united states v. carela, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Carela, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-carela-1st-cir-2015 1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1194

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

VÍ CTOR MANUEL CARELA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Sel ya, and Lynch,Ci r cui t J udges.

Pat r i ci a A. DeJ uneas, wi t h whom Si bbi son & DeJ uneas, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Susan Z. J or gensen, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr í guez- Vél ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel son Pér ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 4, 2015



-2 -

TORRUELLA , Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal ar i ses out of

Def endant - Appel l ant Ví ct or Manuel Car el a' s ( "Car el a" ) i nvol vement

i n a dr ug smuggl i ng oper at i on. Carel a was convi ct ed on t wo count s:

( 1) conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams

or mor e of cocai ne; and ( 2) possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne. Fi ndi ng no r ever si bl e er r or ,

we af f i r m hi s convi ct i on and sent ence.

I. Background

On Sept ember 16, 2012, a mul t i - agency1 i nvest i gat i on was

i ni t i at ed i n r egar d t o suspect ed dr ug t r af f i cki ng i n t he coast al

area al ong Yabucoa and Maunabo, Puer t o Ri co. At 4: 00 a. m. i n t he

morni ng of Sept ember 17, 2012, Border Pat r ol agent s obser ved an

unl i t vessel appr oachi ng Maunabo. The l aw enf orcement of f i cer s

par t i ci pat i ng i n t hi s i nvest i gat i on r equest ed hel i copt er

assi st ance f r om t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment , whi ch was

shor t l y di spat ched. The hel i copt er spot t ed a t hi r t y- t hr ee f oot

vessel and communi cat ed i t s l ocat i on t o l aw enf or cement of f i cer s

on t he gr ound.

Ar ound t hi s same t i me, of f i cer s l ed a t act i cal l and

appr oach i n t he area and di scover ed a red Ford Excur si on sur r ounded

1 Thi s i nvest i gat i on i nvol ved agent s f r om t he U. S. Cust oms andBor der Pat r ol , U. S. Coast Guar d, Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment ,and Yabucoa Muni ci pal Pol i ce Depar t ment .



-3 -

by mul t i pl e gas t anks al ong wi t h other suppl i es such as f ood and

dr i nk. Pr oceedi ng t o t he beach, of f i cer s uncover ed 918. 7

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne hi dden wi t hi n t he near by bushes.

Lat er t hat day, of f i cer s f or t he Muni ci pal Pol i ce of

Yabucoa ( "Yabucoa of f i cer s" ) wer e t ol d t hat a shi pment of dr ugs

had been i nt ercept ed al ong t he Maunabo coast l i ne. The Yabucoa

of f i cer s wer e i nst r uct ed t o pat r ol t he ar ea i n or der t o l ocat e

i ndi vi dual s that may be l i nked t o t he i nt er cept ed shi pment . The

Yabucoa of f i cer s encount er ed Car el a hi t chhi ki ng on a sect i on of

t he PR- 901 r oad t hat was two mi l es f r omt he sea. When t he Yabucoa

of f i cer s appr oached Car el a i n a mar ked pol i ce vehi cl e, he j umped

over t he r ai l i ng on t he si de of t he r oad and down a pr eci pi ce.

A f ew mi nut es l at er , t he Yabucoa of f i cer s encount er ed

Car el a a second t i me. Thi s t i me, t he Yabucoa of f i cer s st opped

t hei r vehi cl e and appr oached Car el a on f oot . The Yabucoa of f i cer s

asked Car el a, who was dr essed i n j et ski i ng shoes and wet cl ot hi ng,

what he was doi ng i n t he area. Carel a r esponded t hat he was

col l ect i ng met al . 2 The Yabucoa of f i cer s cont i nued t o speak wi t h

Car el a, who appear ed agi t at ed, t i r ed and pal e, and i nvi t ed hi m t o

2 Car el a di d not have any met al on hi s per son. Fur t her , one oft he Yabucoa Pol i ce of f i cer s t hat encount er ed Car el a t est i f i ed t hatshe has never seen any i ndi vi dual s col l ect i ng met al i n t he ar ea i nwhi ch Car el a was f ound.



-4 -

dr i nk some wat er i n t hei r car . Whi l e Car el a was dr i nki ng wat er ,

t he Yabucoa of f i cer s agai n asked hi m what he was doi ng i n t he ar ea

and Car el a i ndi cat ed t hat he had been on a boat . At t hi s j unct ur e,

t he Yabucoa of f i cer s ar r est ed Car el a and r ead hi m hi s r i ght s.

Car el a had no i dent i f i cat i on or cel l phone on hi s per son and onl y

a smal l amount of cash.

