Court Opinion

ID: 2964195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:57.929945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:23.508244
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1131

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              JOS  NEGRON GIL DE RUBIO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jos  Antonio Fust , U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Jos  A. Pagan Nieves, with whom Jos  A. Pagan Nieves Law Offices
             ____________________            ________________________________
        was on brief for appellant. 
             Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
             _______________
        Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jos  A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
        _____________                          _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, and Nelson P rez-Sosa, Assistant United States
                                _________________
        Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                    August 6, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Jos   Negron  Gil  de  Rubio  ("Negron")
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          appeals his  conviction and  sentence for  conspiring to  possess

          cocaine with intent  to distribute, see  21 U.S.C.     841(a)(1),
                                              ___

          846.  Finding  no error, we affirm the district court judgment in

          all respects. 

                    Negron  first claims that  the district court  erred in

          rejecting his  motion  for a  bill  of particulars,  because  the

          indictment failed to name all coconspirators and alleged no overt

          acts involving Negron.1  The lone count against Negron alleged an

          eighteen-month conspiracy  to possess  with intent  to distribute

          cocaine.   It named all  28 indicted coconspirators,  but omitted

          two unindicted cooperating  witnesses.2  No more was exigible, as
                              
          ____________________

               1Rulings disallowing bills of  particulars are reviewed only
          for abuse  of discretion.   United States  v. Sepulveda,  15 F.3d
                                      _____________     _________
          1161, 1193 (1st Cir. 1993),  cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2714 (1994).
                                       _____ ______
          In  the  present context,  this requires  a demonstration  by the
          defendant  that the  denial  resulted in  prejudice at  trial, or
          other prejudice  to  a "substantial  right."   United  States  v.
                                                         ______________
          Hallock, 941 F.2d  36, 40 (1st Cir. 1991)  (quoting United States
          _______                                             _____________
          v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 154 (1st Cir. 1989)). 
             _____

               2Count One alleged:

                    The general  allegations are  hereby incorpo-
                    rated and realleged herein by reference.

                    From  on or about  September 1991, up  to and
                    including May  of 1993,  in  the District  of
                    P.R., FL, N.Y., MA, and elsewhere, within the
                    jurisdiction of this court, . . . 

                    [list of 23 defendants, including Negron, but
                    not including 2 of the 4 cooperating witness-
                    es]

                    .  . . the  defendants herein, and  others to
                    the Grand Jury known  and unknown, did  know-
                    ingly  and  intentionally  combine, conspire,
                    confederate,  and agree  together, with  each

                                          2

          the  indictment  substantially   described  the  essential  facts

          constituting  the charged offense, within the  meaning of Fed. R.

          Crim. P. 7(c)(1).  See United States  v. Hallock, 941 F.2d 36, 40
                             ___ _____________     _______

          (1st Cir.  1991).  Compare  United States v. Tomasetta,  429 F.2d
                             _______  _____________    _________

          978, 979 (1st Cir.  1970) (more precise averments as to  date and

          location  of  crime may  be  needed when  charging  a substantive

          offense).   The government  need not describe  "the precise dates

          and locations" of all overt acts, Hallock, 941 F.2d at 40-41; see
                                            _______                     ___

          United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 155 (1st Cir. 1989), absent
          _____________    _____

          a showing of actual prejudice or surprise.  

                    Bills of particulars are designed to provide sufficient

          additional  detail  to enable  an  accused to  mount  an adequate

                              
          ____________________

                    other and with  diverse other persons  to the
                    Grand Jury known  and unknown, to commit  the
                    following offense against  the United States,
                    that is, possession with intent to distribute
                    cocaine,  a Schedule  II  narcotic drug  con-
                    trolled substance, in violation  of Title 21,
                    U.S.C.,    841(a)(1) and 846.

                    Object of the  conspiracy: It was the  object
                    of  the  conspiracy   that  codefendants  and
                    coconspirators would and  did possess cocaine
                    with the intent to  distribute, and would and
                    did distribute  the same for  the purpose  of
                    obtaining monetary gain.

                    Overt Acts  [Indictment lists 44  overt acts,
                    none of  which specifically name  Negron] in-
                    clude:

                    3.  The cocaine  loads were  usually retained
                    and safeguarded by  members of the  organiza-
                    tion.
                    . . . .

                    5.  A portion of the cocaine was prepared for
                    distribution in Puerto Rico. 

                                          3

          defense,  avoid double jeopardy,  and prevent surprise  at trial.

          See Hallock, 941  F.2d at 40.   There is no basis  for concluding
          ___ _______

          that this indictment was impermissibly vague, so as to materially

          hamper  trial preparation, cause surprise, or prevent Negron from

          forfending against  double jeopardy.   Moreover, not only  did he

          have  the  benefit  of full  discovery,  but  the district  court

          ordered that  Negron be  accorded reasonable access  to the  four

          cooperating witnesses who  later testified for the  government at

          trial.    These  discovery  resources  afforded  Negron  adequate

          opportunities  to inform himself  of the evidence  the government

          was prepared to present at trial.  Negron has  neither provided a

          factual  foundation for his  conclusory alibi-defense  claim, nor

          indicated a basis for the claim that any vagueness in the present

          indictment may expose him to  prosecution for conduct of which he

          has been acquitted  in the past.   See United States  v. Ramirez-
                                             ___ _____________     ________

          Burgos, 44 F.3d  17, 19 (1st Cir. 1995)(citations  omitted) ("The
          ______

          Double Jeopardy Clause  safeguards against (i) a  second prosecu-

          tion following acquittal or final conviction for the same offense

          and (ii)  multiple punishments  for the  same offense.");  United
                                                                     ______

          States v.  Abreu, 952 F.2d  1458, 1464 (1st Cir.),  cert. denied,
          ______     _____                                    _____ ______

          112 S.  Ct. 1695 (1992)(same).   Finally, even though  Negron has

          been apprised of the relevant times, transactions and persons, he

          neither  precisely defines  an alibi  nor  demonstrates that  the

          present  conspiracy  charge  is barred  by  any  prior acquittal.

          Moreover, since  the indictment contained  sufficient information

          to  apprise Negron  of the  criminal  conduct with  which he  was

                                          4

          charged,  he was  neither prejudiced  nor  unfairly surprised  at

          trial by any absence of particulars. 

                                          5

                    Negron also claims that  the evidence was  insufficient

          to support the verdict.3  At trial, the government presented four

          coconspirators, each  of whom  tied Negron  directly to the  same

          conspiracy.  Their  credibility was for the jury.   United States
                                                              _____________

          v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 773 (1st Cir. 1995).   
             _________

                    Negron  further claims that the district court erred in

          denying  his motion  for  new  trial  based  on  newly-discovered

          evidence.  The  proffered "newly discovered evidence"     a puta-

          tive  averment by  a  cooperating  witness  that Negron  did  not

          participate in  the drug organization     fell well short  of the

          mark, if for  no other reason than that it has  not been shown to

          have been "newly discovered."   See United States v. Natanel, 938
                                          ___ _____________    _______

          F.2d  302, 313  (1st  Cir.  1991), cert.  denied,  502 U.S.  1079
                                             _____  ______

          (1992);  see also  United  States  v. Tibolt,  72  F.3d 965,  972
                   ___ ____  ______________     ______

          (1995).  

                    Further, Negron challenges  the drug-quantity calculat-

          ion relied on  at sentencing.  As there  was evidence that Negron

          had been involved with considerably more than the five  kilograms

          of  cocaine found by  the district court, there  can have been no

          clear error.   See United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 871 (1st
                         ___ _____________    _______

          Cir. 1993).

                              
          ____________________

               3We review the entire record  in the light most favorable to
          the government and indulge all reasonable inferences favorable to
          the verdict,  see United  States v. Saccoccia,  58 F.3d  754, 773
                        ___ ______________    _________
          (1st Cir.  1995), in order  to determine whether a  rational jury
          could have found appellant guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt. See
                                                                        ___
          United States v. Valle, 72 F.3d 210, 216-17 (1st Cir. 1995).  
          _____________    _____

                                          6

                    Finally,  absent  a  showing  of  any  error,  Negron's

          cumulative error claim collapses.  

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed
                    ________

                                          7