Court Opinion

ID: 2965011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:09.612348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:26.511647
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1661

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                           JUAN R. CASTILLO-DE LOS SANTOS,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

          No. 97-1277

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                MARCOS COPLIN-BRATINI,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dom nguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                        John R. Gibson,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                         ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               Edgardo  Rodr guez-Quilichini,   Assistant  Federal   Public
               _____________________________
          Defender, with  whom Lucien  B. Campbell,  Acting Federal  Public
                               ___________________
                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

          Defender,  and  Miguel  A.A. Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant  Federal
                          ____________________________
          Public  Defender, were  on brief  for  appellant Castillo-de  los
          Santos.
               Carlos  P rez-Olivo,  by  appointment  of  the  Court,   for
               ___________________
          appellant Coplin-Bratini.
               Jacabed  Rodr guez-Coss, Assistant  United States  Attorney,
               _______________________
          with  whom Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney, and  Jorge E.
                     _____________                                 ________
          Vega-Pacheco, Assistant United  States Attorney, Chief,  Criminal
          ____________
          Division, were on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 16, 1997
                                 ____________________

                                         -2-

                    JOHN   R.  GIBSON,  Senior  Circuit  Judge.    Juan  R.
                    JOHN   R.  GIBSON,  Senior  Circuit  Judge.
                                      ________________________

          Castillo-de  los Santos  and Marcos  Coplin-Bratini appeal  their

          convictions for  importing 24.5  kilograms of  cocaine discovered

          inside a ballast tank in their vessel, the Miss Gina.   They were
                                                     _________

          convicted  on three  counts: possessing  cocaine  with intent  to

          distribute, 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1)(1994) and 18 U.S.C.   2 (1994);

          importing cocaine,  21 U.S.C.    952(a)(1994) and 18 U.S.C.    2;

          and possessing cocaine  on board a vessel arriving  in the United

          States without the cocaine having  been part of the cargo entered

          in the manifest  or part of the official supplies  of the vessel,

          21 U.S.C.   955 (1994) and 18 U.S.C.   2.  Each argues that there

          was insufficient  evidence to  convict him,  and Castillo-de  los

          Santos argues that the court  erred in admitting evidence that he

          failed to file income tax returns.  We affirm the convictions.

                    The Miss Gina  arrived in Puerto Rico with  no cargo on
                        _________

          September  11, 1995, after departing from the Dominican Republic.

          The Miss Gina was a small, old commercial vessel owned by the two
              _________

          appellants.1   Castillo-de los  Santos identified himself  as the

          captain  of  the  vessel.   The  United  States  Customs  Service

          conducted an initial search of  the vessel, and during the search

          a trained dog alerted to a black bag belonging to Castillo-de los

          Santos.   The  dog's reaction  indicated  that the  bag had  once

          contained narcotics, but  at the time of the  customs search, the

                              
          ____________________

          1  Originally  a third partner had  owned a part interest  in the
          vessel;  he relinquished  ownership before  the  events at  issue
          here.  

                                         -3-

          bag  was full  of anabolic  steroids.   The search  revealed more

          steroids, which the Customs Service seized. 

                    The Customs Inspector  left the ship, but  returned and

          informed Castillo-de los Santos that he had to wait for a Customs

          Agent  to arrive.    By  this time,  Castillo-de  los Santos  was

          preparing to pull the vessel out of the dock.  He became agitated

          and  had  to be  ordered  repeatedly  to  turn off  his  engines.

          Coplin-  Bratini was also  on board the  vessel.   He also became

          agitated and said that he had to  leave the vessel because he had

          ulcers.  The  Customs Agent arrived and  arrested Castillo-de los

          Santos for possession and importation of steroids. 