On t he r i de t o t he pol i ce st at i on, Car el a t ol d t he

Yabucoa of f i cer s t hat he was supposed t o be pai d "$5, 000 f or t he

t ask, . . . but si nce i t wasn' t compl et ed, he was not goi ng t o

r ecei ve i t . " Lat er t hat day, Car el a was i nt er r ogat ed by Agent

Car l os Mar t í nez, a Homel and Secur i t y agent . Agent Mar t í nez

t est i f i ed that Car el a appear ed "exci t ed, " "happy, " "pumped up, "

and "ver y cooper at i ve" dur i ng hi s i nt er r ogat i on. Car el a admi t t ed

t o t he agent t hat he was hi r ed f or t hi s " dr ug smuggl i ng vent ur e

[ and] t hat hi s j ob was t o r ef uel t he vessel t hat was comi ng i n

wi t h t he nar cot i cs. " Car el a f ur t her admi t t ed t hat he assi st ed i n

t he of f l oadi ng of nar cot i cs f r om t he vessel .

Car el a was i ndi ct ed on: ( 1) conspi r acy to possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne; and ( 2)

possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of

cocai ne. 21 U. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) ; 846. On Apr i l 22,

2013, Car el a' s f i r st t r i al ended i n a mi st r i al because t he j ur y

coul d not r each a unani mous ver di ct . Carel a was t r i ed a second



-5 -

t i me and convi ct ed on bot h count s. On J anuary 22, 2014, Carel a

was sent enced t o 196 mont hs of i ncarcer at i on. Thi s t i mel y appeal

f ol l owed.

II. Discussion

Car el a r ai ses a number of i ssues on appeal .

Speci f i cal l y, Car el a ar gues t hat : ( 1) t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

when i t admi t t ed an unexecut ed dr af t cont r act i nt o evi dence i n

vi ol at i on of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence; ( 2) t he di st r i ct j udge

made sever al i mpr oper r emarks t hat vi ol ated Carel a' s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s; ( 3) t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y admi t t ed

t est i mony i n Spani sh i n vi ol at i on of t he J ones Act , 48 U. S. C.

§ 864; ( 4) t he Government engaged i n pr osecut or i al mi sconduct ; and

( 5) Car el a' s sent ence was bot h pr ocedur al l y and subst ant i vel y

unr easonabl e. We consi der Carel a' s cont ent i ons bel ow.

A. The Unexecuted Draft Contract

1. Background

Dur i ng t he cour se of t he second t r i al , t he Gover nment

sought t o i nt r oduce an unsi gned copy of a dr af t sal es cont r act

( t he "dr af t cont r act " ) vi a whi ch Edwi n Léon- Léon ( "Léon") sol d

Car el a t he r ed For d Excur si on t hat l aw enf or cement of f i cer s f ound

on t he beach on Sept ember 17, 2012. The Gover nment al so cal l ed

Léon t o t est i f y t hat Léon and Car el a had execut ed t he dr af t

cont r act . Af t er hear i ng Léon' s t est i mony, t he di st r i ct cour t



-6 -

admi t t ed t he dr af t cont r act i nt o evi dence, over Car el a' s

obj ect i ons r egar di ng t he aut hent i ci t y of t he document , because

Léon di d not keep a copy of t he or i gi nal and Léon at t est ed t hat he

gave t he or i gi nal t o Carel a when t he sal e was execut ed.

Carel a now argues t hat t he dr af t cont r act was i mpr oper l y

admi t t ed because i t i s pr oscr i bed hear say and i t s admi ssi on

r equi r es a new t r i al .

Carel a concedes t hat he di d not obj ect t o t he admi ssi on

of t he dr af t cont r act on hear say gr ounds and t hat pl ai n er r or

r evi ew woul d nor mal l y appl y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Avi l és- Col ón,

536 F. 3d 1, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Nonet hel ess, Car el a ar gues t hat

because he obj ect ed t o t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t he dr af t cont r act on

t he gr ound t hat i t coul d not be aut hent i cat ed, we shoul d appl y

cl oser scr ut i ny. Uni t ed St at es v. J ef f er son, 925 F. 2d 1242, 1254

( 10t h Ci r . 1991) ( st at i ng t hat cl oser scr ut i ny may be appr opr i at e

when t he f ai l ur e t o pr eser ve t he pr eci se gr ounds f or er r or i s

mi t i gat ed by an obj ect i on on r el at ed gr ounds) .

