Court Opinion

ID: 2964812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:28.20366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.969305
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1190
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                   VALENTINE EKE,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1191
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                 OBINNA EGBOUDIKOGU,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1320
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                  ANTHONY NWOKEJI,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                   [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________

                                       Before
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge. 
                                ____________________
            Alan D.  Rose, by  Appointment  of the  Court, with  whom Rose  &
       Associates was on brief for appellant Valentine Eke.
            John Salsberg,  by Appointment  of the Court,  with whom  Alan D.
       Campbell
               
               and 
                   Salsberg, 
                            Cunha & Holcomb, P.C. were on brief for appellant
       Anthony Nwokeji.
            Richard E.  Bachman, by Appointment  of the Court,  for appellant
       Obinna Egboudikogu.
            Deborah 
                   Watson
                        , 
                          Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Department of
       Justice, 
                with 
                    whom 
                         Donald
                               K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief
       for the United States.
                                ____________________
                                    July 8, 1997
                                ____________________

                 BOUDIN, 
                        Circuit 
                               Judge
                                    . 
                                       
                                       Obinna Egboudikogu, Valentine Eke,
            and Anthony  Nwokeji were  indicted on  charges of  importing
            heroin 
                  into 
                       the 
                          United 
                                 States, 21 U.S.C. S 952(a) and 18 U.S.C.
            S 2, and conspiracy to import, 21 U.S.C. S 963.   Egboudikogu
            and Nwokeji pled  guilty, and Eke  was convicted following  a
            trial.  On appeal,  Eke makes various claims of trial  error,
            including 
                     a 
                       challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  All
            three defendants  dispute  the  district  court's  sentencing
            calculations.
                 The defendants are Nigerian citizens who resided or  did
            business in Boston or New York.  According to the government,
            the 
               defendants recruited couriers to travel to Asia, where the
            couriers 
                    would 
                         receive 
                                 heroin and then return with the drugs to
            Boston.   The  government offered  evidence concerning  three
            specific importation efforts between August and November 1994
            involving 
                     different couriers.  We describe the evidence in the
            light most favorable to the verdict.  United States v. Smith,
            46 F.3d 1223, 1226 (1st  Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.  176
            (1995).
                 In August 1994, Nwokeji  and Egboudikogu offered to  pay
            Lamaria 
                   Hurt 
                        $10,000 
                               to 
                                  travel to Hong Kong and Singapore; they
            told her that she would bring back clothes and documents  but
            that 
                no 
                   drugs 
                        would 
                              be 
                                 involved.  When Hurt agreed, Egboudikogu
            helped her  obtain a  passport, and  Nwokeji and  Egboudikogu
            provided her  with an airline ticket.   Hurt left Boston  for
                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            Singapore in September  1994.  She  traveled on to  Malaysia,
            where she ultimately  received a bag whose lining was  packed
            with a substance; at  trial, she said that the substance  was
            heroin, 
                   although 
                            she 
                               did 
                                   not actually see it.  Hurt returned to
            Boston  on September  14  and gave  the  bag to  Nwokeji  and
            Egboudikogu, who said that Egboudikogu would be going to  New
            York 
                "to 
                    get 
                        rid of the stuff."  They later paid Hurt $10,000.
                 Next, 
                      in 
                         late 
                             September 
                                       or early October 1994, Nwokeji and
            Egboudikogu arranged  a second trip,  offering a woman  named
            Bethany Dagen $10,000 to travel overseas.  They helped  Dagen
            obtain 
                  a 
                    passport 
                            and 
                                purchased her airline ticket.  On October
            9, Dagen flew  from Boston to Hong  Kong and then to  Manila,
            where she received an oversized children's book.  On  October
            28, 
               Dagen 
                     was searched at Detroit airport, en route to Boston,
            when customs officials detected a powerful glue odor from the
            book. 
                  
                  They 
                      found 
                            229.9 
                                  grams of heroin concealed in the book's
            cover.  Dagen was arrested and agreed to cooperate.
                 Meanwhile, a third  trip had been planned using a  third
            courier, Mona Lisa Smith-Mixon.  In October 1994, Egboudikogu
            and Eke went to a travel agency in New York, and  Egboudikogu
            bought 
                  an 
                     airline ticket from Florida to Hong Kong in the name
            of a  third person.   Eke picked up  the ticket several  days
            later, 
                  and 
                     thereafter 
                                requested two name changes on the ticket,
            each time paying a ticket-change penalty of $200.  The travel
            agency finally issued the ticket to Smith-Mixon and delivered
                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            it 
              to 
                 Egboudikogu. 
                              