                    On  September 14, 1995,  the Customs officials returned

          and searched the vessel again.  This time the inspectors searched

          the cargo hold.  They noticed  that some of the metal hatches  of

          the water tanks in the hold had been painted so recently that the

          paint was not  yet dry.   Also, the nuts  and bolts of the  hatch

          were loose.   In contrast, another hatch in the same area was not

          painted, and  the nuts  were rusty, showing  that they  had never

          been removed.  The inspectors looked inside one of the tanks with

          the newly painted hatch  and found two metal boxes  floating in a

          diesel oil  layer above the  water inside  the tank.2   The boxes

          contained 24.75 kilograms of cocaine.

                    At trial the government  showed that the Miss Gina  had
                                                             _________

          only  conducted  seven  trips  during  the  two  years  that  the
                              
          ____________________

          2  The government argued in closing  that the layer of diesel oil
          was meant to mask the smell of the drugs, so that the drugs would
          not be detected by drug-sniffing dogs.

                                         -4-

          appellants owned  it, and  that on each  trip the  vessel carried

          cargo  to the  Dominican  Republic, but  returned to  Puerto Rico

          empty.   The vessel's marine  agent testified that it  was common

          for commercial vessels to carry cargo from the Dominican Republic

          to "the  islands"; after delivering  their cargo to  the islands,

          such vessels would arrive at Puerto Rico empty, ready to pick  up

          a new cargo.   However, the Miss  Gina had not carried  any cargo
                                      __________

          from the Dominican Republic.  

                    Castillo-de  los  Santos,   Coplin-Bratini,  and  their

          partner  had  bought the  vessel  for  $45,000.   The  government

          introduced testimony and  financial records of the  ship's agent,

          which it summarized as showing  that during the two years  of the

          appellants'  ownership,  the  Miss  Gina  had  expenses exceeding
                                        __________

          $75,000, but grossed less than  $35,000.  The ship's marine agent

          testified that during those  two years, the ship  had accumulated

          more than  $25,000 in bills to the agent,  and that the bills had

          been paid in cash on every occasion but one, in denominations  of

          twenties, tens, fives, and ones.

                    The  government also  introduced Coplin-Bratini's  last

          five tax  returns, which apparently  showed an average  income of

          $15,000.   Castillo-de los Santos  had not filed any  tax returns

          with the Puerto Rico Treasury Department. 

                    The wholesale value of the cocaine seized from the Miss
                                                                       ____

          Gina was $15,500 per kilogram, or a total of $379,750.  The value
          ____

          of  the cocaine  once cut  and  prepared for  retail distribution

          would have been $4.9 million.

                                         -5-

                    Coplin-Bratini  testified.   On cross-examination,  the

          government showed  that he spent  more money than he  reported as

          income in his  income tax returns and  that he had assets  out of

          proportion to his reported income level.

                    Castillo-de los  Santos  also testified.   He  admitted

          that, before the  trip,  he checked  the water tanks to  see that

          they  were  working. He  said he  did  not know  who  painted the

          hatches and suggested that they were not painted when he left the

          Dominican  Republic,  but  perhaps were  painted  by  the sailors

          without his knowledge during the twenty-four hour voyage from the

          Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico.  

                    The  jury  found both  men  guilty.    They  were  both

          sentenced to 188 months imprisonment  on each count, to be served

          concurrently, five years  supervised release, and a  $50 monetary

          assessment on each count.

                                          I.

                    Both  appellants contend  that  there was  insufficient

          evidence to convict  them, specifically, that the  government did

          not prove they knew of the cocaine's presence on the vessel.

                    We must uphold  the convictions if the  evidence, taken

          in the  light most  favorable to the  government, is  adequate to

          permit  a rational  jury to  find each  essential element  of the

          offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.   See United States v. Valle,
                                                ___ _____________    _____

          72 F.3d 210, 216 (1st Cir. 1995).  All credibility determinations

          must  be resolved in the prosecution's favor, and among competing

          inferences,  we  must  draw  the inference  that  best  fits  the

                                         -6-

          prosecution's theory of guilt.   Id. at 216-17.  The  evidence of
                                           ___

          knowledge in this case is circumstantial.  However,

                      [I]n the  context of  review of  a motion
                      for  acquittal,   no  legal   distinction
                      exists between circumstantial  and direct
                      evidence.        Furthermore,    it    is
                      unquestioned  that  direct  evidence need
                      not  be  presented.   Judicial  authority
                      teaches  that  the   government  can  use
                      circumstantial  evidence as  long as  the
                      evidence,   viewed   as   a   whole,   is
                      sufficient to  warrant a  reasonable jury
                      to conclude that the defendant is  guilty
                      beyond a reasonable doubt.

