Court Opinion

ID: 2963877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:39.953297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:47.446632
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2303

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  ALEJANDRO COLLADO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1041

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 MIGUEL CRUZ-SORIANO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1080

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    MIGUEL BRITO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Jeffrey E. Feiler, P.A. on consolidated brief for appellants.
            _______________________
            Miguel Brito on supplemental brief pro se.
            ____________
            Jose   A.  Quiles,   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,  Senior
            _________________
        Litigation Counsel, Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jacabed
                            _____________                              _______
        Rodriguez Coss, Assistant  United States  Attorney on  briefs for  the
        ______________
        United States.

                                 ____________________

                                   February 1, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 CAMPBELL,  Senior Circuit Judge.  This is a consolidated
                            ____________________

            appeal on behalf of three defendants who were aboard a vessel

            that was  intercepted  for narcotics  trafficking  in  Puerto

            Rican  waters.    Following  a  four-day  joint  jury  trial,

            Alejandro Collado, Miguel Cruz-Soriano, and Miguel Brito were

            found guilty of aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine

            with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)

            and 18 U.S.C.   2.1   Each received a sentence of 235  months

            of imprisonment to  be followed by  five years of  supervised

            release.    On  appeal  they  claim  that  the  evidence  was

            insufficient to sustain the jury  verdict.  In a supplemental

            brief filed  pro se,  defendant Brito  asserts several  other

            errors that allegedly infected the trial and his sentence.

            I. Background
            I. Background

                      We  summarize  the relevant  evidence in  the light

            most favorable to the verdict.   See United States v. DeMasi,
                                             ___ _____________    ______

            40 F.3d  1306, 1310 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
                                                 ____________

            947 (1995).  In the early hours of January 27, 1994, the U.S.

            Customs Service  Air Branch  dispatched two  aircraft to  the

            southeast  of St.  John  in  the  U.S. Virgin  Islands  after

                                
            ____________________

                 1  A second  count  charging  aiding  and  abetting  the
            possession  of cocaine with intent to  distribute, on board a
            vessel  of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction,
            in violation of 46 U.S.C.    1903(a)(1), (a)(2)(C), & (f) and
            18 U.S.C.   2, was dismissed following the defendants' motion
            for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            learning that  an air drop  of contraband was to  take place.

            The plane making  an air drop was not found, but a vessel was

            detected in  the suspected  area, east of  Puerto Rico,  by a

            Customs  NOMAD  maritime  surveillance  and  search  aircraft

            equipped with  a 360-degree radar  ("Omaha 05").   Pilot Mark

            Jackson   first  observed  the  vessel  from  his  window  at

            approximately  3:33  a.m.,  aided by  bright  moonlight.   He

            testified  that the vessel  was traveling without  lights and

            quickly,   leaving   behind  observable   waves.     The  air

            interdiction   officer  who   assisted   him,  Leslie   Robb,

            immediately  located  the  vessel  using  a  forward  looking

            infrared  (FLIR) system.   This equipment senses  heat energy

            emitted by objects and produces  black and white images which

            can be recorded on videotape, as was done here.

                      Omaha 05  tracked the  vessel for  about forty-five

            minutes until it reached Cayo  Luis Pena, an uninhabited  key

            near the  eastern coast of  Puerto Rico.  During  this period

            the vessel occasionally stopped; Officer Robb testified  that

            smugglers often use this tactic  of going "dead in the water"

            (DIW) in order to listen  for surveillance aircraft and avoid

            detection.  Omaha  05 lost track of the vessel at least twice

            during this  period.   Contact resumed  within a  few minutes

            each time, according to the videotape and testimony by Robb.