                              Egboudikogu and Nwokeji offered Smith-Mixon
            $5,000 to make the trip and helped her obtain a passport, but
            Smith-Mixon ultimately refused to go. 
                 As for Dagen, she returned to Boston after her arrest in
            Detroit and (at the direction of federal agents) arranged  to
            meet with Nwokeji and  Egboudikogu to deliver the  children's
            book.   On November  5,  1994, wearing  a recorder,  she  met
            Egboudikogu in a Boston  restaurant.  Egboudikogu told  Dagen
            that 
                she 
                    had 
                        not received all the heroin that she was supposed
            to get in Asia.  He also said that his partner, who  had just
            come from  Houston, was waiting  at a  nearby Dunkin'  Donuts
            store, 
                  would 
                        give her partial payment of her fee, and would be
            distributing the heroin in New York.
                 When Egboudikogu started to leave the restaurant to  get
            his 
               supposed 
                        partner, 
                                he 
                                   was arrested.  Two agents then went to
            the  nearby Dunkin'  Donuts  shop,  where they  saw  Eke  and
            questioned him.  He was the only customer sitting at a  table
            and a priority mail envelope from Houston, addressed to  Eke,
            was sitting on his table.  When Eke admitted that he had just
            been with Egboudikogu, he was arrested.  Nwokeji was arrested
            later that evening.
                 A 
                  grand 
                        jury 
                             returned a three-count indictment, which set
            forth two substantive counts of drug importation or attempted
            importation (based  on the trips by  Hurt and Dagen) and  one
            count of conspiracy to import, spanning the time from  August
                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            1994 until the defendants' arrests.  Egboudikogu and  Nwokeji
            were charged in all three counts; Eke was charged only in the
            Dagen 
                 importation count and the conspiracy count.  Egboudikogu
            and Nwokeji pled guilty to all counts and were each sentenced
            to 
              108 
                  months' imprisonment.  Eke was convicted on both counts
            by 
              a 
                jury 
                     and was sentenced to 84 months' imprisonment.  These
            appeals followed.
                 1.  We begin with Eke's challenge to his conviction.  At
            trial, Eke argued that he was an innocent businessman  "whose
            only  sin  was  associating  with  one  of  the  conspirators
            [Egboudikogu]
                        ."  On appeal, he renews this claim, arguing that
            the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.   To
            prevail 
                   Eke 
                       must 
                           show 
                                that, viewing the evidence most favorably
            to the government, a  rational jury could not have found  him
            guilty 
                  beyond 
                        a 
                          reasonable doubt.  United States v. Valerio, 48
            F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 1995).
                 Perhaps 
                        the 
                           strongest 
                                     single piece of evidence against Eke
            was Egboudikogu's statement to Dagen (recorded on  audiotape)
            that his "partner" in the nearby Dunkin' Donuts shop would be
            distributing the heroin  in New York and would provide  Dagen
            with part of her payment for making the smuggling trip.   The
            companion turned out to be  Eke.  As a threshold matter,  Eke
            argues that this  statement by  Egboudikogu was  inadmissible
            hearsay.
                                         -6-
                                         -6-

                 The district court admitted the tape recording as a  co-
            conspirator's statement.  Fed.  R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).   That
            hearsay exception  required  the  government to  prove  by  a
            preponderance  of evidence,  apart from  using the  statement
            itself, that (1) a  conspiracy existed between the  declarant
            (Egboudikogu) and the defendant (Eke), and (2) the  statement
            was 
               made 
                    "during 
                           and 
                               in 
                                  furtherance of the conspiracy."  United
            States v. Sepulveda,  15 F.3d 1161, 1180-82 (1st Cir.  1993),
            cert. denied,  512 U.S. 1223  (1994).   The district  court's
            findings of fact on both points are reviewed for clear error.
            Id. at 1180.
                 If an importation  conspiracy existed and included  Eke,
            Egboudikogu's statements to Dagen about his "partner's"  role
            were  made  during and  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy:
            Egboudikogu's  references  to  his  partner  were  aimed   at
            persuading Dagen to  hand over the heroin-laden book so  that
            delivery of the  drugs to New York  could be completed.   See
            United 
                  States 
                        v. 
                           Leal
                               , 
                                 831 F.2d 7, 9-10 (1st Cir. 1987).  There
            was also considerable evidence, independent of the statement,
            suggesting that Eke was a member of the conspiracy.
                 First,  Eke  accompanied  Egboudikogu  when  the  latter
            purchased 
                     an 
                       airline 
                               ticket for travel to Hong Kong in the name
            of a third person, and Eke himself had the name on the ticket
            changed to Smith-Mixon, who had been recruited by Egboudikogu
            and 
               Nwokeji 
                       to serve as a courier.  In these dealings with the
                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            travel 
                  agency, 
                          Eke 
                             twice 
                                   paid the $200 name-change fee in cash;
            and 
               in 
                  each 
                       case Eke gave the travel agency a modified version
            of his middle name, rather than his true last name.  Eke also
            accompanied Egboudikogu to the meeting with Dagen and  waited
            nearby. 
                 Second, 
                        the 
                            government also presented evidence concerning
            several entries in Eke's pocket diary, which was seized  upon
            his 
               arrest. 
                        
