Court Opinion

ID: 2964245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:41.585328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.210808
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 12, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1616

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               JACINTO ORLANDO MORALES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            George J. West for appellant.
            ______________

            Margaret E.  Curran, Assistant United  States Attorney, with  whom
            ___________________
        Zechariah  Chafee,   Assistant  United  States  Attorney  and  Sheldon
        _________________                                              _______
        Whitehouse, United  States  Attorney, were  on  brief for  the  United
        __________
        States.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.  Jacinto Orlando Morales, who
                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            at  age forty-eight  began his drug-related  criminal career,

            was tried and convicted, at age fifty-six, of possession with

            intent to  distribute both  cocaine base and  cocaine and  of

            being a  felon in possession of  a firearm.  He  appeals from

            his convictions, arguing that they should be reversed due  to

            ineffective assistance  of counsel,  that the district  court

            erred in  its  instructions  to  the jury  and  in  admitting

            certain  evidence,  that  the evidence  was  insufficient  to

            convict, that the  prosecutor impermissibly  vouched for  the

            government's witnesses  and that the statutes  under which he

            was  convicted  are unconstitutional  as  exceeding Congress'

            lawful  power under  the Commerce  Clause.   In  addition, he

            appeals from his sentence, which will keep him in prison past

            age  seventy-one,  on the  grounds  that  the district  court

            should have departed  downward in  light of his  age and  the

            small amounts of cocaine he says were involved.  We affirm.

                                          I

                                      Background
                                      __________

                      Local police work  led to this  federal conviction.

            Two  experienced  members  of the  Providence,  Rhode Island,

            Police Department investigated stories of drug trafficking by

            Morales.  They obtained a search warrant for his apartment in

            a three-decker tenement and drove to the residence.  They saw

            Morales  leaving his building.  They stopped him, told him of

            the warrant, informed  him of  his rights, and  asked him  to

            return to  the apartment with them.   Morales did so  and let

                                         -3-
                                          3

            the two detectives into his small  apartment.  The detectives

            found two bags, containing a total of over twenty-eight grams

            of cocaine, hidden in a pocket hollowed out of the insulation

            in the refrigerator door.  They also found twenty-three vials

            of    crack   cocaine   (cocaine    base),   alongside   drug

            paraphernalia, in  cabinets above  the kitchen sink.   Hidden

            between  pairs of shoes on  a curtained shelf  in the bedroom

            they found  a  fully operable  and loaded  Raven .25  caliber

            semi-automatic handgun.

                      The defense theory was  that the police planted the

            evidence.   The theory relied  on the testimony  of a defense

            witness   who    lived   in   Morales'   building,   and   on

            inconsistencies in the detectives'  testimony about the order

            in which the  evidence was discovered and  about the handling

            of the evidence.  The jury convicted Morales on three of four

            counts:  possession with intent  to distribute cocaine (count

            one) and  possession with  intent to distribute  cocaine base

            (count  two), both in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1); and

            possession of a firearm  by a convicted felon  (count three),

            in violation of 18 U.S.C.   922(g)(1).  Morales was acquitted

            on  the fourth count: use of a firearm during and in relation

            to  a drug  trafficking crime,  in violation  of 18  U.S.C.  

            924(c)(1).

                      At   sentencing,  Morales'   counsel  appropriately

            conceded  that Morales  qualified  as a  career offender  for

                                         -4-
                                          4

            purposes  of  U.S.S.G.   4B1.1,  but  argued  that the  court

            should  ignore that status  in light of  the relatively small

            quantities  of drugs  involved.   Morales requested  that the

            court  depart downward for two reasons.  He asserted that the

            career offender enhancement overstated his  criminal history.

            He  also said  the  government's  recommended sentence  would

            effectively constitute a  life sentence given  his age.   The

            court found there was, on the facts of this case, no basis to

            veer from  the career offender guideline and refused to grant

            a downward departure.   The  court sentenced  Morales to  210

            months  imprisonment  consecutive  to  the   state  sentences

            Morales was then serving, with other conditions not pertinent

            here.

                                          II

                                     Convictions
                                     ___________

                      Morales'   attacks  on  his  convictions  tread  on

            familiar ground and do not warrant extensive discussion.

            Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
            _________________________________

                      Morales  did not present his ineffective assistance

            claim to the district court.  "With a regularity bordering on

            the  monotonous," this  court  has  held "that  fact-specific

            claims of  ineffective assistance cannot make  their debut on

            direct review  of  criminal convictions,  but,  rather,  must

            originally  be presented  to,  and acted  upon by,  the trial

                                         -5-
                                          5

            court."   United States v. Mala,  7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir.
                      _____________    ____

            1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1839 (1994).
                   _____ ______

                      This case does not fall within the exception to the

            rule.   Only "where the  critical facts are  not genuinely in

            dispute  and the  record is  sufficiently developed  to allow

            reasoned   consideration"  will   this  court   entertain  an

            ineffective  assistance  claim  raised  initially  on  direct

            review.  United  States v.  Natanel, 938 F.2d  302, 309  (1st
                     ______________     _______

            Cir.  1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1079 (1992).  The alleged
                         _____ ______

            ineffective assistance of counsel arose, Morales argues, from

            the failure of his trial counsel to file a motion to suppress

            the  evidence  resulting from  the  search  of his  apartment

            undertaken pursuant  to a  facially  valid warrant.   By  its

            nature, this claim will  require the presentation of evidence

            that it would have had some  actual basis in fact, as well as

            proof of prejudice.  See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365,
                                 ___ _________    ________

            375 (1986).   Thus, Morales' ineffective  assistance claim is

            unsuited for consideration initially on this appeal.

            Limiting Instruction
            ____________________

                      Morales argues  that the  trial court erred  in not

            sua sponte  giving the jury a  limiting instruction directing
            ___ ______

            it to consider  the parties' stipulation  that Morales was  a

            felon only for purposes of establishing a required element in
                  ____

            the  felon-in-possession  of  a  firearm  charge.    But  the

            defendant  cannot have his cake and eat  it too.  As a result

                                         -6-
                                          6

            of the stipulation, the government could  not put in evidence

            of   the  number   and  nature   of  Morales'   prior  felony

            convictions,   thereby   protecting  Morales   against  undue

            prejudice from such evidence.  The stipulation was proper and

            in accord with our  decision in United States v.  Tavares, 21
                                            _____________     _______

            F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1994) (en banc), where we noted that in

            most,  but not all cases,  such evidence has little relevance

            to the felon-in-possession charge and usually presents a risk

            of unfair prejudice.

                      Morales now asks  for a blanket  rule that a  trial

            court must sua  sponte give the type of  limiting instruction
                       ___  ______

            he urges in this appeal, a  position he is forced into by his

            failure  to ask  for  such an  instruction  at trial.    That

            failure is  fatal.  See United States v. De La Cruz, 902 F.2d
                                ___ _____________    __________

            121, 124 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that as a general  rule the

            failure  of the trial court  to give a cautionary instruction

            sua sponte is  not reversible error).   Even so, the cure  he
            ___ ______

            seeks may be worse than the hypothesized disease.  Whether to

            seek a limiting  instruction is a  strategic choice by  trial

            counsel.   "Whether an  instruction will 'cure'  a problem or

            exacerbate it by calling more  attention to it than warranted

            is  within the ken of counsel and part of litigation strategy

            and judgment.  The obligation to suggest [an instruction], if

            any, rested on defense counsel."  United States v. Cartagena-
                                              _____________    __________

            Carrasquillo,  70 F.3d  706, 713  (1st Cir.  1995).   Despite
            ____________

                                         -7-
                                          7

            Morales'  argument in  this case,  defendants in  other cases

            might  well think  that  the limiting  instruction sought  by

            Morales here  would unnecessarily highlight  their status  as

            felons.  Morales' post-conviction  assertion of error in this

            case is no warrant for  constraining the strategic choices of

            counsel in other cases.  There was no error.

            Vials of Crack Cocaine
            ______________________

                      Morales says the district court  erred in admitting

            into evidence twenty-three vials  of crack cocaine.  He  says

            they  were inadmissible  because  the transmittal  sheet that

            accompanied the  vials to  the laboratory for  testing stated

            there were  twenty vials,  and because  the chemist  tested a

            sample, only two, and not all twenty-three of the vials.