                      After  the vessel reached  Cayo Luis  Pena, Officer

            Robb observed  at least three  people moving to and  from the

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            shore.   The vessel departed  seven to ten minutes  later, at

            about 4:30  a.m.   It traveled westward  without lights  at a

            gradually increasing speed.  Omaha 05 tracked the vessel  for

            about forty  minutes and then  lost contact at 5:09  a.m. for

            twelve minutes.  Officer Robb explained at trial that he lost

            the  target vessel  when it  went DIW  and his  attention was

            focused on the radar, instead  of the FLIR (a manual tracking

            system),  in order  to direct  a Customs  marine unit  to the

            target vessel.   Robb temporarily  was unable  to detect  any

            vessel in the  area.  He then located the Customs marine unit

            and  a fuerzas  unidas  rapida accion  (FURA)  vessel of  the
                   _______  ______  ______ ______

            Puerto Rican Police  Department, and at 5:21  a.m. reacquired

            the target vessel on the FLIR.  The vessel was less  than one

            mile from the point where  it was lost.  Robb testified  that

            no other vessels were detected in the area.

                      Omaha 05, assisted by a FURA helicopter, guided the

            Customs marine  unit to intercept  the target vessel.   Pedro

            Vicens,  a special  agent and  criminal  investigator on  the

            Customs  boat, testified  that four individuals2  were aboard

            the  twenty-four foot fishing boat which had two seventy-five

            horsepower engines.  The vessel had two large gas tanks built

            into  the area that  customarily stores fishing  equipment or

            bait.  Approaching the vessel, Vicens sensed a strong odor of

                                
            ____________________

                 2 Diogenes Arturo  Marcelino, in whose name the boat was
            registered, entered  a guilty  plea before  the trial  of the
            three defendants-appellants.

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            gasoline.  He  soon observed that the boat  was full of fluid

            and gasoline: the fuel line had been cut, gas was coming from

            the tank,  and individuals aboard appeared to  be bailing out

            gasoline  from the bottom of  the vessel and  moving as if to

            wash something.    He  testified  that washing  the  deck  to

            conceal any  smell  or  residue of  narcotics  was  a  common

            practice of drug smugglers. 

                      The  four  aboard  were   taken  into  custody  and

            transported along with  the vessel to  the police station  at

            Puerto Chico.   Thereafter,  Pilot Jackson  and Officer  Robb

            accompanied  Customs Agents  Vicens  and Hector  Marte (among

            others) by helicopter to Cayo Luis Pena, the uninhabited  key

            at which Omaha 05 had  observed the vessel stop approximately

            three  hours earlier.    There they  searched the  area where

            movement had been detected.  They found nine bales containing

            261 kilograms  of cocaine,  as a  laboratory test  confirmed.

            Upon  return   to  the   station  at   Puerto  Chico,   Marte

            photographed  the vessel and retrieved fibers of plastic, red

            and  yellow  yarn, green  fluorescent  material, and  plastic

            bubble wrapping.   A forensic chemist compared  these samples

            to ones taken  from the wrapped bales found at Cayo Luis Pena

            and  testified that they  had the same  chemical composition.

            Also  found on  the boat  were life  jackets, a  knife, flare

            guns, spark plugs, and damp cloth.  

                                         -6-
                                         -6-

                      At  the close of the government's case, the defense

            moved for a judgment of  acquittal on both counts pursuant to

            Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.  The district court denied the motion as to

            count  one and  reserved ruling  on  the second  count.   The

            defense  rested without  presenting evidence and  again moved

            for a judgment of acquittal.   The following day the district

            court again denied the motion as to count one, and granted it

            as to  count two.   It instructed the  jury on the  charge of

            aiding and abetting the possession of  cocaine with intent to

            distribute.   A  guilty  verdict  was  returned  against  all

            defendants.

            II. Discussion
            II. Discussion

                      Defendants   challenge  the   sufficiency  of   the

            evidence  to support their convictions.   They claim that the

            government failed to show the shared criminal intent required

            for  an  aiding and  abetting  charge.    They add  that  the

            temporary  losses  of tracking  on  the FLIR  system  and the

            weakness  of the  circumstantial evidence connecting  them to

            drug trafficking warrant a reversal of their convictions. 