                       That 
                            diary 
                                  listed the phone number of Nwokeji, who
            in 
              turn 
                   had 
                       Eke's pager number.  Eke's diary also included the
            names  of "Jeff  Obi,"  an  alias used  by  Egboudikogu  when
            recruiting couriers; Anthony Isiamah, who allegedly served as
            a contact in  Bangkok for Egboudikogu;  and Beth Freeland,  a
            friend of Dagen.  While Dagen was in Manila on her trip,  she
            had telephoned Nwokeji and Egboudikogu and asked them to send
            money to Freeland in order to pay Dagen's rent.
                 Third, 
                       the 
                           operator of a New York business that sends and
            receives international calls for customers testified that Eke
            received 
                    a 
                      fax from Thailand sent by someone named "Chris."  A
            Nigerian 
                    also named "Chris" had delivered heroin from Bangkok,
            Thailand, 
                     to 
                       Manila, 
                               where he gave it to Dagen concealed in the
            children's  book.   There was  no further  indication of  the
            identity 
                    of 
                       the person who sent the fax or the contents of the
            fax.
                 The evidence  just  described  adequately  supports  the
            district judge's ruling, by a preponderance of the  evidence,
                                         -8-
                                         -8-

            that 
                Eke 
                    was 
                        a 
                         member 
                                of 
                                   the conspiracy.  This made the hearsay
            statement 
                     admissible. 
                                 
                                 And, adding the hearsay statement to the
            evidence 
                    just described, the cumulative evidence was more than
            adequate to  permit  a rational  jury  to conclude  beyond  a
            reasonable doubt that Eke was a member of the conspiracy  and
            had participated in the Dagen importation.  See United States
            v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16, 21-22 (1st Cir. 1995).
                 It is true  that without the  hearsay statement and  the
            evidence 
                    just described, Eke's mere presence at the restaurant
            showed very little.  But with the additional evidence,  Eke's
            presence could  be viewed  as a further  step by  him in  the
            conspiracy, 
                       in 
                         addition 
                                  to his involvement with the Smith-Mixon
            ticket.  As for the required element of intent to enter  into
            the conspiracy,  see Andujar,  49 F.3d  at 22,  Egboudikogu's
            hearsay  statement  identified  Eke  as  a  partner  in   the
            conspiracy, a statement consistent with the other evidence as
            to Eke's activities.
                 Eke makes other claims of error regarding his conviction
            based on an alleged variance between the indictment and trial
            evidence, various evidentiary  rulings, the district  court's
            denial of his new trial motion, and the absence of minorities
            on the jury.  We do not think any of these claims of error is
            arguably 
                    close, 
                           and 
                              to 
                                 the extent that Eke seeks an explanation
            on those points, his claims are answered in the  government's
            brief.
                                         -9-
                                         -9-

                 2.  All three defendants challenge the district  judge's
            calculation  of  drug quantity  at  sentencing.    Under  the
            Sentencing Guidelines, the  base offense level for  importing
            drugs  depends on  the total  drug quantity  involved in  the
            offenses.   U.S.S.G. S 2D1.1(c);  id. comment.  (n.12).   The
            government must prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the
            evidence.  United States  v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1161  (1st
            Cir. 
                1996). 
                        
