Opinion ID: 1036744
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Díaz-Correa

Text: Díaz-Correa offers three interrelated arguments in support of his sufficiency challenge. First, he argues that because no physical evidence offered at trial linked him to the Piñero conspiracy, the testimony of two co-conspirators is per se insufficient to support a conviction. Second, he argues that even if a conviction could in some instances be supported by co- -7- conspirator testimony, Nuñez-Rivera and Villafañe's testimony was insufficient in his case to establish that he participated in the Piñero conspiracy. Finally, he argues that even if the coconspirators' testimony taken at face value would be sufficient to support his conviction, their testimony was not credible. Díaz-Correa's argument that the testimony of co-conspirators, standing alone, is never sufficient to support a conviction is foreclosed by our case law. We have previously upheld drug conspiracy and aiding and abetting convictions where the evidence tying the defendant to the conspiracy was provided primarily by the testimony of a single co-conspirator who became a paid government informant. See United States v. González-Vázquez, 219 F.3d 37, 4041, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2000); see also United States v. FernándezHernández, 652 F.3d 56, 67-68 (1st Cir. 2011). Indeed, we have consistently reaffirmed that [a] conviction may be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a confidential informant 'so long as the testimony is not incredible or insubstantial on its face.' González-Vázquez, 219 F.3d at 46 (quoting United States v. Ciocca, 106 F.3d 1079, 1084 (1st Cir. 1997)). Díaz-Correa's second argument –- that Villafañe and NuñezRivera's testimony amounts to vague generalizations –- is equally unavailing. During their testimony, both Nuñez-Rivera and Villafañe demonstrated a detailed knowledge of the Piñero drug conspiracy. For example, when shown photographs of several co- -8- conspirators, Nuñez-Rivera knew their names, their roles in the conspiracy, where they worked, and what drugs they supplied. He testified as to the shift schedule for pushers working at the drug point and the general flow of operations at Piñero, including which times of day, days of the week, and days of the month were usually busy and which ones were slow. For her part, Villafañe testified as to how she would hide weapons and drugs for the conspiracy in her home. She also described meetings she attended with the organization's leaders and could identify which co-conspirators were in charge of the money, of cooking the crack cocaine, and of packaging and weighing the drugs. The testimony of the two witnesses as to Díaz-Correa's specific role in the conspiracy was likewise more than sufficiently detailed to sustain his conviction. In particular, both NuñezRivera and Villafañe described Díaz-Correa's rise to power in 2008. Ismael Heredia, the organization's incarcerated leader, became dissatisfied with his former drug point administrator and determined to replace him with Díaz-Correa. Nuñez-Rivera testified that Díaz-Correa frequently came to Piñero in person to administer his drug point, and that once he had established himself as the administrator of the Piñero drug point, he began to operate the drug point in a similar manner to his predecessor, including hosting organizational meetings at a place called La Selva. This testimony was also confirmed in part by recorded conversations -9- between Villafañe and Heredia, during which they discussed DíazCorrea. Credibility is a question for the jury, which on appeal must be resolved in favor of the government. See United States v. Ayala-García, 574 F.3d 5, 12 (1st Cir. 2009). Although Díaz-Correa attempts to save his argument for evidentiary insufficiency by pointing to a few minor inconsistencies between Nuñez-Rivera and Villafañe's testimony, such minor inconsistencies in otherwise lengthy and corroborated testimony will not undermine the witness' credibility. See United States v. Rodriguez, 457 F.3d 109, 119 (1st Cir. 2006).