Court Opinion

ID: 2964699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:51.319438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:59.899052
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

            No. 95-2283

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    JUANA ORTEGA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________
                            and O'Toole,* District Judge.
                                          ______________
                                 ____________________

                 Richard K. Corley for appellant.
                 _________________
                 Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorney, with
                 ________________
            whom  Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney, was  on
                  ___________________
            brief, for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 20, 1997
                                 ____________________

            *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                      Per  Curiam.     Juana  Ortega  appeals  both   her
                      Per  Curiam.     
                      ___________

            conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base ("crack"

            cocaine) and her  sentence.   She claims that  her trial  was

            flawed  in that the court  gave an improper  Allen charge and
                                                         _____

            that  there   was  insufficient   evidence  to  support   her

            conviction.   She  also  argues error  in  the trial  court's

            denial of her motion for a new trial.  Finally, she  disputes

            the court's determination of her sentence.  We affirm.

                                          I.

                      Ortega  was charged with distributing crack cocaine

            in violation  of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.   2, and

            conspiracy  to distribute  crack cocaine  in violation  of 21

            U.S.C.     841(a)(1),  846.    Her  arrest resulted  from  an

            ongoing   undercover   operation   conducted   by   the  Drug

            Enforcement Agency ("DEA").

                      Between  December  18  and  19,  1994,  Hector  San

            Martin, a DEA informant,  made arrangements to purchase crack

            from Julio Valdez at a Providence, Rhode Island, Burger King.

            Although Valdez himself had made a  previous drug delivery to

            San  Martin several days  earlier, Valdez told  San Martin by

            phone  that this  time the  crack would  be delivered  in the

            Burger King  parking lot on  December 19  by a boy,  girl, or

            woman.  The Burger King was located about a quarter mile from

            the  apartment  Valdez  was  using  at  37  Labin  Street  in

            Providence.    

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      On the day of  the deal, Valdez told San  Martin by

            phone that  a lady  in white  would deliver the  drugs.   The

            "lady in white" turned out to be Ortega.

                      That afternoon, DEA agents  conducting surveillance

            observed  Valdez  and Ortega  emerge  from  the Labin  Street

            apartment and walk together to the Burger King.  After Valdez

            pointed  to San Martin's car, Ortega got into the front seat.

            Valdez remained nearby to keep a lookout. 

                      According  to San  Martin's testimony,  when Ortega

            entered  the car, he asked Ortega if she had "the stuff," and

            she replied "yes."   She then pulled out a  clear plastic bag

            containing cocaine base from her inside jacket pocket.  After

            San  Martin explained  that he wanted  to check  the quality,

            Ortega answered "okay" and handed the bag to him.  

                      Leaving  the crack bag on the floor of the car, San

            Martin told Ortega  that the money was  in the trunk  and got

            out.  At the sight of the raised trunk door -- the signal for

            arrest  -- DEA agents moved  in to arrest  Valdez and Ortega.

            After  a  few seconds,  Ortega got  out  of the  car  and ran

            screaming;  she was caught and arrested by one of the agents.

            Valdez, who had also tried to run, was caught and arrested as

            well. 

                      In  her statement to  police, Ortega  complained of

            severe neck pain due to a thyroid condition and said that she

            had been at 37 Labin Street, her girlfriend's apartment, only

                                         -3-
                                          3

            to rest.   She explained her  walk to the  Burger King as  an

            attempt to ease the pain.  As for the drug delivery, she said

            only that  at some point  she was asked  to do a  "favor" and

            that  because  of her  physical  pain, she  was  not thinking

            clearly.

                      On the second day of jury deliberations at Ortega's

            trial,  the jury  informed the  court that  it had  reached a

            verdict  on all counts  but was deadlocked  on the conspiracy

            count.     The  court  then  issued   a  supplemental  charge

            instructing the jury to  go back and try to  reach a verdict.

