Opinion ID: 765611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The March 1990 Interstate Travel Charge

Text: 74 Finally, Escobar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on Count 18 for aiding and abetting the interstate travel of co-defendant Jorge Papo Luciano Valdes-Alvarez (Valdes) to promote Escobar's drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 & 2. To establish a violation of section 1952, the government must prove: (1) interstate travel or use of an interstate facility; (2) with the intent to distribute the proceeds of or otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate an unlawful activity; (3) followed by performance or attempted performance of acts in furtherance of the unlawful activity. See United States v. Arruda, 715 F.2d 671, 681 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Coran, 589 F.2d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 1978). While Escobar concedes that Cedres's testimony may have established that Valdes traveled from Miami to Puerto Rico (a necessary concession in light of the evidence), Escobar nonetheless contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Valdes' purpose in such travel was to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate Escobar's drug trafficking operation. Cedres13, 1990, Escobar spoke of using a friend from Miami, Papo Luciano, to assist in the importation of drugs through the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico; and that in a recorded telephone conversation, Escobar mentioned a Georgie whom he had brought to Puerto Rico from Florida to participate in shipments that were being planned through the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico. This unambiguous testimony was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Valdes had traveled to Puerto Rico intending to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate Escobar's drug trafficking activities, and not for some lawful purpose.