Opinion ID: 590644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Orduna

Text: 6 Orduna first argues that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt. However, a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as required, reveals sufficient evidence to support Orduna's conviction. 7 On June 28, 1990, Gonzalez and co-defendant Ruben Alcantar met Special Agent Rafael Tovar at a Chicago park to discuss selling cocaine to him. Gonzalez stated that his cocaine source had been ripped off so that the deal would have to be postponed until that evening. Tovar, acting in an undercover capacity as a Detroit cocaine buyer, displayed $110,000 in cash and gave Gonzalez his beeper number to use when Gonzalez was ready to proceed. 8 At 7 P.M. and at midnight on the same day, Gonzalez called Orduna's beeper number, which he carried on a card that listed him as a supplier of cocaine. Orduna did not return the calls, and Gonzalez and Tovar agreed to proceed the next day if Gonzalez could find a supplier. On the next day Orduna returned a third call from Gonzalez and told Gonzalez that he had 15 kilograms of cocaine to sell. Orduna went to Gonzalez's workplace in order to discuss the transaction. Gonzalez then beeped Tovar to advise him of the availability of 15 kilograms at $33,000 per kilogram. At 4:20 p.m. on June 29, Tovar advised Gonzalez by beeper that he only had enough money to purchase nine kilograms. Gonzalez told Tovar to meet him and his source around 6 P.M. in the vicinity of 22nd Street and Ashland Avenue in Chicago, and later instructed Tovar to meet him at an Amoco station. 9 Before Tovar arrived, Orduna and Gonzalez met at the Amoco station and then drove a short distance to Orduna's apartment house in separate cars. An officer who was conducting surveillance testified that Orduna entered the building empty-handed and emerged from the building carrying a blue Corona beer box that Orduna placed in the trunk of Gonzalez's car. Orduna and Gonzalez drove Gonzalez's car back from Orduna's apartment to the Amoco station. Before reaching the Amoco station, Orduna had Gonzalez drop him off at the Tasty Freeze across the street. Gonzalez met Tovar at the Amoco station where they agreed to finalize the deal at the Fabiola Beauty Shop. Orduna then walked across the street and joined them at the Amoco station. Without having opened the Corona box, Gonzalez told Tovar that he only had five kilograms of cocaine to sell. This entire conversation was recorded by Tovar's body microphone. 10 Thereafter Orduna and Gonzalez drove together to the beauty shop. Orduna waited outside for Tovar's arrival while Gonzalez went inside. When Tovar arrived a few minutes later, Orduna left him to advise Gonzalez of Tovar's arrival. Thereupon Gonzalez told Tovar to accompany him to a gangway next to the beauty shop. Orduna entered the beauty shop when a Chicago police car appeared nearby. 11 In an apartment off the gangway Gonzalez asked Tovar to display the money. Tovar refused and asked Gonzalez to show him the cocaine. Gonzalez entered the beauty shop to ask Orduna for instructions. A few minutes later Agent Tovar's electronic arrest signal accidentally activated and Orduna and Gonzalez were thereupon arrested. Orduna called himself Jose Garcia, contrary to his driver's license and insurance card which listed his home as the address from which he carried the Corona beer box. He had $2,947 in his pocket in 20- and 50-dollar bills. The Corona beer box he placed in the car trunk, which had been kept under surveillance by the police, was not touched or opened until after the defendants had been arrested. When the Corona box was opened, five kilogram-sized bricks of cocaine were found. A beeper belonging to Orduna was also found at his residence. 12 Given trial testimony as to these facts, there was ample evidence to support Orduna's conviction. At trial Gonzalez testified to the details of the cocaine transaction, that he contacted Orduna, that he conspired with Orduna to sell cocaine to Agent Tovar, and that Orduna supplied the cocaine for sale. Gonzalez carried a card which listed his cocaine suppliers and contained Orduna's beeper number. Orduna carried a card that listed Gonzalez's work number. Orduna was present when Gonzalez received the cocaine, when Gonzalez met with Tovar to finalize the deal, and at the location of the proposed sale. In addition Orduna placed the box containing five kilograms of cocaine into Gonzalez' car trunk, watched for Tovar at the beauty shop and directed him to Gonzalez when he arrived. Unlike United States v. Penagos, 823 F.2d 346 (9th Cir.1987), on which Orduna relies, in this case not only was Orduna present at critical stages of the deal, but actually put the box containing the cocaine into the trunk of Gonzalez's car. 13 Considering the above evidence, Orduna's claim of insufficient evidence to support drug conspiracy and possession must fail.
14 At trial Orduna admitted being at the various places where the cocaine was being transferred to the seller and then sold to the buyer, but he denied knowing that a transaction was occurring. Consequently, Judge Norgle decided to give the following ostrich instruction at the end of the case: 15 When the word knowingly is used in these instructions, it means that the defendant realized what he was doing and was aware of the nature of his conduct, and did not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. Knowledge may be proved by the defendant's conduct, and by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly, as I have used the word. 16 Orduna challenges this instruction, but we have frequently approved this wording. See, e.g., United States v. Strickland, 935 F.2d 822 (7th Cir.1991), as well as the use of this instruction in similar situations. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 933 F.2d 417, 434 (7th Cir.1991). Despite the factors summarized above indicating his guilt, Orduna claimed that he did not know the Corona beer box he was carrying contained five kilograms of cocaine. Therefore it was appropriate to give the ostrich instruction. 17 The convictions of Gonzalez and Orduna are affirmed.