Opinion ID: 14713
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Organization, Management, or Supervision

Text: of Five or More Individuals Garcia Abrego conclusorily argues that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted as an organizer, supervisor, or manager of five or more individuals in his narcotics trafficking activities. The testimony of Garcia Abrego’s coconspirators summarized in Part III.D.1, supra, constitutes sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Garcia Abrego acted in such a capacity with far more than five people. The government adduced a great deal of evidence in the form of testimony from coconspirators indicating that Garcia Abrego was the leader of a very large narcotics trafficking enterprise with a pyramid-like hierarchy. The testimony of coconspirators provided a basis for the jury to conclude (1) that Luis Medrano and Oscar Malherbe worked directly for Garcia Abrego and that he delegated to them substantial managerial authority; (2) that Medrano and Malherbe in turn 47 delegated responsibility for smuggling drugs and their proceeds to individuals such as Jaime Rivas, Tony Ortiz, and Carlos Rodriguez; and (3) that these individuals in turn recruited numerous other individuals to actually package, load, and ship narcotics and their proceeds. The fact that Garcia Abrego did not directly control the actions of many of these individuals is irrelevant; that their actions were directly supervised or managed by individuals to whom Garcia Abrego delegated authority indicates that Garcia Abrego organized, supervised, or managed them for purposes of § 848. See United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1216 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that the defendant possessed managerial authority over individuals for purposes of the CCE statute because they worked for one of the defendant’s subordinates), vacated on other grounds, Sterling v. United States, 516 U.S. 1105 (1996), and vacated on other grounds, Moore v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 40 (1996); United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 1992) (“‘[A] defendant may not insulate himself from CCE liability by carefully pyramiding authority so as to maintain fewer than five direct subordinates.’” (quoting United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 891 (4th Cir. 1989) (brackets in original)). Apparently recognizing the futility of simply arguing that the jury could not rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he organized, managed, or supervised five or more individuals in his drug trafficking enterprise, Garcia Abrego principally argues that his conviction for conducting a CCE must 48 be set aside because the jury could have concluded that he supervised individuals who as a matter of law could not constitute his supervisees (e.g., individuals with whom Garcia Abrego merely had a buyer/seller relationship). In essence, Garcia Abrego is challenging the district court’s jury instruction on the CCE offense on the ground that it allowed the jury to convict him based upon a theory of liability that was not legally viable. See Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59 (1991) (noting that a conviction is invalid “[w]hen . . . jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory . . . [because] there is no reason to believe that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error”). Because Garcia Abrego did not object to the CCE instruction on these grounds at the district court level,10 we review his claim for plain error. See FED. R. CRIM. PROC. 52(b); United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 243 (5th Cir. 1998). Under the plain error standard, we may reverse only if “(1) there was error (2) that was clear and obvious and (3) that affected [Garcia Abrego’s] substantial rights.” United States v. 10 Garcia Abrego proffered a proposed supplemental instruction on CCE stating the following: The act of supplying cocaine, or “fronting” cocaine to a customer does not constitute without more, a basis for determining that the supplier organized, managed or supervised either his buyers or his buyers [sic] customers. However, during formal objections to the district court’s jury charge, Garcia Abrego withdrew this proposed instruction “because the Court [was] giving [it] in other ways, shape or form.” 49 Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 817 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 857 (1998); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-36 (1993). “Normally, although perhaps not in every case, the defendant must make a specific showing of prejudice to satisfy the ‘affecting substantial rights’ prong” of the plain error inquiry. Olano, 507 U.S. at 735. Even when these criteria are satisfied, we should exercise our discretion to reverse only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Dupre, 117 F.3d at 817. The jury instruction regarding the organizer/supervisor/ manager element of the CCE offense tracked the language of the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Charge, which provides as follows: The term “organizer, supervisor, or manager” means that the defendant was more than a fellow worker and that the defendant either organized or directed the activities of five or more other