          United  States v.  Doe,  921  F.2d 340,  343-44  (1st Cir.  1990)
          ______________     ___

          (internal quotations and citations omitted).

                    The circumstantial evidence that Castillo-de los Santos

          and Coplin-Bratini knew that the cocaine was in the water tank is

          not  overwhelming.  Cf. United States v. Piedrahita-Santiago, 931
                              ___ _____________    ___________________

          F.2d 127,  130-31 (1st  Cir. 1991) (large  cargo of  marijuana on

          small  boat, vessel  in  poor repair  and responded  evasively to

          attempts to contact  it); United States v.  Passos-Paternina, 918
                                    _____________     ________________

          F.2d 979, 984-86  (1st Cir. 1990) (bizarre behavior  of vessel in

          storm, avoiding  Coast Guard, evidence that crew had just removed

          plates behind which  drugs hidden, no valid  registration, etc.),

          cert. denied, 499  U.S. 982 (1991); United States  v. Corpus, 882
          ____________                        _____________     ______

          F.2d  546, 549-50  (1st Cir.)  (as  Coast Guard  sought to  board

          tugboat,  bales  of  marijuana suddenly  appeared  in  the water,

          tugboat lacked sufficient equipment on board to tow, etc.), cert.
                                                                      _____

          denied, 493 U.S. 958 (1989).  However, giving the prosecution the
          ______

          benefit  of all  reasonable  inferences,  we  conclude  that  the

          evidence is sufficient.

                                         -7-

                    First, Castillo-de  los Santos and  Coplin-Bratini were

          the owners  of the vessel  and were on  board the vessel  when it

          arrived in Puerto Rico, with eight men on board.  Castillo-de los

          Santos was the  captain.  The hatches  to the tanks in  which the

          cocaine was hidden  had been recently painted, so  that the paint

          was still sticky.  Castillo-de los Santos admitted he had checked

          the water tanks before leaving.  Coplin-Bratini also said that he

          had been down in the cargo hold the day  before the ship left the

          Dominican Republic.   The  senior  special agent  of the  Customs

          Service  stated that  in his  experience investigating  smuggling

          cases, given such a large  load of cocaine, somebody with control

          over the ship would have to have  knowledge that it was on board.

          The captain would have control of the ship, and in this  case the

          captain and also the co-owner of  the vessel were on board.   The

          vessel  left  the  Dominican Republic  empty,  which  supports an

          inference that  there was no  commercial reason for the  trip and

          therefore the  captain and  owner must have  known of  an illicit

          purpose.   See  Corpus, 882  F.2d at  550.   Moreover,  the drug-
                     ___  ______

          sniffing dog alerted to a  bag claimed by Castillo-de los Santos,

          indicating that the bag had earlier contained narcotics.

                    The  value  of  the cocaine  on  board,  about $400,000

          wholesale  or $4.9  million  retail,  supports  an  inference  of

          knowledge, since we have before  observed that it is unlikely the

          owner of a valuable  cargo would stow it in a  vessel without the

          knowledge of  the vessel's  captain.   See Passos-Paternina,  918
                                                 ___ ________________

          F.2d at  985.  The  partnership relation between  Castillo-de los

                                         -8-

          Santos  and Coplin-Bratini supports an inference that they shared

          knowledge about the use being made of their jointly owned vessel.