                      On  the  first  argument, chain-of-custody  attacks

            usually  go  to  the  weight  of  the  evidence  and  not  to

            admissibility; our review  is for abuse  of discretion.   See
                                                                      ___

            Cartagena-Carrasquillo,  70  F.3d  at  715.    The government
            ______________________

            explained  that  the  "20" on  the  transmittal  sheet  was a

            typographical  error and  produced  testimony  that  in  fact

            twenty-three vials were seized  from Morales' apartment, kept

            in  custody,  sent to  the lab,  and  that that  lab received

            twenty-three vials.   There  was  no abuse  of discretion  in

            admitting the vials.

                      On the second point, Morales' argument assumes that

            the  government  had  to  show that  all  twenty-three  vials

                                         -8-
                                          8

            contained crack.  To convict Morales,  however, the jury need

            only have  found that  defendant possessed some  amount of  a

            controlled  substance.  See 21 U.S.C.   841; United States v.
                                    ___                  _____________

            Barnes, 890 F.2d 545, 551-52 & n.6 (1st Cir. 1989),  494 U.S.
            ______

            1019 (1990).   While undoubtedly relevant  to the sentencing,

            the  precise quantity  and  nature of  the  substance, be  it

            cocaine or cocaine base, was not an element of the crime  for

            the  jury to decide.   That twenty-three  vials were admitted

            but only two vials  were tested thus could not  have amounted

            to reversible error.

            Firearm
            _______

                      Morales challenges  the admission of the handgun on

            authentication  grounds, pointing  to inconsistencies  in the

            testimony  of the  two  detectives as  to  the order  of  the

            discovery  of the evidence and the absence of an evidence tag

            on the handgun.   Our review on this evidentiary  question is

            for abuse of  discretion.   See United States  v. Abreu,  952
                                        ___ _____________     _____

            F.2d  1458,  1467  (1st Cir.),  cert.  denied,  503  U.S. 994
                                            _____  ______

            (1992).  The trial judge admitted the gun into evidence after

            hearing testimony  that it  was the same  gun the  detectives

            discovered, the gun had the same serial number, and it was in

            the  same condition  as when discovered.   The  serial number

            evidence alone arguably provided sufficient authentication in

            light of  the legal requirement imposed  on gun manufacturers

            to  place an  indelible,  non-duplicating  individual  serial

                                         -9-
                                          9

            number on all firearms.  See 27 C.F.R.   179.102; see also 26
                                     ___                      ___ ____

            U.S.C.   5842(a).  There was no abuse of discretion.

            Sufficiency of the Evidence
            ___________________________

                      In  reviewing the  sufficiency of the  evidence, we

            look  at  the evidence  and  reasonable  inferences from  the

            evidence in  the light most  favorable to the  prosecution to

            determine if it  would allow  a rational jury  to find  guilt

            beyond  a reasonable doubt.   See  United States  v. Luciano-
                                          ___  _____________     ________

            Mosquera, 63  F.3d 1142, 1149  (1st Cir. 1995),  petition for
            ________                                         ________ ___

            cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W.  3765 (U.S. Apr. 26, 1996)  (No. 95-
            _____ _____

            1775).  Here, there was no  dispute that Morales lived in the

            apartment and was its sole occupant.  That is where the drugs

            were found, some of which were hidden, with some effort, in a

            refrigerator door.   The gun  was also hidden,  out of  plain

            view.   The jury could  reasonably infer that  Morales was in

            knowing  possession of both the  gun and the  drugs, and need

            not have  believed the  somewhat incoherent testimony  of the

            building  occupant  proffered by  the  defense.   See  United
                                                              ___  ______

            States  v.  Calderon,   77  F.3d  6,   10  (1st  Cir.   1996)
            ______      ________

            ("Credibility  determinations are uniquely  within the jury's

            province,  and we defer to the jury's verdict if the evidence

            can  support  varying   inferences."  (quotation  marks   and

            citation omitted)).

            Prosecutor's Closing
            ____________________

                                         -10-
                                          10

                      Morales argues that the prosecution, in its closing

            rebuttal,  improperly  vouched  for  the  credibility of  its

            police  witnesses.   In  particular,  Morales  points to  the

            prosecutor's final argument:

                      They're not,  I submit to you, members of
                      the  jury, they're not  going to  run the
                      risk   of    perjuring   themselves   and
                      jeopardizing  their  careers  over  this.
                      They're doing  what they do.   They do it
                      day in  and day  out.   They go  out with
                      these  search  warrants and  make arrests
                      and you make the  decision.  This is what
                      they found.    I submit  to  you  they're
                      credible officers  who testified credibly
                      about  the one  day  in their  lives that
                      they were working  as police officers and
                      they told you what they found.  I'm going
                      to ask you to find  the Defendant guilty.
                      Thank you.

