Court Opinion

ID: 2964086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:13.871574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.029664
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 12, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 95-2130

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               HUMBERTO PRADA CORDERO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [HON. HECTOR M. LAFFITTE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                              _________________________

               Ramon Garcia on brief for appellant.
               ____________
               Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Jos   A.  Quiles-
               _____________                              _________________
          Espinosa,   Senior  Litigation   Counsel,  and   Warren  V zquez,
          ________                                         _______________
          Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United States.

                              _________________________

                              _________________________

                    Per  Curiam.   A petit  jury found  defendant-appellant
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          Humberto Prada  Cordero (Prada)  guilty, in absentia,1  of aiding
                                                   __ ________

          and  abetting the  possession,  with intent  to deliver,  of just

          under  one kilogram  of cocaine.   The  district court  imposed a

          lengthy  incarcerative sentence.   Prada  appeals.   We summarily

          affirm.

                                          I
                                          I

                    A criminal defendant who  essays a claim of evidentiary

          insufficiency must scramble across rocky terrain.  As long as the

          proof  presented, taken in the light most amiable to the verdict,

          suffices  to allow a rational jury to find each essential element

          of the offense of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the claim

          fails.  See United States v. Olbres, 61 F.3d 967, 970 (1st Cir.),
                  ___ _____________    ______

          cert.  denied, 116 S.Ct. 522 (1995); United States v. Gifford, 17
          _____  ______                        _____________    _______

          F.3d 462, 467 (1st Cir. 1994).   In other words, if the aggregate

          evidence, examined in the required light, justifies a judgment of

          conviction, "it need not rule out other hypotheses more congenial

          to a finding of innocence."  Gifford, 17 F.3d at 467.
                                       _______

                    In applying  these criteria, all  the evidence,  direct

          and  circumstantial,  must   be  viewed  from   the  government's

          perspective, and the viewer must credit all reasonable inferences

          consistent with the  verdict.   See United States  v. Taylor,  54
                                          ___ _____________     ______

          F.3d 967, 974 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. O'Brien, 14  F.3d
                                         _____________    _______

          703, 706 (1st Cir.  1994).  Phrased another way, "the trial judge
                              
          ____________________

               1The appellant  fled midway through  his trial.   The  trial
          continued in his absence.   On appeal, he does  not challenge the
          district court's decision to proceed.

                                          3

          must resolve all evidentiary  conflicts and credibility questions

          in  the prosecution's  favor; and,  moreover, as  among competing

          inferences,  two or more of  which are plausible,  the judge must

          choose  the inference that best  fits the prosecution's theory of

          guilt."  Olbres, 61 F.3d at 970.
                   ______

                    The appellant's insufficiency  claim cannot pass muster

          under these straightforward rules.   An overview of the  crime is

          set forth in United States v. Rullan-Rivera, 60 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.
                       _____________    _____________

          1995),  in which  we affirmed  the conviction  of one  of Prada's

          codefendants.    The record  on  appeal makes  pellucid  that the

          appellant, at a bare minimum, recruited  Erasto Miranda-Rodriguez

          (Miranda) as a  courier, and determined the amount  to be paid to

          this  somewhat reluctant dragon for  his services in the smuggle.

          All  incoming calls from Miranda  were routed to  Prada and, when

          the day arrived on which the cocaine was to be transported to the

          mainland, Prada personally delivered it to Miranda, urged him on,

          and accompanied him to  the airport.  This, and  other, evidence,

          if credited by the jury    as it plainly was   left no reasonable

          doubt but that the appellant associated himself with the  overall

          venture, participated in it  as an enterprise he wished  to bring

          to  fruition, and endeavored by  his actions to  make it succeed.

          No  more is  exigible  to sustain  a  conviction for  aiding  and

          abetting.  See Nye &  Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S.  613, 619
                     ___ _____________    _____________

          (1949); see also 18 U.S.C.   2.
                  ___ ____

                                          II
                                          II

                    The  appellant  also  challenges  the  district court's

                                          4

          calculation  of  the  guideline  sentencing range  (GSR)  in  two

          respects.  Both sorties are unavailing.