                       The 
                           district court's findings of fact are reviewed
            for 
               clear 
                     error, and its legal rulings are considered de novo.
            Id. at 1159.
                 The 
                    only 
                         drugs 
                              seized 
                                     were the 229.9 grams of heroin found
            in the  children's book carried by  Dagen.  Hurt entered  the
            country  without detection,  and Smith-Mixon  never took  the
            planned trip.  Nonetheless, following an evidentiary hearing,
            the district court found that the conspirators intended  Hurt
            and 
               Dagen 
                     each 
                         to 
                            import 
                                   400 grams of heroin, while Smith-Mixon
            was 
               intended 
                        to import 200 grams--a total of 1,000 grams.  The
            court 
                 found 
                       Eke 
                          not 
                              responsible for the Hurt trip, reducing the
            amount     attributed     to    him     to     600     grams.
                 Under  section   2D1.1(c),  the   kilogram  charged   to
            Egboudikogu 
                       and Nwokeji gave them each a base offense level of
            32; 
               Eke, 
                    responsible 
                               for 
                                   600 grams, had a base offense level of
            28.  Egboudikogu and  Nwokeji received adjustments for  their
            role in the  offense and acceptance  of responsibility.   All
                                        -10-
                                        -10-

            three 
                 defendants 
                           were 
                                sentenced within the applicable guideline
            ranges.  On appeal, the  only issues relate to the amount  of
            drugs attributed to the individual defendants.
                 At the  outset, the defendants  assert that no  quantity
            whatsoever should be attributed to them based on the Hurt and
            Smith-Mixon transactions.   Egboudikogu and Nwokeji say  that
            Hurt may have been making a test run and carrying no  heroin;
            but both defendants pled guilty to count 2 of the indictment,
            which 
                 charged them with successfully importing heroin.  As for
            the 
               aborted 
                       Smith-Mixon trip, section 2D1.1 expressly includes
            in  the attributed  amount any  drugs sought  to be  imported
            through attempts and conspiracies,  even if the efforts  were
            unsuccessful.  See also U.S.S.G. S 2D1.1 comment. (n.12).
                 The more  difficult question  is how  to determine  drug
            quantity 
                    for 
                        a transaction where no drugs are seized (Hurt and
            Smith-Mixon) or  where the  government says  that the  amount
            seized  understates  the   scale  of  the  offense   (Dagen).
            Application note  12 to section  2D1.1 provides the  starting
            point.  It states:
                 Where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized
                 does 
                     not 
                         reflect the scale of the offense, the court
                 shall approximate  the quantity  of the  controlled
                 substance.  In making this determination, the court
                 may consider,  for  example,  the  price  generally
                 obtained for the controlled substance, financial or
                 other records,  similar transactions in  controlled
                 substances  by  the  defendant,  and  the  size  or
                 capability of any laboratory involved.
                                        -11-
                                        -11-

            An approximation will be  upheld "as long as it represents  a
            reasoned estimate of quantity."  United States v. Webster, 54
            F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1995).
                 It  is apparent  that  some  estimating  methods  (e.g.,
            inventory 
                     records) 
                             are 
                                 likely to be quite reliable, and others-
            -such as computing  drugs from sale proceeds--are  reasonably
            accurate.  Here,  however, the government  had no such  data.
            Instead, at the  evidentiary hearing, it called as a  witness
            Peter Amentas, a federal  customs agent familiar with  heroin
            smuggling to the east coast of the United States and regarded
            as an  expert by the government.   In a companion  affidavit,
            Amentas stated that since August 1994,
                 fees  paid to  couriers importing  heroin into  the
                 eastern United States have  . . . remained  stable.
                 Over 
                     that 
                          period, couriers have been paid an average
                 of between  $1,000 and $2,500  per 100  grams of  a
                 mixture  containing  heroin  (having  a  purity  of
                 approximately 75%) brought into the Eastern portion
                 of the country.
                 The 
                    district 
                            court 
                                  agreed to use the government's proposed
            approach. 
                      
                      The court cautiously selected the highest rate from
            the  range identified  by Amentas  ($2,500 per  100 grams  of
            heroin),  thereby  reducing  the  resulting  drug   quantity.
            Dividing this $2,500 figure into the fees paid or offered  to
            the three couriers, the  court concluded that the  defendants
            intended Hurt  and Dagen each to  import 400 grams of  heroin
            (since 
                  each 
                       had been paid or promised $10,000) and that Smith-
                                        -12-
                                        -12-

