Court Opinion

ID: 2965982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:16.543575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:08.255924
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATIONNOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 99-1081

                        VITO BADAMO, JR.,

                      Petitioner, Appellant,

                                v.

                          UNITED STATES,

                      Respondent, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

           [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Vito Badamo, Jr. on brief pro se.
     Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, and Donald C.
Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

                                
                                
  
  
  
            Per Curiam.  In May 1995, Vito Badamo, Jr. ("Badamo
  Jr.") pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to
  distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841, and one count of using and
  carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
  crime and aiding and abetting that firearm offense, 18 U.S.C.
  §§ 924(c) and 2.  He did not file any direct appeal.  In March
  1997, he filed a § 2255 motion, alleging that his firearm
  conviction should be vacated in light of Bailey v. United
  States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995).  That motion was denied, see
  Badamo v. United States, 17 F.Supp.2d 60 (D. R.I. 1998), and
  Badamo Jr. appealed.  The district court granted a certificate
  of appealability (COA) on the issue "whether there was
  sufficient evidence in the record to sustain petitioner's plea
  to aiding and abetting in the use or carrying of a firearm
  during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense; more
  specifically, whether the petitioner facilitated the use and/or
  carrying of a firearm."  We affirm.
            The facts underlying the offenses are amply recited
  in the district court's opinion, Badamo v. United States, 17
  F.Supp.2d at 61, and in our own opinion affirming the district
  court's decision in appeals filed by two of Badamo Jr.'s
  codefendants, Santoro v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL
  691997, at *1, (1st Cir. June 8, 1999) (per curiam).  We refer
  the reader to that material and do not repeat it here.
            Badamo Jr. must show cause and prejudice for failing
  to raise on direct appeal the issue as to the sufficiency of
  the evidence for aiding and abetting.  The fact that Bailey was
  not decided until after his conviction and the expiration of
  the appeal period is not "cause" to excuse the procedural
  default because Bailey did not alter the required elements for
  aiding and abetting, see, e.g., Wright v. United States, 139
  F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 1998), and, although Bailey clarified
  that "use" means active employment, two of his codefendants
  actively employed firearms.
            Even if unable to establish cause and prejudice,
  Badamo, Jr. could, nonetheless, obtain collateral relief from
  his § 924(c) conviction if he can show that he is "actually
  innocent" of that offense.  Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 
  at 623.  But to do so, he "must demonstrate that, in light of
  all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable
  juror would have convicted him."  Id. (citations and internal
  quotation marks omitted).  This standard, which requires "a
  stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice,"
  reserves collateral review for the "truly 'extraordinary'"
  case, "while still providing petitioner a meaningful avenue by
  which to avoid a manifest injustice."  Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S.
  298, 327 (1995) (internal citation omitted).  Badamo Jr. has
  not met this standard.
            As the district court accurately recited, a
  conviction for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense requires
  a showing that a defendant knew a firearm would be used or
  carried by another and willingly took some action to facilitate
  the use or carriage.  See United States v. Bennett, 75 F.3d 40,
  45 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 845 (1996).  The district
  court's conclusion that Badamo, Jr. knew that firearms would be
  used or carried is unassailable.  Badamo Jr.'s unadorned
  contention to the contrary is not persuasive.  He was present
  at the meeting in which firearms were discussed.  He was
  present when codefendant Eugenio was handed a weapon and when
  Eugenio gave the weapon to one of the robbers as Eugenio opened
  the "stash house" door.  And, as the court remarked, "the
  nature of the crime itself should have alerted them to the
  likelihood that the firearms would be actively employed in
  wresting possession of a large quantity of drugs from what they
  believed to be a group of drug traffickers."  Badamo v. United
  States, 17 F.Supp. at 62.
            There is also sufficient evidence to support a
  conclusion that Badamo Jr. willingly took some action to
  facilitate the use or carrying of firearms. He was in
  attendance at a planning meeting and concedes that the
  defendants agreed to pose as police officers.  Most
  significantly, he recruited his cousin Favaloro to participate
  in the job.  Police officers invariably carry firearms as well
  as badges and handcuffs (or so a jury could find).  Those
  posing as police officers would do likewise (or so a jury could
  find).  In fact, Favaloro carried and brandished a firearm and
  New York City police badges and handcuffs were recovered from
  the routes along which Badamo Jr. and others fled.  A
  reasonable juror could conclude that, in recruiting Favaloro to
  participate in a plan to pose as a police officer, Badamo Jr.
  facilitated the use and carrying of a firearm during and in
  relation to the drug trafficking crime.
            On appeal, Badamo Jr. also contends that his guilty
  plea was induced by an "erroneous instruction" by the district
  court.  Although he has not elaborated upon this allegation,
  we presume that Badamo Jr. is complaining that, although he was
  told that, in order to prove aiding and abetting of the use or
  carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a drug
  trafficking crime, the government had to prove that a defendant
  knew a firearm was going to be used or carried during and in
  relation to the drug trafficking crime, he was not informed
  that the government would also have to prove that a defendant
  willingly took some action to facilitate the use or carrying. 
  We will assume, without deciding, that such a claim would be a
  non-technical violation of Fed. R. Crim P. 11 and, thus,
  cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. Cf. United States v.
  Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979).
            Badamo Jr., however, did not raise this claim of a
  defective plea colloquy in his § 2255 motion.  He first raised
  it in his COA request to the district court and it was not the
  issue upon which the district court granted a COA.  Cf. Bui v.
  DiPaolo 170 F.3d 232, 237-38 (1st Cir. 1999) (holding that, in
  post-Bui cases, a petitioner must request from the court of
  appeals a complementary COA in order to obtain appellate review
  of an issue not certified by the district court), petition for
  cert. filed (U.S. June 14, 1999) (No. 98-9840).  We will
  assume, without deciding, that, despite his failing to raise
  the issue in his § 2255 motion, the issue was sufficiently
  presented in the district court by his raising it in his
  request for a COA.  And, as Badamo Jr.'s appeal was pending
  when Bui was decided, we will not fault him for failing to ask
  for a complementary COA.  See Bui v. DiPaolo, 170 F.3d at 238. 
  In any event, however, a procedural default remains.  Badamo
  Jr. has failed to establish cause to excuse his failure to
  raise this issue on direct appeal.  Cf. United States v.
  Romero, 32 F.3d 641, 652 (1st Cir. 1994) (finding no plain
  error when defendants failed to object to the court's alleged
  failure to instruct on one element of the offense).  And, as
  outlined supra, Badamo Jr. can not show "actual innocence."
            The judgment of the district court is affirmed.