2. Applicable Law and Analysis

As not ed above, we gener al l y empl oy pl ai n er r or r evi ew

when a par t y has f ai l ed t o pr eserve an obj ect i on i n t he l ower

cour t . Uni t ed St ates v. Acevedo- Mal donado, 696 F. 3d 150, 156 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr í guez, 525 F. 3d 85, 95

( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( pl ai n er r or r evi ew appl i es wher e def endant f ai l ed



-7 -

t o obj ect on hear say gr ounds) ) . Car el a ar gues t hat we shoul d

appl y cl oser scrut i ny, but f ai l s t o ci t e t o any case l aw af f i r mi ng

t hat we are bound t o do so. Nonet hel ess, we note t hat hi s cl ai ms

st i l l f ai l under t hi s rubr i c.

When r evi ewi ng f or pl ai n er r or , we ask whet her " ( 1) an

er r or occur r ed; ( 2) t he er r or was cl ear and obvi ous; ( 3) t he er r or

af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s; and ( 4) t he er r or

i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of t he

j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos, 763 F. 3d 45, 56

n. 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he pr osecut i on sought t o i nt r oduce t he cont r act

as addi t i onal evi dence t hat l i nked Car el a t o t he dr ug smuggl i ng

operat i on. The Government ' s case di d not depend on t he

i nt r oduct i on of t he dr af t cont r act i nt o evi dence because t her e was

al r eady ampl e evi dence agai nst Car el a, whi ch i ncl uded: ( 1) Car el a

met l aw enf or cement of f i cer s whi l e hi t chhi ki ng i n an ar ea t hat i s

known t o be a dr ug del i ver y poi nt ; ( 2) Carel a was f ound wi t hi n t wo

mi l es of where t he shi pment of cocai ne had been f ound sever al hour s

ear l i er whi l e wear i ng j et ski i ng shoes i n a di shevel ed and

dehydr at ed st at e; ( 3) t he Yabucoa of f i cer s who ar e f r om t he ar ea

di d not i mmedi at el y r ecogni ze Car el a; ( 4) Car el a pr ovi ded pol i ce

wi t h an unl i kel y st or y that he was i n t he ar ea col l ect i ng met al

even t hough t he ar ea i s not known f or met al col l ect i on; ( 5) Car el a



-8 -

admi t t ed t o t he pol i ce t hat he had been on a boat and that he had

accept ed an of f er of $5, 000 t o unl oad cocai ne; and ( 6) Carel a was

wet when he was pat t ed down. As a r esul t , whether Car el a di d i n

f act pur chase t he For d Excur si on i s not essent i al t o l i nk hi m t o

t he drug conspi r acy. Because t her e was an over whel mi ng amount of

ot her evi dence agai nst Car el a, we ar e unabl e t o concl ude t hat t he

admi ssi on of t he dr af t cont r act somehow vi ol at ed Car el a' s

subst ant i ve r i ght s.

I n l i ght of t he ampl e evi dence agai nst Car el a, t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s admi ssi on of t he dr af t cont r act di d not i mpact

Car el a' s subst ant i al r i ght s. Our concl usi on woul d be t he same

under t he cl oser scr ut i ny appr oach. Thus, we f i nd t hat i t was not

pl ai n er r or f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o admi t t he dr af t cont r act

i nt o evi dence.

B. Whether the District Court Judge Erred by Commenting on theEvidence

1. Background

Dur i ng t he cour se of t he second t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t

j udge st at ed i n open cour t t hat he woul d al l ow t he dr af t cont r act

t o be pr esent ed as evi dence because ( 1) t he dr af t cont r act had

been aut hent i cat ed; ( 2) t he dr af t cont r act was admi ssi bl e because

t he or i gi nal copy of t he cont r act was l ost or dest r oyed; and ( 3)

t he or i gi nal cont r act coul d not be subpoenaed f r om t he pur chaser .



-9 -

I n a subsequent si debar conf er ence, t he di st r i ct cour t

j udge agai n st at ed t hat he woul d admi t t he dr af t cont r act because

Léon di d not keep a copy of t he or i gi nal and t he or i gi nal copy of

t he dr af t was not avai l abl e.

Car el a ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng vi ol at ed

hi s Fi f t h and Si xt h Amendment r i ght s because i t i mpr oper l y endorsed

t he Gover nment ' s posi t i on. Thi s r ul i ng, Car el a ar gues, depr i ved

t he j ur y of i t s cor r espondi ng f act ual det er mi nat i on because i t

pr event ed t he j ur y f r om deci di ng whet her t he or i gi nal sal es

cont r act ever exi st ed, whet her Léon kept a copy of t he or i gi nal

cont r act , and whether Léon gave a cr edi bl e expl anat i on as t o why

t he or i gi nal cont r act was mi ssi ng. Car el a aver s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ul i ng const i t ut ed er r or and r equest s a new t r i al .