            Mixon was intended to import 200 grams (based on the offer of
            $5,000).
                 Needless 
                         to 
                            say, the defendants say that the computations
            made by the district court are unduly speculative.  They urge
            that Hurt had imported 229.9 grams for $10,000 and  therefore
            the amounts attributed  to the other  two couriers should  be
            computed 
                    at 
                       the 
                          same 
                               rate (about 60 percent of the rate adopted
            by  the district  court).   On this  calculation, the  amount
            reflected by the total courier fees ($25,000) would be 574.75
            grams, with Eke accountable for only 344.85 grams.  At  first
            blush, 
                  this 
                       might 
                            appear 
                                   a reasonable estimating approach based
            on a transaction actually undertaken by the defendants.
                 The  difficulty  is that  the  drugs  seized  from  Hurt
            understated 
                       the amount that she had been intended to carry--or
            at 
              least 
                    it 
                      was 
                          reasonable for the district court to reach this
            conclusion.  Egboudikogu told Dagen that she had not received
            as 
              much 
                   heroin from the Asian suppliers as she was supposed to
            get; according to  Egboudikogu, the supplier had to rush  the
            order 
                 because Dagen, already delayed many days, had hurried to
            return  to  the United  States.    The  defendants'  proposed
            calculation is premised upon this understatement.
                 The  district court  is not  required to  prefer a  less
            reliable 
                    calculation 
                               to 
                                  a more reliable one, and the guidelines
            themselves instruct  that where "the  amount seized does  not
            reflect the scale of the offense, the court shall approximate
                                        -13-
                                        -13-

            the quantity."  U.S.S.G. S 2D1.1 comment. (n.12).  Yet a more
            reliable estimate is not automatically reliable enough:   the
            question 
                    remains whether the government's calculation here had
            "sufficient indicia of  reliability to  support its  probable
            accuracy." 
                       
                       Webster
                             , 
                               54 
                                  F.3d at 5 (citing U.S.S.G. S 6A1.3(a)).
                 Here, the "indicia of reliability" was the experience of
            the government's witness, who said that he had worked on  200
            heroin cases,  and also  had secured  information from  other
            officers.  In 15 of the cases, Amentas acted in an undercover
            capacity and in many others he had interviewed the  couriers.
            On this  basis, Amentas testified  to the  payment range  for
            couriers--$1,000 to $2,500 per 100 grams--engaged in  similar
            transactions:
                          importing comparably pure heroin from Southeast
            Asia to the U.S. east coast.
                 In principle, drug courier services are a "market," like
            drug 
                sales, 
                       and extrapolations based on street drug prices are
            commonly 
                    used to determine drug quantity.  E.g., United States
            v. Jackson, 3 F.3d 506, 511 (1st Cir. 1993).  Quite possibly,
            the 
               price 
                     for heroin couriers at a given time and location may
            vary more widely than for retail sales (simply because market
            imperfections are greater); and one may suspect that a direct
            linear 
                  relationship between quantity and price is less likely.
                 Indeed, Amentas readily  admitted that courier  payments
            varied for many reasons, including supply and demand  changes
            and the experience and understanding of the courier.  But he 
                                        -14-
                                        -14-

            testified 
                     to 
                        a payment range and said that this range had been
            steady for  a  considerable period.   He  was  cross-examined
            extensively; 
                        this 
                            court 
                                  has reviewed the cross-examination, and
            nothing in it seriously  undermined Amentas' testimony.   The
            district judge, who has  considerable latitude in this  area,
            accepted it as persuasive.
                 Our 
                    case 
                         law 
                             requires caution in estimating drug quantity
            but, in  the last analysis, an  estimate of drug quantity  is
            treated as  a "fact."  United  States v. Sepulveda, 102  F.3d
            1313, 
                 1318 
                      (1st Cir. 1996).  Here, the district court credited
            the 
               government's 
                           witness 
                                   on the figures used for the range, and
            the 
               court's 
                      calculation 
                                  of quantity flowed rationally from that
            premise. 
                     
                     The court guarded itself by taking the lowest end of
            the 
               range 
                     offered by Amentas.  Compare United States v. Sklar,
            920 
               F.2d 
                    107, 
                        112 
                            (1st 
                                 Cir. 1990).  On the record before us, we
            cannot say  that the  district court's  estimate was  clearly
            erroneous.
                 The  defendants  have  made  other  criticisms  of   the
            government's 
                        evidence 
                                at 
                                   sentencing and of the district court's
            calculations, but  again, most  of the  remaining claims  are
            addressed 
                     in 
                        the government's brief and none requires separate
            discussion. 
                        
                        Nwokeji points to mitigating circumstances in his
            own case, but the guidelines are largely driven by  quantity,
            and he identifies no specific error by the district court  in
            determining other adjustments.
                 Affirmed.
                                        -15-
                                        -15-