                      In reviewing these claims, we consider the evidence

            in the record as a whole, including all reasonable inferences

            therefrom, in the light most favorable to the  prosecution in

            order  to ascertain whether a  rational jury could have found

            defendants  guilty beyond  a reasonable  doubt.   See  United
                                                              ___  ______

                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            States v. Romero,  32 F.3d 641, 645  (1st Cir. 1994).   In so
            ______    ______

            doing, we defer  to the jury's determinations  of credibility

            and respect its reasonable construction of the evidence.  See
                                                                      ___

            id.   We  note  that "no  premium  is placed  upon  direct as
            __

            opposed to  circumstantial evidence,"  and that  "'individual

            pieces of  evidence, insufficient  in themselves  to prove  a

            point, may in cumulation prove it.'"  United States v. Ortiz,
                                                  _____________    _____

            966 F.2d  707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992) (citations omitted), cert.
                                                                    _____

            denied, 113 S. Ct. 1005 (1993).
            ______

                      Defendants contend that the government had to prove

            that they  had a shared  criminal intent and were  not merely

            present at or aware of a  criminal act.  See Nye & Nissen  v.
                                                     ___ ____________

            United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 (1949) (a defendant who aids
            _____________

            and  abets must  "in  some sort  associate  himself with  the

            venture,  . .  . participate  in it as  in something  that he

            wishes to bring about") (citing  United States v. Peoni,  100
                                             _____________    _____

            F.2d 401, 402 (2d  Cir. 1938)); United States v.  Francomano,
                                            _____________     __________

            554  F.2d 483,  486 (1st Cir.  1977)  ("mere  presence at the

            scene  and knowledge  that a  crime was  to be  committed" is

            insufficient to show aiding and abetting) (citation omitted).

            They  assert that  no proof was  offered on  the relationship

            between them and the apparent captain (in whose name the boat

            was  registered), between  the  four  aboard  and  the  three

            persons observed offloading at Cayo Luis Pena, or between the

            defendants  themselves.  Moreover, no connection to any plane

                                         -8-
                                         -8-

            making an air drop was ever established.  Defendants add that

            upon  interception of the vessel, they permitted Agent Vicens

            to board and cooperated fully.

                      The record, considered as a whole, does not support

            defendants'  argument.   The knowledge  element  of a  charge

            under 

               841(a) "can rarely  be established with  direct evidence."

            United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 980 F.2d 788, 791 (1st Cir.
            _____________    _______________

            1992).  Circumstantial  evidence has been  held to justify  a

            finding  of criminal  intent on  facts  quite similar  to the

            instant case: i.e., where only a few individuals are aboard a
                          ____

            small boat,  large or  extra gas tanks  are in  place (rather

            than  more typical  bait or  fishing  equipment), the  vessel

            periodically runs without lights and goes DIW, an FLIR system

            tracks the  vessel to the  site where drugs are  later found,

            traces  of material  used to  wrap the  cocaine are  found on

            board,  and a legitimate  alternative purpose for  the voyage

            appears  lacking.   See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Morales-
                                ___   ____   ______________      ________

            Cartagena, 987 F.2d  849, 852 (1st Cir. 1993);  United States
            _________                                       _____________

            v. Alvarado,  982 F.2d 659,  661-662 (1st Cir.  1992); United
               ________                                            ______

            States  v. Cuevas-Esquivel,  905 F.2d  510,  515 (1st  Cir.),
            ______     _______________

            cert. denied, 498  U.S. 877 (1990); United  States v. Corpus,
            ____________                        ______________    ______

            882  F.2d 546,  550 (1st  Cir.), cert.  denied, 493  U.S. 958
                                             _____________

            (1989) and  497 U.S.  1009 (1990).   A jury  could reasonably
                   ___