Car el a di d not contempor aneousl y obj ect t o t he comment s

at i ssue dur i ng t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow. As a r esul t , we r evi ew t he

di st r i ct j udge' s comment s under t he pl ai n er r or st andar d.

A t r i al j udge "r etai ns t he common l aw power t o quest i on

wi t nesses and t o anal yze, di ssect , expl ai n, summar i ze and comment

on t he f act s and evi dence. " Logue v. Dore, 103 F. 3d 1040, 1045

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . However , t he j udge may not

over st ep hi s bounds and gi ve an i mpr essi on of j udi ci al bi as.

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr í guez, 761 F. 3d 105, 111 ( 1st Ci r .



-10-

2014) . I mpr oper j udi ci al i nt er vent i on wi l l ser i ousl y pr ej udi ce a

def endant ' s case i f t her e i s a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but

f or t he er r or , t he ver di ct woul d have been di f f er ent . I d. at 112.

I n or der t o det er mi ne i f t her e was j udi ci al bi as, we consi der each

i nt er vent i on i n t he cont ext of t he t r i al as a whol e, whet her t he

comment s wer e i mproper , and whet her t he compl ai ni ng par t y can show

ser i ous pr ej udi ce. I d. at 111.

Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 1008 est abl i shes t hat t he j ur y

gener al l y det er mi nes whet her a wr i t i ng pr oduced at t r i al i s t he

or i gi nal wr i t i ng. Fed. R. Evi d. 1008. I n t he same vei n, we have

hel d that t he Si xt h Amendment guarant ees a cr i mi nal def endant t he

oppor t uni t y f or a j ur y t o deci de gui l t or i nnocence. Uni t ed St at es

v. Bel l o, 194 F. 3d 18, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

Her e, we do not f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t j udge act ed

i mpr oper l y or t hat he deci ded Car el a' s gui l t or i nnocence. The

st at ement s t hat Car el a obj ect s t o ar e par t of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ul i ng r egar di ng t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t he dr af t cont r act. I n

l i ght of t he t r i al as a whol e, we cannot concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ul i ng t o admi t t he dr af t agr eement i n open cour t somehow

pr ej udi ced Car el a. As st at ed i n t he pr ecedi ng sect i on, t her e was

si gni f i cant evi dence i n t hi s case agai nst Car el a. Thus, we cannot

concl ude t hat but f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng t he r esul t of

t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent .



-11-

We f ur t her not e t hat our r evi ew of t he t r anscr i pt s t o

whi ch Car el a r ef er s yi el ds no comment ar y or quest i on by the t r i al

j udge t hat exceeds t he bounds of acceptabl e j udi ci al

par t i ci pat i on. See Acevedo- Gar cí a v. Monr oi g, 351 F. 3d 547, 561

( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

As such, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comment s wer e

pr oper and di d not endorse t he Gover nment ' s posi t i on.

C. Whether the Jones Act was violated

1. Background

Car el a cl ai ms t hat t he J ones Act 3 was vi ol at ed because

on t he second day of t r i al , Agent Mar t í nez t est i f i ed t o t he Spani sh

ver si on of Car el a' s st at ement . I n si mpl er t er ms, Agent Mar t í nez

t est i f i ed t hat Car el a t ol d hi m t hat he had been dr i vi ng "a red-

type guagua, tipo guagua. " Car el a posi t s t hat t her e i s no Engl i sh

meani ng of t he word "guagua" or " t i po" and that t hi s s t atement

vi ol at ed t he J ones Act and necessi t at es a new t r i al .

Car el a f ur t her t akes i ssue wi t h what he char act er i zes as

t he pr osecut or ' s at t empt t o get around t he J ones Act by at t empt i ng

t o t r ansl ate "guagua" as a r ed t r uck dur i ng t he Gover nment ' s

3 The J ones Act r equi r es t hat al l pl eadi ngs and pr oceedi ngs i nt he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri cobe conduct ed i n t he Engl i sh l anguage. 48 U. S. C. § 864; see al soUni t ed St at es v. Mi l l án- I saac, 749 F. 3d 57, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .



-12-

cl osi ng. 4 Car el a voci f er ousl y ar gues t hat t hi s i s an i naccur at e

t r ansl at i on of t he wor d "guagua, " whi ch accor di ng t o Car el a can

onl y mean bus.