persons, whether or not the defendant was the only organizer or supervisor. COMMITTEE ON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS, DISTRICT JUDGES ASS’N FIFTH CIR., PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL CASES) 239 (1997). Assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that a juror strictly complying with this instruction--as we assume that the jurors in this case did, see United States v. Jimenez, 77 F.3d 95, 99 (5th Cir. 1996)--could have, as a theoretical matter, found Garcia Abrego guilty of conducting a CCE on the basis of his association with persons who could not have constituted his 50 supervisees as a matter of law,11 we are unconvinced that such error rises to the level of plain error. As noted above, the government adduced a great deal of evidence at trial regarding a large number of individuals over whom the jury could reasonably conclude that Garcia Abrego exerted direct or indirect managerial authority. Furthermore, Garcia Abrego does not contend that, 11 We acknowledge that a number of circuits have held that the statutory language, “other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management” indicates that the term “organizer” as used in § 848 implies a position carrying some degree of managerial authority rather than a position characterized by mere coordination of various players. See, e.g., United States v. Lindsey, 123 F.3d 978, 987-88 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 508-09 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 986 (1997), and cert. denied sub nom., 117 S. Ct. 988 (1997); United States v. Witek, 61 F.3d 819, 822-24 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Delgado, 4 F.3d 780, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1993). One court indicated that a CCE instruction similar to the one at issue here was erroneous because it failed to highlight the requirement of managerial authority. See Lindsey, 123 F.3d at 985-86. We have no occasion here to determine whether an individual must exercise managerial authority over another individual in order to be considered an organizer as to that individual for purposes of § 848 or whether the district court’s instruction was erroneous because of its failure to elucidate such a managerial authority requirement, should it exist, because our review in this case is limited to a review for plain error. As noted infra, (1) the government presented a great deal of evidence indicating that Garcia Abrego exercised managerial authority, both direct and indirect, over a large number of individuals and (2) Garcia Abrego does not contend that, during argument, the government urged the jury to convict Garcia Abrego of conducting a CCE based upon his association with individuals over whom he did not exert direct or indirect managerial authority. We are satisfied that any error in the district court’s instruction was not plain error because Garcia Abrego has demonstrated no prejudicial impact, and thus no detrimental effect on his substantial rights. See United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655, 659 (5th Cir. 1997). We therefore express no opinion as to whether the district court’s CCE instruction was actually erroneous. 51 during argument, the government urged the jury to find Garcia Abrego guilty of conducting a CCE on the basis of his association with individuals who, as a matter of law, could not have constituted his supervisees. Rather, he merely claims that a handful of the government’s witnesses could not have constituted his supervisees.12 We find it highly improbable that, in finding Garcia Abrego guilty of conducting a CCE, the jury rested its verdict upon Garcia Abrego’s association with such individuals rather than upon his association with the numerous individuals whom the jury could have correctly concluded were his supervisees. Garcia Abrego has thus failed to demonstrate that any error on the part of the district court in connection with its jury instructions on the CCE offense prejudiced him and thereby affected his substantial rights. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not plainly err, if it erred at all, in its instruction to the jury regarding the CCE offense. See United States v. Lindsey, 123 F.3d 978, 986 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court did not plainly err in giving the jury an instruction regarding CCE that could have allowed the jury to convict the defendant on the basis of his association 12 We find Garcia Abrego’s assertions in this regard somewhat dubious themselves. For example, Garcia Abrego claims that William Hoffman could not have constituted his supervisee because Hoffman described himself as a freelance courier and stated that he worked for a number of different individuals. However, Hoffman testified that he took orders from Oscar Malherbe and Luis Medrano. This testimony indicates that Garcia Abrego exercised indirect managerial authority over him. See Tolliver, 61 F.3d at 1216. Obviously, § 848 does not require that an individual work exclusively for the defendant in order to be considered the defendant’s supervisee. 52 with individuals who could not have been his supervisees as a matter of law because there was “adequate evidence of [the defendant’s] supervision of a sufficient number of persons whom he clearly ‘managed’”).