            infer from the evidence that each of the defendants possessed

                                         -9-
                                         -9-

            the  requisite  criminal  intent and  aided  and  abetted the

            accomplishment of the offense as charged.3

                      Defendants  attempt to poke  several other holes in

            the prosecution's  case: 1) no  plane making an air  drop was

            found;  2)  the   intercepted  vessel  itself   contained  no

            contraband; 3)  the residue  particles found  on board  could

            have  been tracked  on  by  Agent Marte  after  he helped  to

            collect the  cocaine bales from Cayo Luis Pena, especially as

            he  did  not  note  the  presence  of  any  residue  when  he

            intercepted and boarded  the vessel; 4) Agent Vicens  did not

            document any cut fuel line or gasoline  on deck in his report

            of the incident; 5) no  description of the vessel is provided

            in the audio/videotape;  6) the vessel initially  tracked was

            said  to be  traveling toward  Fajardo  on the  east side  of

            Puerto Rico, whereas Cayo Luis  Pena is northward; and 7) the

            FLIR system lost the suspected  vessel at least three  times,

            including  once for a  twelve-minute period, after  which the

            vessel was found  within one  mile of  its previous  location

            despite testimony as to its capacity for rapid travel.  

                                
            ____________________

                 3   As   the  government   notes,   defendants   do  not
            specifically  challenge  the   sufficiency  of  the  evidence
            relating  to  an  intent  to  distribute.    Proof  beyond  a
            reasonable doubt  of knowing  possession for  the purpose  of
            distribution is  required for a  charge under   841(a).   See
                                                                      ___
            United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160, 1164 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _____________    ______
            To  the  extent  that  defendants'  challenge  was  meant  to
            incorporate  this aspect of intent, our holding is unchanged.
            Their  intent to distribute  can reasonably be  inferred from
            the large  quantity of  cocaine (261  kilograms), cf.  id. at
                                                              ___  ___
            1165, which was deposited on the uninhabited key.

                                         -10-
                                         -10-

                      We again find the  above argument unpersuasive when

            assessed in light  of the record as a whole.  With respect to

            the last  three  points alleging  misidentification of  their

            vessel, the jury was free to believe the testimony of Officer

            Robb, who operated the radar and FLIR system and detailed the

            process  by which  Omaha 05  tracked  the vessel.   The  jury

            viewed  much of  the videotape,  including the  twelve-minute

            period  when the  Omaha 05  lost  the vessel.   Its  apparent

            decision  to credit  Robb's  testimony  that  no  other  non-

            governmental vessels  were in the  area at the time  and that

            the same vessel was subsequently  located is a plausible view

            of the evidence.  

                      The jury  also could have reasonably concluded that

            the vessel  changed direction at  some point  in its  voyage.

            The  absence  of  contraband  aboard  is  not  fatal  to  the

            prosecution's case, given substantial evidence connecting the

            vessel  to the  cocaine (e.g.,  the  videotape, the  positive
                                     ____

            match of wrapping samples,  the departure of the  vessel from

            Cayo Luis Pena without lights at an increasing speed, and the

            evidence of  extra fluid  on the vessel  bottom and  the crew

            members'  washing motions).  Cf. Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d at
                                         ___ _______________

            512,  515 (affirming conviction where no contraband was found

            aboard but  a videotape showed  a tarp being thrown  from the

            ship and bales  floating nearby); Corpus, 882 F.2d at 549-550
                                              ______

            (same, where bales were observed  being thrown from the  ship

                                         -11-
                                         -11-

            and floating nearby,  no other vessel was shown  to be in the

            area, and  the vessel bottom  appeared to have  been recently

            washed).    Nor  do  defendants'  other  contentions  warrant

            disturbingthejury'sassessment oftheoverallevidence presented.

                      It is well established that the government need not

            "disprove every reasonable hypothesis  of innocence, provided

            that the  record as  a whole supports  a conclusion  of guilt

            beyond a  reasonable doubt."   Cuevas-Esquivel,  905 F.2d  at
                                           _______________

            514;  Gonzalez-Torres,  980  F.2d  at  790.    We  find  that
                  _______________

            sufficient  evidence  was  presented  to  sustain the  guilty

            verdicts here.4

                      The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
                                                      ________

                                
            ____________________

                 4  We  have  considered,   in  addition,  the   separate
            contentions made  by defendant Brito  in his brief.   We find
            these contentions to be without merit.  

                                         -12-
                                         -12-