Car el a readi l y concedes t hat no J ones Act obj ect i ons

wer e r ai sed bel ow. As a r esul t , we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mescual - Cr uz, 387 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

I n general t erms, a pr osecut or ' s comment does not

vi ol ate t he J ones Act so l ong as t he pr oceedi ngs wer e conduct ed i n

Engl i sh. Uni t ed St at es v. Báez- Mar t í nez, 786 F. 3d 121, 127 n. 1

( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( cl ar i f yi ng t hat an occasi onal r ef er ence t o a

f orei gn l anguage word or phr ase by a l awyer or wi t ness does not

of f end t he J ones Act ) .

Fur t her , a vi ol at i on of t he Engl i sh l anguage r equi r ement

const i t ut es r ever si bl e er r or whenever t he appel l ant can

demonst r ate t hat t he unt r ansl at ed evi dence "has t he pot ent i al t o

af f ect t he di sposi t i on of an i ssue r ai sed on appeal . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . However ,

t her e i s no pr ej udi ce f r om a J ones Act vi ol at i on i f t he

unt r ansl at ed evi dence l acks such pot ent i al . I d.

4 The pr osecut or st at ed dur i ng hi s cl osi ng "[ h] e t el l s us t hat hewas i n a red guagua, i n a red t r uck, t o go to the ar ea to pr ovi dehi s ser vi ces. "



-13-

We cannot f i nd t hat t her e was a J ones Act vi ol at i on i n

t hi s case. Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t est i mony i n quest i on was

del i ver ed i n Engl i sh. I t i s t r ue t hat t he Engl i sh t est i mony was

pepper ed wi t h Spani sh col l oqui al i sms. However , an occasi onal

r ef er ence t o a Spani sh word or words does not of f end t he J ones

Act .

Car el a di d not suf f er any pr ej udi ce her e. The di sput ed

st at ement l acks t he pot ent i al t o i mpact t he di sposi t i on of t he

i ssue r ai sed on appeal . As has al r eady been di scussed i n t hi s

opi ni on, t he r ecord shows t hat t her e was ampl e evi dence l i nki ng

Carel a t o t he charged conduct . The passi ng r ef er ences t o "guagua"

and " t i po" l ack any pot ent i al t o change t he out come of t hi s case.

Al t hough the pr osecut or may have at t empt ed t o t r ansl at e "guagua"

dur i ng hi s cl osi ng r emar ks, t he r ef er ence al so l acked any pot ent i al

t o pr ej udi ce Car el a or t o af f ect t he di sposi t i on of t he case.

I n l i ght of t he f or egoi ng, we concl ude t hat t her e was no

vi ol at i on of t he J ones Act . We f ur t her concl ude t hat Car el a

suf f er ed no pr ej udi ce.

D. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct

1. Background

Car el a mai nt ai ns t hat t he pr osecut or ' s cl osi ng and

r ebut t al ar gument s const i t ut ed pr osecut or i al mi sconduct and mer i t



-14-

r ever sal . 5 Car el a ar gues t hat t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y: ( 1) t ol d

t he j ur y t hat t he r ed For d Excur si on was r egi st er ed i n Car el a' s

name when i n f act i t was not ; ( 2) mi sr epr esent ed t he l egal

si gni f i cance of t he dr af t cont r act by cal l i ng i t a cont r act i nst ead

of a dr af t cont r act and cl ai mi ng t hat i t cer t i f i ed t he det ai l s of

t he sal e; and ( 3) i mpl i ed t hat Car el a was char ged wi t h a conspi r acy

t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e mor e t han f i ve ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne, and subst ant i ve possessi on i n an unchar ged conspi r acy.

Accor di ng t o Car el a, t he cont ext of t he pr osecut or ' s

i nt ent i onal mi sconduct must f avor r ever sal because: ( 1) t he

al l egedl y i mpr oper st at ement s were made dur i ng cl osi ng and

r ebut t al ar gument s af t er t he cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y - - a

"del i cat e poi nt i n t he t r i al pr ocess, " Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 54

F. 3d 967, 977 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ; ( 2) t he mi sconduct occur r ed af t er

t he j ur y i n t he f i r st t r i al had f ai l ed t o convi ct hi m; and ( 3) t he

Uni t ed St at es At t or ney' s Of f i ce i n t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co,

wher e t he case was t r i ed, al l egedl y has a l ong- st andi ng pr obl em of

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s.

5 Car el a ar gues t hat hi s J ones Act vi ol at i ons cl ai ms al so qual i f yas f orms of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . However , as we have al r eadyst at ed i n our pr ecedi ng sect i on, t her e was no J ones Act vi ol at i oni n t hi s case.



