Court Opinion

ID: 2964036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:24.801899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:51.893002
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 7, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1240

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                      JOHN CRUZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1650

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  HUMBERT CARRERAS,

                                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,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Frank D. Inserni for appellant Cruz.
             ________________
             Joseph A. Bondy, with whom Richard A. Canton and Canton & Jasper
             _______________            _________________     _______________
        were on brief for appellant Carreras.
             Warren V zquez, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
             ______________
        Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
        _____________                          _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, Antonio R. Bazan, Assistant United States
                            ________________
        Attorney, and Miguel A. Pereira, Assistant United States Attorney,
                      _________________
        were on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                          2

                    Per curiam.  Appellants  Humbert Carreras and John Cruz
                    Per curiam.
                    __________

          challenge the district court judgments of conviction and sentence

          entered against  them following their  joint jury trial  for pos-

          sessing cocaine  with intent  to distribute, and  for conspiracy.

          See 21 U.S.C.    841(a)(1), 846 (1994).  We affirm. 
          ___

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

                    Just before  noon on September 19,  1993, United States

          Customs Service Officer Wilfredo  Cruz-Col n ("Officer Cruz") and

          "Jo-Jo," a  certified narcotics  detection dog, were  working the

          American Airlines "baggage pit" at Luis Mu oz Mar n International

          Airport ("Airport") in Carolina,  Puerto Rico, when Jo-Jo "alert-

          ed" to the presence of narcotics in a suitcase on a conveyor belt

          carrying  luggage  ultimately  bound  for  foreign  and  domestic

          airports.  Jo-Jo alerted  to nine other suitcases within  a short

          time  thereafter.   All ten  bags were  bound for  New York  City

          aboard American Airlines Flight 678.  Several bags bore Carreras'

          name and address.   Other luggage tags  designated either Nereida

          R os-Sol , Mar a Ort z, or  Mar a Due o-Ort z, who were traveling

          with Carreras.   Although appellant  John Cruz was  booked aboard

          Flight 678 as well, his name did not appear on any baggage tag. 

                    With  assistance  from  American   Airlines  personnel,

          Customs agents located Carreras and the three women on Flight 678

          as  it was  preparing to  depart for  New York.   After  the four

          passengers  had deplaned, Customs  agents examined their boarding

          passes and quickly looked  through Carreras' briefcase.  Although

                                          3

          all  four were  detained,  and  interrogated intermittently  over

          several hours, they did not consent to a search of their suitcas-

          es  or acknowledge possession of  any contraband.   Nor were they

          formally  placed under  arrest.   Finally, at  around  8:30 p.m.,

          after obtaining  a search warrant,  government agents  discovered

          approximately  20 kilograms of cocaine in each suitcase.  At that

          point,  Carreras  was given  Miranda  warnings  and placed  under
                                       _______

          arrest.

                    In due  course, Carreras  moved to  suppress admissions

          made  during  his extended  detention,  as well  as  the physical

          evidence seized  by Customs.   Following  a three-day  hearing, a

          magistrate judge  recommended suppression of  all the  challenged

          evidence  except  the cocaine  seized  from the  suitcases.   The

          district court  later ordered the Carreras admissions suppressed,

          but  declined to suppress the  cocaine and the  items seized from

          the Carreras briefcase.   United States v. Carreras,  851 F.Supp.
                                    _____________    ________

          502, 505-06 (D.P.R. 1994).

                    On  September 20,  1994,  the district  court issued  a

          final scheduling order,  setting October 24,  1994, as the  trial

          date and  directing that  all  "[d]ispositive motions,  including
                                                                  _________

          motions to  suppress, . .  . be filed  not later than  October 5,
          _______ __  ________            _____                  _______ _

          1994.  There-after  they shall not be  entertained.  See Fed.  R.
          ____   ___________  ____ _____ ___ __  ___________   ___

          Cr. P. 12(b)." (emphasis added).  On October 5, Carreras' present

          counsel  mailed a second motion to suppress  from New York to San
                   ______

          Juan, which was not  filed with the district court  until October
                               _____                                _______

          11.    The belated  motion challenged  the  legality of  the "dog
          __

                                          4

          sniff" and the practice of commingling domestic and international

          luggage  at the Airport.  In accordance with its final scheduling

          order, the district court declined to consider the  second motion

          to  suppress,  deeming its  claims  waived.   Trial  commenced on

          October 24, 1994, as scheduled.

                                          II
                                          II

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

          A.  The Carreras Appeal
          A.  The Carreras Appeal
              ___________________

                    Carreras attempts  to resuscitate the claims  raised in

          the second  motion to suppress, despite the  undisputed fact that

          he failed  to comply with the bar date.  See McIntosh v. Antonio,
                                                   ___ ________    _______

          71 F.3d 29, 35-37  (1st Cir. 1995) ("filing" occurs  upon receipt

          by clerk,  not upon mailing, per  Fed. R. Civ. P.  5(e)); Fed. R.

          Crim. P. 49(d) (incorporating  civil case filing rule).   Nor did

          Carreras  either request an extension  of the bar  date or invoke

          Criminal  Rule 12(f),  which explicitly  authorizes the  district

          court to grant relief from  waiver for cause shown.  See  Fed. R.
                                                               ___

          Crim.  P. 12(f);  see also United  States v. Nu ez,  19 F.3d 719,
                            ___ ____ ______________    _____

          722-23 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting importance of deciding motions  to

          suppress before trial).

                    Given the  failure to  present the district  court with

          any  reason for  the waiver,  Carreras' claim  that  the district
          ___  ______

          court abused  its discretion, see United  States v. Gomez-Benabe,
                                        ___ ______________    ____________

          985  F.2d 607, 611 (1st  Cir. 1993), by  enforcing its scheduling

          order and imposing waiver, is utterly frivolous, see id.  Accord-
                                                           ___ ___

          ingly,  we do not reach  the lame arguments     first broached on

                                          5

          appeal     for his  "abuse of discretion"  claim.  Appeal  of Sun
                                                             ______________

          Pipe Line  Co., 831 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir. 1987) (refusing to find
          ______________

          abuse of discretion based on matters never presented  to district

          court), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055 (1988).1 
                                                     1
                  _____ ______

                    Carreras also attempts to broach on appeal  a Fifth and

          Sixth  Amendment  challenge  to  the  jury  selection  procedures

          employed below, by arguing that higher income professionals, non-

          voters,  and  non-English  speaking  persons  are  systematically

          exempted or excluded from petit jury service in the United States

          District Court  for the  District of Puerto  Rico.  We  hold this

          claim  to have been forfeited  for failure to  interpose a proper

                              
          ____________________

               1Moreover, the  claims  raised  in  the  second  suppression
          motion were frivolous.  Cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
                                  ___ _____________    _____
          732-33 (1993) (Criminal Rule  52 contemplates, at threshold, that
          appellant establish "error");  see also Fed.  R. Crim. P.  52(a).
                                         ___ ____
          First,  as Carreras  concedes,  a "dog  sniff"  is not  a  Fourth
          Amendment  "search."  See, e.g.,  United States v.  De Los Santos
                                ___  ____   _____________     _____________
          Ferrer,  999 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.),  cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 562
          ______                               _____ ______
          (1993).    Thus, the  government did  not  need to  demonstrate a
          particularized suspicion to justify  Jo-Jo's use in detecting the
          cocaine inside the Carreras luggage.  United States v. Maldonado-
                                                _____________    __________
          Espinosa,  968 F.2d 101, 103  (1st Cir. 1992),  cert. denied, 507
          ________                                        _____ ______
          U.S. 984 (1993).   Furthermore, Jo-Jo's "alert" to the  ten suit-
          cases bound for  New York  City provided probable  cause for  the
          warrant which  authorized the search that  disclosed the cocaine.
          Id.   Similarly,  the challenge  to the  second briefcase  search
          ___
          fails, since  Carreras neither points to  any evidence introduced
          against  him as  a result  of  the first  cursory  search of  the
          briefcase,  nor suggests a plausible legal basis for finding that
          the subsequent seizure of the briefcase and its contents, immedi-
          ately  after he was placed under arrest, was not entirely reason-
          able under  any  of several  exceptions to  the Fourth  Amendment
          warrant requirement.  See, e.g., Illinois v. Lafayette, 462  U.S.
                                ___  ____  ________    _________
          640, 645-46 (1983) (inventory  search); Chimel v. California, 395
                                                  ______    __________
          U.S. 752  (1969) (search incident to arrest); Maldonado-Espinosa,
                                                        __________________
          968  F.2d at  104 (inevitable  discovery); see  also Wong  Sun v.
                                                     ___  ____ _________
          United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-91 (1963) (declining to suppress
          _____________
          evidence, since attenuated connection between lawless conduct and
          discovery of evidence dissipated taint).  

                                          6

          objection below, United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319, 326
                           _____________    _____________

          (1st Cir. 1995) (refusing relief  absent showing of "manifest" or

          "clear"  injustice); see also 28 U.S.C.    1867(a) (1994); United
                               ___ ____                              ______

          States v. Pion,  25 F.3d  18 (1st Cir.  1994), and  substantially
          ______    ____

          foreclosed by our precedent as  well.  See, e.g.,  Flores-Rivera,
                                                 ___  ____   _____________

          56 F.3d at  326 (upholding English-language  requirement); United
                                                                     ______

          States v. Benmuhar, 658  F.2d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir.  1981) (finding
          ______    ________

          no "systematic"  exclusion of  professionals), cert.  denied, 447
                                                         _____  ______

          U.S. 1117 (1982); see also United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431,
                            ___ ____ _____________    _____

          1448-49  (4th Cir.)  (non-voters),  cert. denied,  497 U.S.  1205
                                              _____ ______

          (1988).

                    Finally,  we reject  the  request to  vacate  Carreras'

          sentence and remand  to the  district court to  consider an  age-

          based  downward departure,  since  Carreras failed  to request  a

          downward departure  before the district court.  See United States
                                                          ___ _____________

          v. Catucci, 55 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1995).2
             _______

          B.  The Cruz Appeal                  
          B.  The Cruz Appeal
              _______________

                    Appellant  Cruz  contends that  it  was  error for  the

          district court to deny a pretrial motion for severance under Fed.

          R. Crim. P.  14, whereby  he alerted the  court that  codefendant

          Carreras would deny ownership of the suitcases containing cocaine

          and "point the finger"  at Cruz.  On appeal, Cruz  maintains that

          his  fears were realized because  he was unfairly  convicted as a

          result of the antagonistic defenses presented at the joint trial.

          We review only for manifest abuse  of discretion.  Flores-Rivera,
                                                             _____________
                              
          ____________________

               2Carreras has withdrawn an "ineffective assistance" claim.

                                          7

          56 F.3d at 325. 

                    As  we  have  noted  in  countless  cases,  significant

          benefits derive  from joint trials in  conspiracy cases involving

          identical  substantive offenses.    See, e.g.,  United States  v.
                                              ___  ____   _____________

          DiMarzo, Nos.  95-1441 & 1442,  1996 WL  159365, at *2  (1st Cir.
          _______

          Apr. 10, 1996).   Cruz has not shown that  the joint trial either

          jeopardized  a  specific  trial  right or  risked  an  unreliable

          verdict.    See Zafiro  v. United  States,  506 U.S.  534, 538-39
                      ___ ______     ______________

          (1993) (discussing examples of  prejudice).  Neither the Carreras

          closing argument nor the  Carreras cross-examination of a govern-

          ment witness generated a significant  risk of unfair prejudice to

          Cruz.   See United  States v. Yefsky,  994 F.2d 885,  896-97 (1st
                  ___ ______________    ______

          Cir. 1993).

                    The  district court  properly  denied  the  motion  for

          judgment  of acquittal as well.   The jury,  employing its common

          sense  in evaluating  the circumstantial  evidence, fairly  could

          conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cruz knew the suitcases

          contained  cocaine, see United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711
                              ___ _____________    _____

          (1st Cir.  1992) (equating direct  and circumstantial  evidence),

          cert.  denied,  506 U.S.  1063  (1993),  and that  all  essential
          _____  ______

          elements of  the crimes charged  had been  duly established,  see
                                                                        ___

          DiMarzo,  1996  WL 159365,  at  *4-5  (rejecting "mere  presence"
          _______

          defense).  

                    Viewed in  the light most favorable  to the government,

          see  id. at *4,  the evidence showed that  Carreras and Cruz were
          ___  __

          close associates  who had agreed  to meet in  Puerto Rico and  to

                                          8

          transport  a large  quantity  of cocaine  to  New York  City  for

          distribution  on the  mainland.   Cruz played  an active  role in

          planning, financing, and carrying out the operation.  Among other

          things,  he supplied the ten  suitcases in which  the cocaine was

          carried and hired two women in Miami to travel with him to Puerto

          Rico,  assist in checking the  ten suitcases at  the Airport, and

          fly on to  New York.   Cruz and these  two female associates  met

          Carreras at the  Airport upon  their arrival from  Miami the  day

          before their scheduled flight to New York City.  Later  that eve-

          ning, Cruz guarded the  fully-loaded suitcases in Carreras' hotel

          room while Carreras went out to dinner.  Immediately prior to the

          scheduled  flight to New York  the next day,  Carreras filled out

          luggage tags and placed bogus agricultural inspection stickers on

          the cocaine-laden suitcases to circumvent x-ray monitoring at the

          Airport.  Significantly,  since his  name did not  appear on  the

          luggage tags, and  he was traveling to New York  under an assumed

          name, Cruz was able to avoid detection at the Airport even though

          the ten suitcases had been found to contain cocaine.  

                    Finally, even though the trial record plainly discloses

          that he was  afforded effective assistance by  able trial counsel

          at sentencing,  Cruz contends  that the district  court sentenced

          him  in an  unconstitutional  manner by  denying his  last-minute

          request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing to permit new

          counsel,  who  apparently  was  handling other  criminal  matters

          against  Cruz in  Ohio, to  represent him  at sentencing  in this

          case.  The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

                                          9

          the  late request for continuance.   See United  States v. Betan-
                                               ___ ______________    ______

          court-Arretuche, 933  F.2d 89, 93  (1st Cir.), cert.  denied, 502
          _______________                                _____  ______

          U.S. 959 (1991).

                    The  district court originally scheduled sentencing for

          February 3, 1995, but reset it for February 8 after Cruz request-

          ed  a continuance on January 18.  Despite this accommodation, for

          no apparent reason  Cruz' stateside counsel  failed to appear  on

          February 8,  nor did  he ever  enter an  appearance in  the case.

          Instead, at the February 8  sentencing hearing Cruz requested yet

          another continuance on the ground that his stateside counsel  was

          unavailable.  The district court acted well within its discretion

          in calling a  halt to these "cat and mouse"  tactics.  See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States  v. Torres, 793 F.2d 436, 440-41 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
          ______     ______                                   _____ ______

          479 U.S. 889 (1986).

                    The settled  principle that the "right of an accused to

          choose his own  counsel cannot be insisted upon in  a manner that

          will obstruct reasonable and  orderly court procedure" applies in

          full force here.  Betancourt-Arretuche,  933 F.2d at 93 (citation
                            ____________________

          omitted).   "'Only an  unreasoning and arbitrary  insistence upon

          expeditiousness in  the face of  a justifiable request  for delay

          violates  the right  to  the assistance  of  counsel,' and  would

          amount to an abuse of [the district court's] discretion."  United
                                                                     ______

          States  v. Brand, No.  94-1350, 1996 WL  121716, at *3  (1st Cir.
          ______     _____

          Mar.  26,  1996) (quoting  Morris v.  Slappy,  461 U.S.  1, 11-12
                                     ______     ______

          (1983)).  Cruz  was given ample  opportunity to secure  stateside

          counsel  but failed to explain his failure to do so.  Consequent-

                                          10

          ly, denial of  the second  request for continuance,  made at  the

          rescheduled sentencing hearing and  without any reasonable assur-

          ance to the district court that further delay was either warrant-

          ed     since  able trial  counsel was available     or  likely to

          ensure the appearance of stateside counsel, was eminently sound. 

                    Affirmed.            
                    ________

                                          11