                    1.   The appellant claims  that he was  not a principal

          participant  in the  offense of  conviction, and  that  the lower

          court erred in designating him as a "manager" or "supervisor" and

          increasing   his  offense   level  accordingly.     See  U.S.S.G.
                                                              ___

           3B1.1(c).  We discern no error.

                    Absent  a mistake of  law   and  we see none  here   we

          review  a   district  court's   factual  findings   concerning  a

          defendant's  role in  the offense  for clear  error.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States  v. Akitoye,  923 F.2d  221, 227  (1st Cir.  1991); United
          ______     _______                                         ______

          States v. Ocasio, 914  F.2d 330, 333  (1st Cir. 1990).   Although
          ______    ______

          this  is  not an  insurmountable  barrier, it  is  nevertheless a

          daunting one.  Debates over a defendant's role in the offense are

          fact-based  and, therefore, "will almost always be won or lost in

          the district court."   United States v. Graciani, 61  F.3d 70, 75
                                 _____________    ________

          (1st  Cir.  1995).   There is  no  justification for  a different

          result here.

                    We  will not  belabor the obvious.   See,  e.g., United
                                                         ___   ____  ______

          States  v.  Ruiz-Garcia,  886  F.2d  474,  477  (1st  Cir.  1989)
          ______      ___________

          (warning, in a sentencing appeal, that an appellate  court should

          not "wast[e]  overtaxed judicial resources razing  castles in the

          air").    In determining  whether  the  government satisfied  its

          burden of proving the appellant's liability for a two level role-

          in-the-offense adjustment, the sentencing court was not obligated

          to  accept   the  appellant's  self-interested   account  of  his

                                          5

          involvement as a mere  courier.  See United States  v. Paz-Uribe,
                                           ___ _____________     _________

          891 F.2d 396, 399  (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 951 (1990).
                                         _____ ______

          The record  strongly suggests that,  in this case,  the appellant

          was  Miranda's  immediate  supervisor:     he  persuaded  him  to

          undertake the  journey, authorized his  compensation, brought him

          the contraband, urged him  to go forward, accompanied him  to the

          airport, and, presumably    based on the appellant's  own (nearly

          identical) itinerary and tickets    planned personally to oversee

          the contraband's  safe arrival.2  These  facts adequately support

          the district court's  assessment of the  appellant's role in  the

          offense.  See, e.g.,  Akitoye, 923 F.2d at 227; United  States v.
                    ___  ____   _______                   ______________

          Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d 43, 48-49 (1st Cir.), cert.  denied, 493
          ______________                                 _____  ______

          U.S. 862 (1989).

                    2.  The appellant also  assails the district court  for

          refusing  to  grant  a  downward  adjustment  for  acceptance  of

          responsibility.  See U.S.S.G.   3E1.1.  This is merely  sound and
                           ___

          fury, signifying  little.   The appellant steadfastly  denied his

          guilt,  fled in  mid-trial  when matters  did  not go  well,  and

          continued  to minimize his involvement  in the affair  up to (and

          including)  the time of sentencing.  Thus, the district court had

          a  plausible basis  for  concluding that  the  appellant had  not

          forthrightly accepted responsibility.

                    We  need go  no further.    As we  wrote on  an earlier
                              
          ____________________

               2The appellant and Miranda were both scheduled to take Delta
          Flight No. 189 from  Carolina, Puerto Rico, to  Atlanta, Georgia.
          Their  tickets  had been  purchased  simultaneously  at the  same
          travel agency.

                                          6

          occasion, "[t]he guidelines do not require a sentencing judge  to

          play  the ostrich,  burying his  head in  the sand,  struthiously

          accepting every allocution at face value, and ignoring  the stark

          reality of events."  United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 30 (1st
                               _____________    _____

          Cir. 1990).  The discount for acceptance of responsibility is not

          automatic;  achieving  it   "necessitates  candor  and  authentic

          remorse     not  merely  a  pat  recital  of  the  vocabulary  of

          contrition."    Id.    The  district  court's  finding  that  the
                          ___

          appellant did not meet  this standard easily survives clear-error

          review.

                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R.27.1.
                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R.27.1.
                    ______________________________

                                          7