            Thirty minutes later,  the jury returned a guilty  verdict on

            the conspiracy charge.

                      At sentencing,  the court  found that Ortega  had a

            base offense level  of 32 based on the quantity  of crack she

            was delivering  (84.3 grams) and a  criminal history category

            of  I.  The court then granted a two-level reduction pursuant

            to U.S.S.G.   5C1.2 and  a four-level reduction for  Ortega's

            minimal role in  the offense.   Thus, the  offense level  was

            reduced  from 32  to 26,  and defendant  was sentenced  to 63

            months in prison and 5 years of supervised release.

                                         II.

                      Ortega's   motion   for  acquittal   based   on  an

            insufficient evidence  argument  was denied  by the  district

            court.  Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the

            government,  a rational jury could  have found guilt beyond a

                                         -4-
                                          4

            reasonable doubt.   See United  States v.  Dockray, 943  F.2d
                                ___ ______________     _______

            152, 157 (1st Cir.  1991).  We therefore affirm  the district

            court's  denial of Ortega's Rule  29(c) motion.   See Fed. R.
                                                              ___

            Crim. P. 29(c).

                      To prove  conspiracy, the government must show that

            the  defendant had the intent to agree and that the defendant

            had  an  intent  to  distribute cocaine  --  the  substantive

            offense.  See  United States  v. DeLutis, 722  F.2d 902,  905
                      ___  _____________     _______

            (1st Cir. 1983).  Viewing the evidence and drawing inferences

            therefrom, a rational jury  member could certainly have found

            guilt  beyond  a reasonable  doubt.    See  United States  v.
                                                   ___  _____________

            Montas, 41 F.3d 775,  778 (1st Cir. 1994), cert.  denied, 115
            ______                                     _____  ______

            S.  Ct.  1986  (1995).     Such  evidence  included  Valdez's

            statement  to San  Martin that  a woman  wearing white  would

            deliver the  drugs, Ortega's walk  with Valdez to  the Burger

            King, Ortega's entrance into a stranger's car, and her prompt

            delivery of a bag containing  crack previously hidden on  her

            body, when asked for "the stuff."   

                      This  case is  unlike  those Ortega  cites for  the

            proposition that  a single  drug transaction  is insufficient

            evidence of conspiracy.  See, e.g., Delutis, 722 F.2d at 906;
                                     ___  ____  _______

            United States v. Izzi,  613 F.2d 1205, 1210 (1st  Cir. 1980).
            _____________    ____

            There is no such per se rule in any event; we look at all the

            facts in  the case.  DeLutis merely held that the single sale
                                 _______

            there  was insufficient  to tie  the defendant  buyer  to the

                                         -5-
                                          5

            sellers' drug distribution  conspiracies.   See DeLutis,  722
                                                        ___ _______

            F.2d at  905-06;  see also United States v. Acevedo, 842 F.2d
                              ___ ____ _____________    _______

            502,  505-06 (1st  Cir.  1988) (rejecting  the argument  that

            evidence of conspiracy  between sellers must  be insufficient

            because it involved only a single  sale).  A single sale  can

            establish  a common  purpose on  the part  of the  sellers --

            here, Ortega  and Valdez.   See Acevedo,  842 F.2d  at 506.  
                                        ___ _______

            Moreover, in  DeLutis, there was no  direct or circumstantial
                          _______

            evidence that defendant intended  to agree to become involved

            in a larger supplier/distributor relationship, and there  was

            no basis  to infer based on  the single act in  question.  In

            Izzi,  there  was  no   evidence  of  agreement  linking  the
            ____

            defendant to the broader  conspiracy during the dates charged

            in the indictment.  Here, there  were only two members of the

            conspiracy, and  it is not  difficult to infer  knowledge and

            agreement.   

