], nor must they know all of the details of the conspiracy or participate in every act in furtherance of it. United States v. Martínez–Medina, 279 F.3d 105, 113 (1st Cir. 2002). The evidence at trial easily permitted a reasonable jury to conclude that each of the four defendants was involved in a single conspiracy to distribute narcotics at La Recta. The evidence supported a finding that the defendants operated under a -12- common scheme, first headed by Méndez and then, under Méndez's control from prison, by his brother-in-law Cabrera, which divided authority to sell crack and marijuana among the various drug owners. Despite selling different brands of crack and marijuana, the defendants shared common runners and sellers, coordinated at least some of their drug prices (including raising prices for the greater good of the overall conspiracy), and joined together to commit violent acts in order to prevent others from infringing on their drug business. This evidence was more than enough for the jury to infer an agreement. The government's evidence went far beyond showing that the defendants merely associated with one another. See Rivera Calderón, 578 F.3d at 8990 (affirming jury's finding of a single conspiracy where defendants controlled who could sell at the drug point, set prices, and jointly defended the drug point from hold-ups). The fact that the defendants sold crack vials with different-colored caps would not prevent a reasonable jury from finding that they worked together to maintain the drug conspiracy as a whole. See id. at 92. The evidence relating to the violence and murders vividly demonstrated that the defendants would band together to protect their group's status and exclusivity at La Recta. For instance, Cabrera and González both sold crack at La Recta (Cabrera on behalf of both himself and Méndez), apparently without any conflict between them, yet when another person, Indio, -13- began selling crack nearby, Cabrera and González formed a plan to kill him, and González eventually shot him to death. Agustín's murder likewise followed discussions among Cabrera, González, and Rodríguez about how to handle Agustín's disruptive behavior, and the defendants shared firearms among themselves and other conspirators in preparing to execute the murder. This evidence, along with the other evidence regarding the murders of Rivera, Ortiz, and the Lloréns Torres dealers, likewise supports a reasonable jury's finding that each defendant conspired to use, carry, or possess firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. There was extensive testimony that Méndez, Gonzáles, and Rodríguez each discharged firearms with the purpose of protecting La Recta from threats to their business and/or expanding their drug operations. In the Agustín and Lloréns Torres murders, Gonzáles and Rodríguez even directly worked together to carry out the killings. Although the evidence did not show that Cabrera personally shot a firearm, witnesses testified that he had been seen carrying a gun at La Recta and that he helped distribute firearms for use in Agustín's murder.4 Under these circumstances, the jury's verdicts against all four defendants are supported by a plausible rendition of the 4 Cabrera argues that, while he was seen armed at the drug point, the evidence failed to show that he used firearms or that any use was during and in relation to drug trafficking. Since a jury could easily find that he did carry weapons to protect the drug point and thus further drug sales, the evidence suffices. -14- record. Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 711. The convictions must be affirmed.