            As  Morales  made  no  contemporaneous  objection  to   these

            statements,  review is for plain error.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Cruz-Kuilan, 75 F.3d 59, 62 (1st Cir. 1996).
            ___________

                      Morales'  theory of  the case  was that  the police

            planted the firearm  and illegal drugs  in his apartment  and

            subsequently lied  at trial in testifying  that they belonged

            to  Morales.   The credibility  of the  police was  at issue.

            "Improper vouching  occurs where the  prosecution places  the

            `prestige  of  the  government  behind a  witness  by  making

            personal assurances  about the  witness' credibility.'"   Id.
                                                                      ___

            (quoting  United States v. Neal, 36 F.3d 1190, 1207 (1st Cir.
                      _____________    ____

            1994)).   The prosecution,  in responding to  the defendant's

            theory by  pointing out that  the police officers  had little

                                         -11-
                                          11

            incentive  to  lie,   was  arguably   not  "making   personal

            assurances."    Cf.  id.  (prosecution's  argument  that  its
                            ___  ___

            witnesses were speaking the truth  because they had reason to

            do  so, made  in  response to  an  attack on  the  witnesses'

            credibility, was  not improper  vouching).  Nevertheless,  as

            the government appropriately conceded at oral argument, there

            were statements  in the prosecution's closing,  such as "[h]e

            testified  truthfully,"  of  a   type  that  this  court  has

            disapproved in  the past as  improper vouching.1   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d  761, 771-73 (1st  Cir. 1996); see
            ______     ______                                         ___

            also United States v. Sullivan, __ F.3d __, __, Nos. 95-1719,
            ____ _____________    ________

            95-1760, slip op. at 18 (1st  Cir. 1996) (there can be a fine

            line  between proper  arguments  in  response to  credibility

            attacks on government witnesses and improper vouching).

                      In  this case,  however, the  prosecutor's comments

            "did not impact the  fairness, integrity or public reputation

            of  the proceedings  and so  should not  be noticed  as plain

            error."  Sullivan, __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 19.  Therefore,
                     ________

            even assuming that the  prosecutor's comments were  improper,

            there was no reversible error.   Cf. Wihbey, 75 F.3d at  771-
                                             ___ ______

            72. 

            Constitutionality of the Statutes
            _________________________________

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The  United  States  represented at  oral  argument  that
            prosecutors  in that  office  were undergoing  "training"  to
            ensure that such statements were not made in the future.

                                         -12-
                                          12

                      Morales  challenges  both  the  felon-in-possession

            statute, 18  U.S.C.    922(g)(1), and  the  drug  trafficking

            statute, 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1), as being unconstitutional  in

            light of the analysis employed in United States v. Lopez, 115
                                              _____________    _____

            S. Ct. 1624 (1995).  

                      The challenge to the constitutional validity of the

            felon-in-possession  statute,  18   U.S.C.    922(g)(1),   is

            foreclosed by United States v. Abernathy, __ F.3d __, __, No.
                          _____________    _________

            95-1720, slip op. at 5-6 (1st Cir. 1996) and United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Bennett, 75 F.3d 40, 49 (1st Cir. 1996).
            _______

                      We decline  to entertain the challenge  to the drug

            statute,  21 U.S.C.    841(a)(1),  which is  made in  summary

            fashion,  is  wholly   lacking  in  developed   argumentation

            focusing on  that particular statute,  and is raised  for the

            first  time on appeal.   See Argencourt v.  United States, 78
                                     ___ __________     _____________

            F.3d 14, 16 n.1 (1st Cir. 1996) (arguments mentioned, but not

            developed, are deemed waived);  cf. United States v. Carvell,
                                            ___ _____________    _______

            74 F.3d  8, 14 (1st  Cir. 1996).   There was no  plain error.

            United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993).
            _____________    _____

                                         III

                                       Sentence
                                       ________

                      Morales  argues that the district court erroneously

            ruled  that it  was  powerless to  depart  downward from  the

            applicable career offender range.  To the extent the district

            court's  decision rested  on its  belief that  it  lacked the

                                         -13-
                                          13

            power to depart, we  have jurisdiction over the appeal.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Lombard,  72 F.3d 170, 184 (1st  Cir. 1995).
            _____________    _______

