Court Opinion

ID: 2965008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:08.136952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.564969
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

            No.  97-1772

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              MADELINE VALENT N-OQUENDO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                  _____  _____________

                                 ____________________

                      Linda Backiel on brief for appellant.
                      _____________
                      Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Jose  A.
                      ______________                             ________
            Quiles-Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel,  and Antonio  R.
            _______________                                   ___________
            Bazan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
            _____

                                 ____________________

                                  December 12, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per   Curiam.     Madeline   Valent n-Oquendo   was
                      Per   Curiam.
                      ____________

            convicted  of  three  counts  of  dealing  in  semi-automatic

            weapons  prohibited  by 18 U.S.C.   922(v)  and was sentenced

            to 51 months of incarceration.

                      She  appeals  her  conviction,  arguing  that   the

            indictment, at Count I, merged the substantive and conspiracy

            offenses such that she did not have fair notice of that which

            she  was being accused  and that, therefore,  double jeopardy

            concerns  are raised by  her conviction.   A co-conspirator's

            statement was erroneously admitted and there were other trial

            errors, she says, and she complains that  she was not given a

            theory of the defense instruction.  Her sentence is improper,

            she also argues, because she  should not have received a two-

            point upward adjustment as an organizer or supervisor and she

            should  have  been  given a  downward  departure  for extreme

            family hardship.

                      Many of  the claimed errors were not objected to in

            the trial  court and  Valent n's arguments  fail for  reasons

            which require only brief explanation.

                                          I

                      Valent n worked as a manager at a weapons shop, the

            Armer a  del Oeste  in  Bayam n, Puerto  Rico.   The  federal

            firearms  license for the shop was  issued to Carmen V squez-

            V squez.   Valent n wanted to  assume the business and  had a

            pending application to obtain her  own license.  The  undoing

                                         -2-
                                          2

            of Valent n  and her  co-defendants, including  Jose S nchez-

            Toledo,  came when  a package,  sent though  the U.S.  Mails,

            arrived at the Bayam n Post Office with the muzzle of a rifle

            sticking out.  It was addressed to the post office box of the

            Armer a del  Oeste, but the  return address, in  Florida, was

            fictitious.  Valent n  claimed the package and turned it over

            to S nchez, an  employee of the Puerto Rican  Police, who put

            the package into  a police car and drove  to another location

            where he returned  the package to  Valent n.  [S nchez  would

            later plead guilty and provide evidence against Valent n.] 

                      Within  two weeks a  second package arrived  at the

            Bayam n Post Office from the same fictitious Florida address.

            This package was  picked up by co-defendant  Maritza Emerson-

            de-Jes s, who  presented false identification.   Emerson also

            worked at the Armer a.  Emerson used Valent n's pick-up truck

            to get  the package.   She  also turned  the package  over to

            S nchez,  who again  put it  into  his police  car, in  which

            Gonz lez-Rom n  was a passenger.  The postal authorities, who

            had  been   monitoring  these  transactions   with  interest,

            immediately arrested the two men, and later, the women.  

                      These transactions  were not recorded on  the books

            of  the  Armer a.   Indeed,  documents  appear to  have  been

            falsified in  an effort to  show that the transaction  in the

            weapons  was  authorized.   The  two  packages  contained six

            Norinco rifles  and two large  capacity magazines, prohibited

                                         -3-
                                          3

            by law.  The two women acknowledged receiving $750.00 for the

            transactions,  but  argued  that  they  thought  the  weapons

            belonged  to the  Puerto Rican  Police and  had been  sent to

            Miami for repair.  The jury rejected that theory.

                                          II

            The Indictment

                      While  not   artfully  drafted,  Count  I   of  the

            Indictment alleged that the defendants did "unlawfully engage

            in the business of dealing in firearms as the term is defined

            in Title 18,  United States Code, Section 921(3),  that is, a

            conspiracy to violate  Title 18, United States  Code, Section

            922(a)(1)."  The  indictment went on to allege  the object of

            the conspiracy  and a series  of overt acts,  giving specific

            places and times.  Valent n never objected to  the indictment

            before the  trial court,  so review is  for plain  error. See
                                                                      ___

            United States  v. Olano, 507 U.S.  725 (1993).  There  was no
            _____________     _____

            plain error. 

                       The   combination   of  the   references   in  the

            indictment   to  the  statutory  sections  involved  and  the

            description of the  overt acts gave Valent n  ample notice of

            the  charges.    To  the  extent  Valent n  argues  there was

            ambiguity as to  whether the transaction was  illegal because

            she   was  unlicensed  or   because  she  was   licensed  but

            nonetheless  engaged in an  illegal transaction, Valent n was

            given  discovery showing that  the government would  show she

                                         -4-
                                          4

            did  not  have   a  valid  license  at  the   time  of  these

            transactions.  There was no  due process notice problem.  The

            district court  sensibly construed  Count I  as a  conspiracy

            count and so instructed, without objection.  

                      As to any  hypothetical double jeopardy  issue, the

            issue is at present exactly that:  hypothetical.  If there is

            a  future prosecution, Valent n may raise the double jeopardy

            issue at that time.

            Co-Conspirator Statement and Other Alleged Trial Errors

                      Applying  this  circuit's  oft-recited  test  under

            United  States v.  Petrozziello, 548  F.2d 20,  23 (1st  Cir.
            ______________     ____________

            1977), the district  court conditionally held  admissible the

            statement of  Gonz lez-Rom n, as reported  by S nchez-Toledo.

            The statement concerned the relationship between Valent n and

            Gonz lez,   that  they  had made  arrangements  to  send  the

            packages from  Florida to Puerto  Rico and that all  of those

            involved were  aware that the packages contained weapons.  At

            the  end  of  the trial,  the  district  court revisited  the

            question and again determined the statements were admissible.

            Valent n argues  that there was  no evidence of  a conspiracy

            other than these statements and so admission of the testimony

            was error.  The argument  is without merit, as the recitation

            of the evidence demonstrates.

                      Nor  was Valent n entitled to an instruction on the

            defense theory  that these transactions  were legitimate  and

                                         -5-
                                          5

            the guns were intended for the Puerto Rico Police.  There was

            no evidence to support the theory.  The document proffered in

            support  were not established  to be official  documents from

            San Juan Police; rather, they  appear to have been falsified,

            and rather ineptly at that.

                      We have reviewed the remaining alleged trial errors

            and find the arguments to be without merit.

            Sentencing

                      The district court found that Valent n was a leader

            or organizer  in the  offense and  accordingly increased  the

            offense level  by two points  under U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(c).   On

            the  evidence, this conclusion was plainly correct.  Valent n

            gave Gonz lez  the address  to which the  weapons were  to be

            shipped,  twice called S nchez-Toledo to pick up the weapons,

            appeared herself to pick up the guns, and let Emerson use her

            truck when  Emerson picked up the  guns.  As to  the downward

            departure argument  made here,  no request  was  made to  the

            district court for a downward departure and there is no clear

            error.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -6-
                                          6