-15-


Because Car el a di d not r ai se t hese obj ect i ons dur i ng

t r i al , t hi s Cour t r evi ews t he pr osecut or ' s comment s under t he pl ai n

er r or st andar d. Uni t ed St at es v. Gl over , 558 F. 3d 71, 77 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) . I n t he cont ext of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , t hi s

Cour t r ever ses a di st r i ct cour t "onl y i f t he pr osecut or ' s r emar ks

' so poi soned t he wel l t hat t he t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y

af f ect ed. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Vázquez- Lar r aur i , 778 F. 3d 276, 283

( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Kasenge, 660 F. 3d 537,

542 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) . When determi ni ng whether t here was

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , we consi der t he f ol l owi ng f act or s: "( 1)

t he sever i t y of t he pr osecut or ' s mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng whet her i t

was del i ber at e or acci dent al ; ( 2) t he cont ext i n whi ch t he

mi sconduct occur r ed; ( 3) whet her t he j udge gave cur at i ve

i nst r uct i ons and t he l i kel y ef f ect of such i nst r uct i ons; and ( 4)

t he st r engt h of t he evi dence agai nst t he def endant [ ] . " I d.

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) . We f ur t her not e t hat when assayi ng t he pr osecut or ' s

r emarks, cont ext of t en det er mi nes meani ng. Uni t ed St ates v.

Sepúl veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1187 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . I n bor der l i ne

cases, t he st andar d of r evi ew can al so f i gur e i mpor t ant l y. I d.

" [ I ] n t he absence of a cont empor aneous obj ect i on i t seems f ai r t o



-16-

gi ve t he ar guer t he benef i t of ever y pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i on of

her wor ds. " I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

The Gover nment concedes t hat t he For d Excur si on was not

r egi st er ed t o Carel a. However , t he Gover nment argues t hat no

er r or r esul t ed f r om a t wi ce made comment dur i ng a l ong cl osi ng.

We note t hat an uni nt ent i onal mi sr epr esent at i on of t he r ecord may

const i t ut e mi sconduct under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances. Uni t ed St at es

v. Azubi ke, 504 F. 3d 30, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

Al t hough the pr osecut or ' s st at ement s at i ssue wer e

i naccur at e, t hey di d not so poi son t he wel l t hat "t he t r i al ' s

out come was l i kel y af f ect ed. " Vázquez- Lar r aur i , 778 F. 3d at 283

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n

par t i cul ar , t wo f act or s r ender t he pr osecut or ' s comment s har ml ess:

( 1) "t he di st r i ct j udge gave cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons" as t o t he

j ur y' s r ol e i n wei ghi ng t he evi dence and deter mi ni ng gui l t ,

i ncl udi ng ef f ect i ve di r ect r ef er ence t o t he evi dent i ar y val ue t o

be gi ven t o l awyer s' cl osi ng argument s; and, most i mpor t ant l y and

as al l uded t o above, ( 2) " t he st r engt h of evi dence agai nst

[ Car el a] " ( i . e. hi s admi ssi ons and t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence)

out wei ghs any r i sk of af f ecti ng Car el a' s subst ant i al r i ght s. I d.

Car el a al so t akes i ssue wi t h t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement

t hat t he dr af t cont r act cer t i f i ed t hat t he For d Excur si on was bei ng

sol d and that t he dr af t agr eement was " a ver y speci f i c cont r act . "



-17-

The Gover nment agai n concedes t hat t he pr osecut or ' s wor d choi ce

was f ar f r omi deal , but posi t s t hat t hese st at ement s di d not af f ect

t he out come of t r i al . We al so agr ee wi t h t he Gover nment on t hi s

poi nt . Al t hough we encour age t he Gover nment t o r ef r ai n f r om

ut i l i zi ng t hi s t ype of l anguage dur i ng t r i al and t o ensur e t hat

i t s s t at ement s ar e f act ual l y accur at e, we cannot concl ude t hat

Carel a suf f er ed pr ej udi ce her e. As we have di scussed t hr oughout

t hi s opi ni on, t her e was an abundance of evi dence agai nst Car el a i n

t hi s case. I n f act , Car el a hi msel f admi t t ed t o bei ng par t of t he

conspi r acy. As such, we cannot concl ude t hat t he pr osecut or ' s

gaf f es poi soned t he wel l and i mpact ed t he out come of t r i al .

Car el a f ur t her cl ai ms t hat t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y

i mpl i ed t hat Carel a was gui l t y of an uncharged conspi r acy because

he pur chased t he Ford Excur si on.

