Court Opinion

ID: 9908993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 15:01:07.540515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:39.468565
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 22-3088                                                    September Term, 2023
                                                               FILED ON: DECEMBER 12, 2023

UNITED STATES,
                       APPELLEE

v.

JESUS RIVERA,
                       APPELLANT

                           Appeal from the United States District Court
                                   for the District of Columbia
                                       (No. 1:21-cr-00060)

       Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, and MILLETT and PAN, Circuit Judges.

                                        JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties. The panel has accorded
the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See
D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is hereby

     ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Jesus Rivera’s conviction and sentence be
AFFIRMED.

        Appellant Jesus Rivera attended the riot at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
United States v. Rivera, 607 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3–5 (D.D.C. 2022). Rivera videotaped the events at
the Capitol and added his own commentary. In one video taken as he walked to the Capitol
grounds, he said he was “about to take [his] ass to the middle of the [United] State[s] Capitol.” Id.
at 6. His footage showed that he moved past destroyed fencing marked with “Area Closed” signs.
Id. In a portion of the video showing rioters attempting to break through a police line, Rivera
exclaimed, “Patriots are going crazy. Let’s get out there!” Id. After filming the fall of the police
line, Rivera predicted that “it was going to get bad.” Id. He then followed the group to the Upper
Terrace, noting that police officers were shooting pepper spray. Id. Rivera nevertheless pressed
on.

       While on the Upper Terrace, Rivera filmed the crowd breaching the Senate Wing and
                                                 2

Parliamentarian Doors, remarking:

       “This is what me and my boy were talking about, saying [that] the only way this
       would be a real revolution is if we go in and pull their asses out of there. This is
       the only fucking way. All this fucking talk––it has to get done, dude. This is what
       we need. This is what they needed.”

Rivera, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 6–7. Rivera also saw fellow rioters trying to climb a wall and shouted
to them, “there’s an easier way up!” Id. at 6. He then entered the Capitol through a broken window
and stayed for approximately twenty minutes, after which he exited through another broken
window. Id. at 7. Later, he told a friend, “I can honestly say I had a great time.” Id.

        Following a bench trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the
district court convicted Rivera on four counts: (1) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted
Building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (2) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a
Restricted Building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); (3) Violent Entry and Disorderly
Conduct in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and (4) Parading,
Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G).
Rivera, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 2–3.

        At sentencing, Rivera faced a recommended Sentencing Guidelines range of six to twelve
months of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2 and a statutory maximum sentence of six months of
imprisonment on Counts 3 and 4. The Government recommended a sentence of nine months of
imprisonment, twelve months of supervised release, and $500 in restitution. Rivera asked for
probation. The district court imposed a sentence of eight months of imprisonment on Counts 1
and 2 and six concurrent months of imprisonment on Counts 3 and 4. The court also sentenced
Rivera to twelve months of supervised release and ordered him to pay $500 in restitution and $70
in special assessments.

        On appeal, Rivera first challenges his convictions on Counts 2, 3, and 4, which generally
encompass entering the Capitol and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct there. He
contends that he could not be convicted on those counts because his conduct consisted solely of
recording the events at the Capitol “as a cinematographer.” Rivera Br. 9. He describes his conduct
as merely “documenting and keeping his viewers informed on what was taking place around him.”
Id. He “stresse[s] that there was no evidence given at trial other than [that he] was simply walking
and capturing what he saw on video.” Id. at 8. That conduct, he maintains, did not exhibit any
intent “to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct” of congressional proceedings. Id. at 10.
                                                   3

        Because Rivera argues that his conduct “did not fall within” the relevant statutes, id. at 8,
10, and does not challenge the district court’s interpretation of the conduct reached by the statutes,
we understand him to present a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. When confronting a
sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the question for us is whether, “after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650,
654 (2012) (per curiam) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). And here,
because Rivera’s sufficiency challenge relies entirely on his contention that the evidence showed
only that he simply documented the events in the manner of a journalist, the question is whether
any rational factfinder could have concluded that he did more than that.

        A rational trier of fact could have readily determined that Rivera did more than merely
document the events of January 6th. The evidence fully supported the district court’s conclusion
that Rivera “was a willing and supportive participant in the riot” while he was in the Capitol and
on its surrounding grounds. Rivera, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 5–7. In particular, the evidence supported
the district court’s conclusion that he was in league with the rioters and shared their intent to disrupt
Congress. Id. The government introduced evidence, for instance, that Rivera assisted other rioters
in breaching the Capitol building, shouting to them that there was “an easier way up!” when he
saw some of them attempting to climb a wall. Id. at 6. He also told another rioter during the riot
of his desire to “go in and pull their [i.e. members of Congress’s] asses out of” the Capitol so that
“this would be a real revolution.” Id. at 7. Rivera’s decision to enter the Capitol despite signs
forbidding his access and witnessing police fighting to keep people out of the Capitol further
evidence his presence in and around the Capitol as a law-breaker, and not a journalist. In addition,
Rivera entered and exited the Capitol through broken windows, and he later told a friend that he
“had a great time.” Id. Those are not the actions of a person who simply chronicled the events as
a cinematographer, without any intent to disrupt Congress.

        Rivera raises various other challenges to his convictions in his reply brief, including that
(i) he was convicted for what other rioters did rather than for his own conduct, (ii) the government
failed to prove that he was a cause of the disruption to government proceedings as required by 18
U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2), and (iii) the district court violated his First Amendment rights in its
consideration of his videos. Because Rivera did not raise those objections until his reply brief, he
has forfeited them. United States v. Powers, 885 F.3d 728, 733–34 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
                                                  4

        In addition to his challenge to his convictions, Rivera also challenges his sentence. He
contends that the district court imposed an excessive sentence to punish him for exercising his
constitutional right to go to trial rather than plead guilty. Rivera, however, cites no evidence
supporting his allegation that the district court punished him for going to trial. He submits that his
within-Guidelines sentence was unusually long. But the Government submitted to the district
court a table of the sentences that had been imposed for similarly situated defendants charged with
offenses related to January 6, and that table showed that Rivera’s sentence was not an isolated
outlier. Table 1, Attachment to Govt. Sent’g Mem. at 28–29, United States v. Rivera, 607 F. Supp.
3d 1 (D.D.C. 2022) (No. 21-060), ECF No. 73-1. The Government also gave the district court an
example of another defendant who had engaged in comparable conduct and had been sentenced to
eight months of imprisonment, the same sentence of imprisonment that the district court imposed
on Rivera. Govt. Sent’g Mem. at 24–25, United States v. Rivera, 607 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2022)
(No. 21-060), ECF No. 69. Rivera relies heavily on the non-binding opinion in Thorne v. United
States, in which a trial court imposed a harsher sentence as a penalty for the defendant exercising
his right to confront a witness at trial. 46 A.3d 1085, 1087 (D.C. 2012) (noting that the trial judge
stated that she would “take into account the way the case was [tried]” in sentencing the defendant).
Here, however, there is no evidence that the district court judge penalized Rivera for going to trial.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is
directed to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition
for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

                                            Per Curiam

                                                              FOR THE COURT:
                                                              Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                      BY:     /s/
                                                              Daniel J. Reidy
                                                              Deputy Clerk