          See United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332, 342 (1st Cir. 1997),
          ___ _____________    ________

          cert.  denied, 118  S. Ct.  320 (1997);  Corpus, 882 F.2d  at 550
          _____________                            ______

          (knowledge established by circumstantial indicia, including close

          relationship of  crew); United States  v. Guerrero-Guerrero,  776
                                  _____________     _________________

          F.2d  1071, 1077  (1st Cir.  1985), cert.  denied, 475  U.S. 1029
                                              _____________

          (1986).

                    Finally,  the financial  evidence that  the vessel  had

          been operated at  a loss since the appellants had  owned it could

          support the  inference that they  had intended to use  the vessel

          for smuggling.   They paid substantial  expenses to their  marine

          agent  in  cash   --  not  only  in  cash,  but   in  very  small

          denominations.   The government's expert on drug smuggling stated

          that   drug  transactions   were  usually   conducted   in  cash,

          specifically in small denominations.  See United States v. Ariza-
                                                ___ _____________    ______

          Ibarra, 605 F.2d 1216, 1225 (1st Cir. 1979).  There was  evidence
          ______

          that  Coplin-Bratini's  living expenses  exceeded  the  amount of

          income he reported in his income tax returns  and that his assets

          were greater  than what his  reported income would warrant.   The

          financial evidence  supports an  inference that he had a practice

          of supplementing his legal income with illegal income.

                    These facts,  taken together,  would permit  a jury  to

          find the essential element of knowledge  of the cocaine.  We must

          uphold the jury's verdict. 

                                         -9-

                                         II.

                    Castillo-de los Santos  argues that the court  erred in

          admitting evidence  that he  had not filed  tax returns  for five

          years.   The  purpose of  this evidence,  as in United  States v.
                                                          ______________

          Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446, 1454  (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507
          ________                                        ____________

          U.S. 943 (1993), was  to show that he had greater  income than he

          was reporting to  the government, and to suggest  that his income

          was therefore  derived from an  illegal source that he  dared not

          report.

                    Castillo-de los  Santos argues that the  government did

          not show that he was obliged to report the income, because he had

          lived  in the  Dominican  Republic  since 1989  and  had no  such

          obligation.   He did not  make this argument before  the evidence

          was admitted.   His counsel objected to the use of the income tax

          information, but he did not suggest to the court that Castillo-de

          los Santos  was not required to file a  return.  His counsel said

          only, "[H]e's  a very  humble man who,  like many  people in  our

          country,  for whatever reason, he did not  file income tax."  Not

          until after  the evidence had  been admitted did  Castillo-de los

          Santos's lawyer  attempt to establish  on cross-examination  that

          Castillo-de los Santos  did not live in Puerto Rico.   Even then,

          the   agent  being   cross-examined  steadfastly   repeated  that

          Castillo-de los Santos  had said he lived in Puerto Rico.  At the

          time the evidence  was admitted, Castillo-de  los Santos did  not

          inform  the  court  of  the  factual  predicate  of  his  present

          argument.     We  cannot  require   the  district  court   to  be

                                         -10-

          clairvoyant.  Because Castillo-de los Santos did not preserve the

          objection he  now urges,  we review  only for  plain error.   See
                                                                        ___

          Figueroa, 976 F.2d at 1453.  There is no plain error here. 
          ________

                    Castillo-de los Santos also contends  that the evidence

          suggested to the  jury that he was guilty of another crime -- tax

          evasion.  He preserved this objection, so we review the admission

          of the  evidence for abuse of discretion.  See  id. at 1454.  The
                                                     ___  ___

          court in this  case instructed the jury that  the appellants were

          not  charged with income tax violations and that the jury was not

          to consider the evidence as showing "a potential problem with his

          local  tax returns."   See id. (cautionary  instruction minimized
                                 ___ __

          danger  of prejudice).  This instruction adequately channeled the

          jury's use of the evidence  and forestalled any prejudice.  There

          was no abuse of discretion. 

                    We affirm the convictions.
                       ______

                                         -11-