            However, we lack jurisdiction if the district court was aware

            of its  authority to  depart,  but declined  to exercise  its

            discretion to do  so.  See United States v. Morrison, 46 F.3d
                                   ___ _____________    ________

            127, 130 (1st  Cir. 1995).   To determine  whether the  court

            misapprehended  its  authority  to depart  or  exercised  its

            discretion not to depart, we  look to the sentencing  judge's

            remarks within the context of the record.  See id. at 130-31.
                                                       ___ ___

            The record reveals that  the district court was aware  of its

            power  to grant  Morales a  downward  departure, but  did not

            think departure was warranted in the factual circumstances of

            this case.

                      At  sentencing,  Morales  argued  for   a  downward

            departure  on a number of grounds.  Primarily, he argued that

            because  his prior drug convictions  were minor, his case was

            similar to that of  United States v. Reyes, 8 F.3d  1379 (9th
                                _____________    _____

            Cir.  1993).  In  Reyes, as a  result of applying  the career
                              _____

            offender provision, U.S.S.G.    4B1.1, to a defendant's prior

            minor  drug trafficking  offenses, the  applicable sentencing

            range was increased  from a  33-41 month range  to a  210-262

            month  range.   Id.  at 1381-82.    The district  court there
                            ___

            decided that although the career offender  guideline applied,

            it was  going to depart downward to a sentence within the 33-

            41  month  range.   See  id.  at 1383.    The  basis for  the
                                ___  ___

                                         -14-
                                          14

            departure  was  that   the  Guidelines'   treatment  of   the

            defendant's  previous  criminal  history overrepresented  its

            true seriousness. See U.S.S.G.    4A1.3, 5K2.0; Reyes, 8 F.3d
                              ___                           _____

            at 1383-84.

                      The  sentencing  transcript  here  shows  that  the

            district court  carefully considered Morales'  argument based

            on Reyes.  In fact, the court recessed specifically to review
               _____

            Reyes  and the  other  cases cited  by  Morales.   After  the
            _____

            recess, the court explained that it did not consider Morales'

            previous  drug  convictions  minor,  that  Morales'  criminal

            history suggested a "lack of regard for the law or the people

            . . . being poisoned by this stuff," and that the enhancement

            required by the  career offender guideline  (from a range  of

            110-137  months   to  210-262   months)  did  not   create  a

            disproportionate result.  The court concluded that it did not

            think  that the defendant's  Guidelines sentencing  range was

            "subject  to departure in these circumstances, and . . . that
                                   ______________________

            there[]  [was] no basis for departure under the facts of this
                                                  _______________________

            case."  (emphasis  added).     The  district  court   clearly
            ____

            recognized  its authority to  depart, but did  not think that

            the  facts  or circumstances  of  this  case merited  such  a

                                         -15-
                                          15

            departure.2    Therefore, we  lack  jurisdiction  to consider

            Morales' sentencing appeal.

                      Morales argues  in passing that  the district court

            erroneously  thought that  it could  never grant  a departure

            based on age.  Morales misunderstands the district court.  In

            response to Morales' argument at sentencing that he should be

            granted  leniency  because  he  was  sixty  at  the  time  of

            sentencing  and  would  be  seventy-one  when  released,  the

            district  court  explained,  quoting  from  United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Norflett, 922 F.2d  50, 53  (1st Cir. 1990),  that under  the
            ________

            Guidelines  it could not depart merely because it thought the

            sentence was excessive.  Norflett explicitly says that age is
                                     ________

            a disfavored reason for departure, and can be considered only

            in circumstances  of "substantial  atypicality."  See  id. at
                                                              ___  ___

            54.   The  Norflett court held  that the  mere fact  that the
                       ________

            defendant was thirty-four when  sentenced and would be fifty-

            four when released, did not constitute unusual circumstances.

            We have no reason to believe that the district court in  this

            case   misapprehended  its   authority  to   depart   on  the

            (disfavored) ground of age.

                      Affirmed.           
                      ________

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Since  the sentencing  in this  case, we  have recognized
            that a district  court has the  authority to depart  downward
            where  a  career offender  criminal  history  category of  VI
            overrepresents a defendant's criminal history.  United States
                                                            _____________
            v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1164-65 (1st Cir. 1996).
               ______

                                         -16-
                                          16