                      Other  cases  Ortega  cites  for  support  are also

            distinguishable.   See,  e.g., United  States v.  Ocampo, 964
                               ___   ____  ______________     ______

            F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Mehtala, 578 F.2d 6
                                     _____________    _______

            (1st Cir. 1978).  The evidence here shows that Ortega's level

            of  involvement  was  greater  than  mere  knowledge  of  the

            substantive  crime and  thus suffices  to support  the jury's

            finding that  there was an  intent to agree and  an intent to

            distribute.   See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 439-
                          ___ _____________    _______

            40  (1st Cir. 1994) (explaining  that Ocampo and Mehtala held
                                                  ______     _______

                                         -6-
                                          6

            only that defendant's mere presence at scene of crime or mere

            association  with  criminals  was  insufficient   to  support

            conspiracy conviction). 

                      Ortega  also challenges the supplemental charge the

            judge  gave to  the  jury  when  it  announced  that  it  was

            deadlocked  on  the  conspiracy   count.    The  trial  court

            committed  no error.  In fact, the judge recited verbatim the

            Allen-type charge recommended by  this court in United States
            _____                                           _____________

            v. Angiulo,  485 F.2d 37, 40  n.3 (1st Cir. 1973).   That the
               _______

            jury  returned  a verdict  thirty  minutes later  is  not, as

            Ortega asserts, evidence of "coercion." 

                      Ortega's appeal of the  trial court's denial of her

            motion  for new  trial fares no  better.  We  review only for

            abuse of  discretion or  misapplication of  law.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Rodriguez,  738 F.2d 13,  17 (1st Cir. 1984).   The
            ______    _________

            district court need only  order a new trial if  a miscarriage

            of justice  would  otherwise result.   See  United States  v.
                                                   ___  _____________

            Indelicato,  611  F.2d  376, 387  (1st  Cir.  1979).   Ortega
            __________

            presents  no  claim  that  even  suggests  a  miscarriage  of

            justice.  Moreover, she does not recount any prejudicial acts

            that  resulted in an unfair trial, see Payton v. Abbott Labs,
                                               ___ ______    ___________

            780  F.2d 147, 152-53 (1st  Cir. 1985), nor  does she contend

            that the verdict was seriously  erroneous, see Borras v. Sea-
                                                       ___ ______    ____

            Land Serv., Inc., 586 F.2d 881,  887 (1st Cir. 1978).  It was
            ________________

            well within the court's discretion to deny the motion. 

                                         -7-
                                          7

                      Lastly,  Ortega  challenges  her  sentence  on  two

            equally  unsuccessful grounds, arguing  first that  the judge

            should have  used the base  offense level for  powder cocaine

            instead of  crack cocaine and, second, that  the court should

            have  allowed a  downward departure  for  diminished capacity

            under U.S.S.G.   5K2.13.   There is absolutely no support for

            Ortega's first  claim: the court, pursuant  to the Sentencing

            Guidelines, calculated  the base  offense level based  on the

            drug  involved in  the  crime.    See  U.S.S.G.     2D1.1(c).
                                              ___

            Evidence at trial showed that the drug was crack cocaine. 

                      As  for  Ortega's  second  claim,  we  are  without

            jurisdiction  to review  a discretionary  refusal  to depart.

            See United States  v. Morrison,  46 F.3d 127,  130 (1st  Cir.
            ___ _____________     ________

            1995);  see also United States v. Saldana, 109 F.3d 100, 102-
                    ___ ____ _____________    _______

            03  (1st  Cir.  1997).   While  the  district  court did  not

            explicitly  address  Ortega's   request  for  departure   for

            diminished capacity, it is clear from the total circumstances

            of  the case  as well  as the  court's remarks  at sentencing

            that, rather  than believing  it lacked authority  to depart,

            the court simply declined to do so.  See Morrison, 46 F.3d at
                                                 ___ ________

            130.  Ortega has  advanced no colorable claim of  legal error

            that would lead us to exercise jurisdiction here.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                  

                                         -8-
                                          8