Court Opinion

ID: 2963752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:43.317301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.606744
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 1, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1968

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                             WILFREDO JIMENEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2072

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              FRANCISCO REYES-VEJERANO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rafael F. Castro Lang for appellant Francisco Reyes-Vejerano.
            _____________________
            Rachel  Brill with whom  Carlos V.  Garcia Gutierrez  was on brief
            _____________            ___________________________
        for appellant Wilfredo Jimenez-Rodriguez.
            Sidney M.  Glazer,  Senior Appellate  Counsel, Criminal  Division,
            _________________
        Department  of  Justice,  with   whom  Guillermo  Gil,  United  States
                                               ______________
        Attorney, was on brief for the United States.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.  In January 1994, a federal grand
                         _____________

            jury indicted three men  on drug-related offenses:  Francisco

            Reyes Vejerano,  Wilfredo Jimenez Rodriguez  and Jaime Ocampo

            Ochoa.   Ocampo pleaded guilty to one count, and his sentence

            was subsequently affirmed  by this court in  United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Ocampo, No. 94-1897, 1st Cir. May 8, 1995.  Reyes and Jimenez
            ______

            pled not guilty and were tried together in April 1994.   Both

            were convicted, and they now appeal.

                 Reyes  and Jimenez  were each  convicted on  two related

            conspiracy charges,  one to  distribute heroin, 21  U.S.C.   

            841,  846, and  the  other to  make  false statements  in  an

            application for a  passport, 18  U.S.C.   1542,  in order  to

            secure a false travel document for a drug courier.  Reyes was

            also convicted of  three counts of possession  with intent to

            distribute  heroin,  21  U.S.C.     841,  for  specific  drug

            transactions related to the  conspiracy.  Reyes was sentenced

            to 188 months' imprisonment and  a $50,000 fine, and  Jimenez

            to a 33-month term of imprisonment.

                 On this appeal,  Reyes and Jimenez  have filed over  100

            pages  of briefs,  together  making several  dozen claims  of

            error.  Most  of these claims involve  matters largely within

            the  scope of the trial court's discretion or claims where no

            proper objection was taken.  We direct most of our discussion

            to those  few issues that seem to us fair ground for argument

            under  the applicable  standards of  review and,  in closing,

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            illustrate  why  the  balance  of  the claims  do  not  merit

            detailed discussion.

                 1.   Although the government  offered ten witnesses, the

            brunt  of its case rested  on the testimony  of Carmen Toledo

            Gonzalez who, by her own  admission, had participated in both

            of the  conspiracies  and  engaged  in several  of  the  drug

            transactions and the attempted  passport fraud.  Her evidence

            was bolstered by that of her boyfriend (Jeffrey Martinez) who

            also participated in certain of the events.  Their testimony,

            with some gaps  filled in by  other witnesses, permitted  the

            jury to conclude  that Reyes and Ocampo were  responsible for

            several efforts to import heroin into Puerto Rico.

                 As  to Reyes, the details need not be recounted since he

            does not deny that  the evidence against him was  adequate to

            convict.    Crediting  the  government  witnesses,  the  case

            against  Reyes was  a strong  one.   Toledo herself  made two

            trips,  one in  October  1992 to  Colombia  and one  in  1993

            (apparently in June)   to Panama; and she helped  recruit two

            other  individuals for  separate trips,  both to  Colombia in

            1993.   These trips took place after consultation with Reyes,

            or so  the  jury  was entitled  to  find.   Some  drugs  were

            successfully  imported,  one effort  resulted  in  an airport

            arrest,  and one  fell  through because  the  drugs were  not

            delivered to the courier.

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

                 By contrast, Jimenez--whose role was  far more limited--

            argues that the government failed to prove the existence of a

            single  conspiracy  to  possess  heroin  as  charged  in  the

            indictment  and  that in  any event  it  failed to  show that

            Jimenez  joined such  a conspiracy.   The  evidence certainly

            permitted the jury to find that Reyes, Ocampo and Toledo were

            members of one  drug trafficking conspiracy.  The finding was

            supported  by  similarities  in  the  participants,  methods,

            geographic  locations, and  the like.   See United  States v.
                                                    ___ ______________

            Morrow, 39 F.3d 1228, 1233-34 (1st  Cir. 1994); United States
            ______                                          _____________

            v. Cloutier, 966 F.2d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 1992).
               ________

                 The  more  difficult  question is  whether  Jimenez, who

            participated  in only one of the trips, could fairly be found

            to have joined the charged conspiracy, or any drug conspiracy

            at all.  The  two issues are significantly different,  and we

            address the latter  one first.   Taking the  evidence in  the

            light  most   favorable  to  the  verdict,   the  jury  could

            reasonably have found that the following occurred:

                 After  Toledo's  passport was  seized  by  police in  an

            unrelated   incident,   Reyes   and   Ocampo    gave   Toledo

            identification papers to help her obtain a new passport under

            the name  of Sarah  Luz  Velazquez Santiago.   When  Martinez

            declined   to  accompany  Toledo   on  another  trip,  Toledo

            persuaded  Jimenez to act as her escort, telling him that she

            was going to  bring in narcotics and that she  was asking him

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            to  help.  Before departing, Toledo applied for a passport in

            the name of  Sarah Luz Velazquez; Jimenez accompanied  her to

            the  passport   office;  and  he  there   signed  a  document

            identifying Toledo  as Sarah Luz Velazquez.   No passport was

            obtained, and Toledo changed the destination from Colombia to

            Panama.

                 Jimenez then accompanied  Toledo to Panama.  He had been

            selected because he was  a book importer, and it  was thought

            that his legitimate business  travels would provide cover for

            the scheme.  There  was some evidence that Jimenez  sought to

            distance  himself  from the  importation  efforts, but  other

            evidence that he requested  (unsuccessfully) a third of "what

            was coming" and  that, for  the return trip  to Puerto  Rico,

            Jimenez  made arrangements  to make  it "look  like it  was a

            [trip]  having to do with books."  Toledo alone collected the

            drugs in Panama and carried them  back to Puerto Rico in  the

            company of Jimenez.

                 Jimenez'  assistance was  certainly limited, and  it was

            open  to him  to argue  that his  role was  too  equivocal to

            justify conviction.  But  the jury was entitled to  find that

            the  facts were  as  Toledo represented  them.   Further,  an

            illegal  agreement need  not be  explicit, Ianelli  v. United
                                                       _______     ______

            States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n.10 (1975); United States v. Ruiz,
            ______                                 _____________    ____

            905 F.2d  499, 506 (1st Cir. 1990), and a rational jury could

            conclude that Jimenez'  participation was sufficient  to make

                                         -6-
                                         -6-

            out an  agreement.  Jimenez  was not helped by  the fact that

            the   evidence  clearly  showed   his  participation  in  the

            ancillaryconspiracy tosecurea passportbasedon falsedocuments.

                 Assuming that  the evidence allowed the  jury to convict

            Jimenez  of  the  heroin  conspiracy,  the  question  remains

            whether he joined the  overarching conspiracy to import drugs

            as charged in  the indictment or  only a smaller  encompassed

            conspiracy  related to  the specific  Panama transaction.   A

            conspirator  can  be  part  of a  larger  conspiracy  without

            knowledge of all its  details and dimensions.   Blumenthal v.
                                                            __________

            United States,  332 U.S.  539, 557 (1947);  United States  v.
            _____________                               _____________

            Cruz,  981 F.2d  613,  617 (1st  Cir. 1992).   Still,  on the
            ____

            present facts  there is a reasonable argument  (which we need

            not  resolve)  that  Jimenez,  in addition  to  the  passport

            conspiracy,  was at worst knowingly engaged  only in a single

            narrow conspiracy to import drugs on one occasion.

                 Nevertheless,  the  evidence  (as  already   noted)  was

            sufficient to  find that Jimenez conspired  to possess heroin

            with  intent  to distribute  in  connection  with the  Panama

            episode;  and the prosecution made clear at trial that he had

            not yet joined the  conspiracy at the time of  the prior acts

            of  importation.  Jimenez was sentenced based only on the 250

            grams of  heroin imported with  his assistance; in  fact, the

            trial court  generously based Jimenez'  sentence on one-third

            of that amount, in view of the testimony that he had asked to

                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            be given one-third of the drugs Toledo was to procure.  Thus,

            Jimenez has  not demonstrated  prejudice as a  result of  the

            possible  variance  between the  scope  of  the broader  drug

            conspiracy  charged  and narrower  drug  conspiracy that  was

            adequately proved.  United States v. Morrow, 39 F.3d at 1235.
                                _____________    ______

                 In a different variance  argument, Jimenez protests that

            the indictment charged that  the conspiracies were alleged to

            have  continued to April  1993 (as to  the heroin conspiracy)

            and until "on or about April  1993" [sic] (in the case of the

            passport conspiracy).  In reality, the second application for

            the passport occurred in  June 1993, and the Jimenez  trip to

            Panama occurred shortly thereafter.   But the indictment also

            identified as  an overt act Jimenez'  false identification of

            Toledo  and said correctly that it occurred "on or about June

            7, 1993."  There is no indication that Jimenez was  misled by

            the  mistaken reference to his  trip as one  that occurred in

            April.  Again there was no showing of prejudice.  

                 2.   Reyes  argues that  his sentence  was substantially

            enhanced from  a base level of  32 to one of  36, because the

            district court proposed a  four-level increase under U.S.S.G.

               3B1.1(a).    This   section  provides  that  a  four-level

            increase, for  an aggravating  role, should be  imposed "[i]f

            the  defendant  was an  organizer  or  leader of  a  criminal

            activity  that  involved five  or  more  participants or  was

            otherwise  extensive  . .  .  ."    The  pre-sentence  report

                                         -8-
                                         -8-

            recommended that  Reyes be  deemed a leader-organizer  on the

            ground that in  addition to  Reyes there were  at least  five

            other participants in the criminal activities, namely,  Jaime

            Ocampo,  Carmen Toledo,  Jeffrey Martinez,  Lourival Quinones

            and Wilfredo Jimenez.

                 At the  sentencing hearing,  Reyes' counsel  argued that

            Reyes and Ocampo had passed polygraph tests showing that they

            were not involved in drug trafficking and that other evidence

            showed  that  Toledo  had  lied  at  various  points  in  her

            testimony.  The district  court, although it referred  to the

            jury verdict,  made  clear  that  the  court  was  making  an

            independent judgment  as to  whether the facts  supported the

            four-level increase.   The court then  imposed the four-level

            increase  but  on  slightly   different  grounds  than  those

            suggested in the pre-sentence report.

                 The district judge said although he might treat Martinez

            and Jimenez as participants,  he was declining to do  so; but

            that   there  were  still  the  necessary  five  participants

            comprised  of   Reyes,  Ocampo,   Toledo,  Quinones  and   an

            individual referred  to at trial as  "Negro."  Alternatively,

            the court concluded that the criminal activity was "otherwise

            extensive";  under  the explicit  language  of  the guideline

            which uses the  word "or," criminal enterprise  of fewer than

            five  would still  be  the basis  for a  four-level increase.

            U.S.S.G.   3B1.1.(a)

                                         -9-
                                         -9-

                 On appeal,  Reyes continues to argue  that the polygraph

            tests,  and  other  information  inconsistent  with  Toledo's

            version of  events, undermines the  district court's finding.

            The difficulty is that the district court, like the jury, was

            entitled  to accept  Toledo's  version.   While  some of  the

            information relied on by Reyes to impeach the verdict was not

            before  the  jury (e.g.,  the  polygraph test),  most  of the
                               ____

            evidence was considered by the jury and  much is self-serving

            statements  by other  participants  or impeachment  material.

            The  district  court's decision  to  believe  Toledo was  not

            clearly erroneous.

                 A slightly  more troubling  problem is presented  by the

            district court's decision to exclude Martinez and Jimenez and

            to substitute Negro.  While Reyes' appeals brief says nothing

            about  Quinones, it says that  Negro "had nothing  to do with

            the present  indictment" and therefore could  not be included

            as  a participant.  The  government in response  points us to

            statements in the sentencing hearing that suggest that Toledo

            had met Negro  through Reyes;  but it is  not clear that  the

            transaction  in which Negro  played a role  involved Reyes at

            all.

                 In  any  event, the  district  court--faced  with Reyes'

            objection  to  describing  Negro  as  a participant--did  not
                                                                      ___

            reaffirm that designation.  Instead, the court said:   "Well,

            Counsel,  still  you  have--you  have  the  other--other--the

                                         -10-
                                         -10-

            `otherwise  extensive.'"   After  further colloquy  the court

            continued:  

                      [E]ven if  you take Negro  away from  the
                      picture, take it off the  picture--out of
                      the  picture  still there  are `otherwise
                      extensive,'  and  this  was a  conspiracy
                      that   went  through   Panama,  Colombia,
                      Puerto Rico and  sometimes the  Dominican
                      Republic .  . . .   So that's  my ruling.
                      Let's move on.

                 We  conclude  that  the  four-level  adjustment  can  be

            affirmed  without difficulty  on  the  "otherwise  extensive"

            branch  of section 3B1.1.  The district court was entitled to

            find that  as to Reyes  there were  multiple participants,  a

            number  of trips,  broad geographic  scope and  a substantial

            amount of heroin.  Under the precedents,  this is sufficient.

            See United States v.  Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 53 (1st Cir. 1991);
            ___ _____________     _____

            United  States  v. Morphew,  909  F.2d 1143,  1145  (8th Cir.
            ______________     _______

            1990).   Reyes challenges  other aspects of  the sentencing--

            including the determination that  he played a leadership role

            and could properly be sentenced to a fine of $50,000--but the

            remaining arguments are not substantial.

                 3.  As we noted at  the outset, there are a large number

            of additional claims  of error.   Reyes, for example,  argues

            that a continuance sought only  six days before trial  should

            have  been granted, a matter that is largely within the trial

            court's  discretion  absent  extraordinary circumstances  not

            present here.  United States v. Soldevila-Lopez, 17 F.3d 480,
                           _____________    _______________

            487  (1st Cir. 1994).  Reyes also asserts that his conviction

                                         -11-
                                         -11-

            was  based upon  perjured testimony  but the  record reflects

            only  the  kinds  of  conflicts  or  discrepancies  that  are

            commonly left to juries.

                 Both Reyes  and  Jimenez  complain  that  testimony  was

            admitted concerning extraneous criminal acts, including other

            drug transactions  involving Toledo,  and that  the testimony

            was  inadmissible  (as  irrelevant  or  as  hearsay),  highly

            prejudicial, or both.  On examination, it appears that almost

            all  of the  evidence in  question related to  incidents that

            were relevant (e.g.,  to explain  how Toledo came  to need  a
                           ____

            false  passport) or not made the subject of a contemporaneous

            objection  or both.    None of  these  claims needs  separate

            discussion. 

                 Reyes objects now to  three alleged misstatements by the

            prosecutor in closing arguments.  The only one objected to at

            trial  was a reasonable inference  by the prosecutor; and the

            only actual misstatement (that  the passport sought by Toledo

            was actually used) was  the kind of  slip of the tongue  that

            could  easily have been corrected at the time if an objection

            had been  made;  and the  evidence  plainly showed  that  the

            passport had been sought based  on false statements but never

            issued.  The jury instructions challenged on appeal were  not

            objected to at the time and are not remotely plain error.

                 Both Reyes and Jimenez  argue that the government failed

            to disclose to the defense material that might have been used

                                         -12-
                                         -12-

            to impeach Toledo  and Martinez.   The  government stated  in

            Reyes'  sentencing hearing and again in its brief that it did

            not have  the information  that appellants argue  should have

            been  disclosed, and  appellants  bring to  our attention  no

            substantial  evidence  that  the  prosecution  did  have  the

            information.   The government  has no obligation  to disclose

            information it does not  possess, United States v. Sepulveda,
                                              _____________    _________

            15 F.3d  1161, 1179  (1st Cir.  1993); the  rule of Brady  v.
                                                                _____

            Maryland,  373  U.S.  83   (1963),  imposes  no  general  due
            ________

            diligence requirement.  United States v.  Moore, 25 F.3d 563,
                                    _____________     _____

            569 (7th Cir. 1994).

                 Finally,  Reyes   says  that  he  was  denied  effective

            assistance of  counsel based on a parade  of alleged failures

            by counsel to investigate  or object and also the  failure to

            have Reyes  testify at trial.   These  are fact-based  claims

            that must be  presented to  the district court  in the  first

            instance and we therefore  do not reach them.   United States
                                                            _____________

            v.  Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 309 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
                _______                                     ____________

            112 S. Ct. 986 (1992).

                 Affirmed. 
                 ________

                                         -13-
                                         -13-