[ Carel a] needed a van. He bought i t bef ore i n J ul y wi t h ot her co- conspi r at or s. As Mr . Edwi nLéon Léon expl ai ned to you, t he t r ansact i onwas somebody came i n and pai d hi mcash f or t hevehi cl e. When he was sel l i ng i t , t wo vehi cl esar r i ved, f i ve or si x i ndi vi dual s. He t houghthe was sel l i ng t o t hi s i ndi vi dual , but t hen ast hey were ready t o si gn t he document s, hesai d, “No, no, no. Pl ease put i t i n t he f r i endof my r el at i ve or f r i end, Mr . Ví ct or ManuelCar el a. ” And he has t he document s t o purchase

i t .That’s a conspi r acy. Mor e t han t wo i ndi vi dual sworki ng t oget her t o accompl i sh what t he obj ectof t he conspi r acy i s i n t hi s case. ( Emphasi sadded)



-18-

Al t hough t he use of t he word " t hat " i s somewhat

ambi guous, we r ead t he pr osecut or ' s st atement as ref er r i ng t o t he

char ged conspi r acy t o smuggl e cocai ne and not a conspi r acy t o

pur chase t he For d Excur si on. Moreover , we emphasi ze t hat i n t he

absence of a cont emporaneous obj ect i on, i t seems f ai r t o gi ve t he

Gover nment t he benef i t of ever y pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

words i n di sput e. Sepúl veda, 15 F. 3d at 1187.

I n l i ght of t he evi dence agai nst Car el a, we concl ude

t hat Car el a f ai l ed t o show t hat t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement s

r esul t ed i n pl ai n er r or .

E. Whether the Sentence was Unreasonable

1. Background

Last l y, Car el a ar gues t hat hi s sent ence was bot h

pr ocedur al l y and subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e. Car el a at t acks hi s

sent ence on t he gr ound t hat t he cour t i mpr oper l y consi der ed

evi dence i n Spani sh i n vi ol at i on of t he J ones Act . I n si mpl er

t er ms, t he di st r i ct cour t r ef used Car el a' s r equest ed mi nor r ol e

adj ust ment because i t r el i ed on evi dence t hat Car el a admi t t ed t o

dr i vi ng a r ed "guagua. " Accor di ng t o Car el a, because t her e i s no

Engl i sh l anguage evi dence t hat suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat Car el a dr ove

t he red For d Excur si on, hi s sent ence i s unr easonabl e.

Car el a poi nt s out t he f ol l owi ng f act or s t o suppor t hi s

cont ent i on t hat he onl y pl ayed a mi nor r ol e ( i . e. di d not occupy



-19-

a posi t i on of t r ust ) : ( 1) "he was not t r ust ed wi t h t he execut ed

cont r act or any ot her document s r el ated t o owner shi p" of t he r ed

For d Excur si on; ( 2) he was not gi ven t he keys t o t he r ed For d

Excur si on; ( 3) he di d not pay f or t he r ed For d Excur si on; ( 4) he

di d not dr i ve away i n t he r ed For d Excur si on at t he t i me of sal e;

( 5) he was not pai d i n advance, or f or t hat mat t er was never pai d,

t he $5, 000 he was t o r ecei ve f or hi s ser vi ces; and, f i nal l y, ( 6)

hi s r ol e i s not abl y mi nor i f t he br oad cont ext of t he dr ug

smuggl i ng conspi r acy - - an i nt er nat i onal oper at i on r equi r i ng

compl ex l ogi st i cs management ( i . e. , coor di nat i on of t r avel f r om

Venezuel a t o Puer t o Ri co) and subst ant i al i nvest ment of f unds i n

t he pr oduct ( i . e. , cocai ne) , l abor , and equi pment ( e. g. , t r anspor t

Vessel ) - - i s taken i nt o consi der at i on. He t hus aver s t hat i t was

cl ear er r or t o deny hi s r equest ed mi nor r ol e adj ust ment .


Thi s Cour t r evi ews sentenci ng deci si ons f or

r easonabl eness based on a tot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, and i n a

bi f ur cat ed manner : f i r st , f or pr ocedur al r easonabl eness, and

second, f or subst ant i ve r easonabl eness. Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a-

Vázquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s

" l egal det er mi nat i ons of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' meani ng and

scope" ar e revi ewed de novo, and i t s f act ual det er mi nat i ons ar e

r evi ewed f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Br yant , 571 F. 3d 147,



-20-

153 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Thi s Cour t wi l l not " upset t he sent enci ng

cour t ' s f act- based appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes unl ess i t i s

cl ear l y er r oneous. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os- Bat i st a, 239 F. 3d 16,

21 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

I n or der f or a cr i mi nal def endant t o qual i f y f or a mi nor

r ol e r educt i on under Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes §

3B1. 2( b) , he must sat i sf y a t wo- pr onged t est : ( 1) "he must

demonst r ate that he i s l ess cul pabl e t han most of t hose i nvol ved

i n t he of f enses of convi ct i on; " and, ( 2) "he must est abl i sh t hat

he i s l ess cul pabl e t han most of t hose who have per pet r at ed si mi l ar

cr i mes. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mat eo- Espej o, 426 F. 3d 508, 512 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Typi cal l y, "[ r ] ol e- i n- t he- of f ense

det er mi nat i ons [ e. g. , mi nor - r ol e adj ust ment s] ar e not or i ousl y

f act - sensi t i ve. " Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z- Sant i ago, 211 F. 3d 146,

148 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . We have hel d t hat i n maki ng t hese

det er mi nat i ons a "def endant who par t i ci pat es i n onl y one phase of

a conspi r acy may nonet hel ess be f ound to pl ay a non- mi nor r ol e i n

t he conspi r acy as a whol e. " Uni t ed St ates v. Var gas, 560 F. 3d 45,

51 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Fi nal l y, i t must be not ed t hat " [ r ] el i abl e

hear say i s . . . admi ssi bl e dur i ng sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ramí r ez- Negr ón, 751 F. 3d 42, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Her e, we have al r eady f ound t hat t her e i s no J ones Act

vi ol at i on. Fur t her , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not commi t a J ones Act



-21-

vi ol at i on when i t st at ed t hat Car el a "dr ove t he For d Excur si on. "

The di st r i ct cour t ' s st at ement di d not pr ej udi ce Car el a such t hat

r ever sal i s r equi r ed her e. I n f act, t he di st r i ct cour t r ef used

Carel a' s proposed mi nor r ol e adj ust ment on t he gr ounds t hat Carel a

( 1) used hi s name to pur chase t he red Ford Excur si on t hat was used

t o br i ng 15 cans of gasol i ne t o t he l andi ng si t e i n or der t o r ef uel

t he t r anspor t vessel ; ( 2) t he r ed For d Excur si on was goi ng t o be

used t o t r anspor t 38 bal es of cocai ne f ound at t he vessel l andi ng

si t e; ( 3) Car el a was pai d $5, 000; and ( 4) when Car el a used hi s

name t o pur chase t he red Ford Excur si on t here were ot her

i ndi vi dual s wi t h hi m and i t was one of t hese ot her i ndi vi dual s who

pai d f or t he For d Excur si on.

Carel a' s i nvol vement i n t he charged of f enses was not

dependent on hi s dr i vi ng of t he For d Excur si on. Thus, even i f t he

br i ef r ef er ence t o Car el a dr i vi ng t he For d Excur si on coul d have

const i t ut ed a J ones Act vi ol at i on, i t woul d not have pr ej udi ced

Car el a.

Fur t her , denyi ng t he mi nor r ol e adj ust ment t o Car el a di d

not const i t ut e cl ear er r or . Car el a admi t t ed t o l oadi ng t he

cocai ne ont o a vehi cl e and t r anspor t i ng t he cocai ne. Car el a al so

admi t t ed t hat he had been hi r ed t o r ef uel t he vessel t hat was

t r anspor t i ng nar cot i cs.



-22-

Car el a f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat he was l ess cul pabl e

t han t he ot her par t i ci pant s i n t he of f ense, or i ndeed t hat he was

l ess cul pabl e t han si mi l ar l y si t uat ed of f ender s. A l ack of pr of i t

or success i n t he cr i mi nal ent er pr i se does not t r i gger a downwar d

adj ust ment f or a mi nor r ol e. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Gar cí a- Or t i z,

657 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "The essent i al pr edi cat e i s a

showi ng t hat t he def endant i s bot h l ess cul pabl e t han hi s

conf eder at es . . . and l ess cul pabl e t han t he mi ne- r un of t hose

who have commi t t ed si mi l ar cr i mes. " ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Ocasi o, 914 F. 2d 330, 333 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) . The r ecord makes

cl ear t hat t he t r i al cour t f ul l y consi der ed t he r el evant f actor s

i n denyi ng t he mi nor r ol e adj ust ment .

We f ur t her not e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t var i ed downwar d

when sent enci ng Car el a f r om a suggest ed 235 t o 293 mont hs t o a

t er m of 196 mont hs because the cour t f el t t hat t he gui del i ne r ange

was t oo harsh.

III. Conclusion

Havi ng f ound no r ever si bl e er r or i n t he pr oceedi ngs of

t he t r i al cour t , Car el a' s sent ence and convi ct i on ar e af f i r med.

Affirmed.

united states v. carela, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents