United States v. Vazquez-Larrauri, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Vazquez-Larrauri, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/36

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1061

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

I SMAEL VZQUEZ- LARRAURI , a/ k/ a El Gordo, a/ k/ a J uni t o,a/ k/ a Tar a,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. Car men Consuel o Cer ezo, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Paul M. Gl i ckman, wi t h whomGl i ckman Tur l ey LLP was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

George A. Massucco- LaTai f , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Nel son Pr 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, and J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Febr uar y 13, 2015


2/36

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. A j ur y convi ct ed I smael Vzquez-

Lar r aur i ( "Vzquez") of dr ug and f i r ear mof f enses af t er a ni ne- day

t r i al f or l eadi ng a conspi r acy t o di st r i but e dr ugs i n Puer t o Ri co

publ i c housi ng pr oj ect s. The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Vzquez t o

concur r ent l i f e sent ences on al l si x count s of convi ct i on. Vzquez

now appeal s, ar gui ng t hat pr osecut or i al mi sconduct - - pr i mar i l y

i mpr oper vouchi ng f or a gover nment wi t ness- - and evi dent i ar y er r or s

war r ant a new t r i al . He al so chal l enges hi s sent ence, cl ai mi ng

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o make an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug

quant i t y f i ndi ng and t hat t he l i f e sent ence on t he f i r ear m count

exceeded t he appl i cabl e st at ut or y maxi mum. Fai l i ng al l el se, he

al so cl ai ms i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel . We af f i r m

Vzquez' s convi ct i ons on al l count s and hi s l i f e sent ences on t he

f i ve dr ug count s, but r emand f or a modi f i ed sent ence on t he one

f i r ear mcount . We decl i ne t o addr ess hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel cl ai m on di r ect appeal .

I. Background

Vzquez does not chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on. We r ecent l y not ed t he l ack of

cl ear consensus i n t hi s ci r cui t whet her t o r eci t e t he f act s i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct , or t o pr esent t he f act s i n a

more bal anced or neut r al manner , when t he def endant does not r ai se

a suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence cl ai m. Uni t ed St at es v.

Rodr guez- Sol er , 773 F. 3d 289, 290 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Because t he

-2-


3/36

st andar d used t o revi ew t he f act s woul d make no di f f er ence f or t hi s

appeal , we decl i ne t o deci de t he i ssue and i nst ead si mpl y pr esent

a neut r al ver si on of t he f act s based on t he t r i al t est i mony. See

i d.

The char ged cr i mes i n t hi s case ar i se f r om a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on' s di str i but i on of l ar ge quant i t i es of

her oi n, cocai ne, cocai ne base ( "cr ack cocai ne" ) , and mar i j uana

t hr ough mul t i pl e dr ug poi nt s f r om1994 unt i l 2008. Tr i al wi t nesses

t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez' s i ni t i al r ol e i n t hi s or gani zat i on was

managi ng sal es at dr ug poi nt s l ocat ed i n t he J ardi nes de Mont el l ano

and Lui s Muoz Mor al es publ i c housi ng pr oj ect s i n Cayey, Puer t o

Ri co. At f i r st , he shar ed r esponsi bi l i t y f or r unni ng t he dr ug

poi nt s wi t h ot her s, i ncl udi ng an i ndi vi dual known as Cheo Cabezon.

Vzquez and Cheo Cabezon then t ook over compl et e cont r ol and suppl y

of t hese t wo dr ug poi nt s somet i me i n t he 1990s. I n 2001, Vzquez

expel l ed Cheo Cabezon f r om t he organi zat i on and assumed sol e

l eader shi p. Vzquez gr ew hi s ent er pr i se and event ual l y ei t her

cont r ol l ed or became t he excl usi ve suppl i er f or addi t i onal dr ug

poi nt s i n t he El Pol vor n and Las Vegas war ds i n Cayey, Sant a

I sabel , Sal i nas, Coamo, and t he Bor i nquen ward i n Guayama.

The government began i nvest i gat i ng Vzquez i n 2005 and

obt ai ned a gr and j ur y i ndi ct ment agai nst hi m and sevent y ot her

i ndi vi dual s i n 2008. The i ndi ct ment char ged Vzquez wi t h si x

count s: Count I char ged conspi r i ng t o di st r i but e and/ or t o possess

-3-


4/36

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e speci f i ed quant i t i es of her oi n, crack

cocai ne, cocai ne, and/ or mar i j uana, wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of a publ i c

housi ng pr oj ect , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846, and

860; Count s I I - V char ged ai di ng and abet t i ng i n possessi on wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e her oi n, cr ack cocai ne, cocai ne, and mar i j uana

wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of a publ i c housi ng pr oj ect , i n vi ol at i on of 21

U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 860, and 18 U. S. C. 2; and Count VI char ged

conspi r i ng t o possess f i r ear ms dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng of f ense, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( o) . 1

At t r i al , t he gover nment ' s case depended heavi l y on the

t est i mony of t hr ee cooper at i ng wi t nesses t o est abl i sh Vzquez' s

l eader shi p r ol e i n t he conspi r acy: "L. O. , " "J . S. , " and "F. R. "2 Al l

t hr ee cooper at i ng wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez assumed cont r ol

and was "t he boss" of t he dr ug poi nt s. L. O. t est i f i ed t hat she

j oi ned t he char ged conspi r acy i n t he 1990s by col l ect i ng t he

"t al l i es, " or money f r om dr ug sal es, f or t he dr ug poi nt at

J ar di nes, where she al so l i ved. Most i mpor t ant l y f or t hi s appeal ,

she test i f i ed t hat Vzquez order ed t he mur der s of t hr ee i ndi vi dual s

who t hr eatened hi s cont r ol over t he dr ug poi nt s: t he expel l ed co-

1 The i ndi ct ment al so cont ai ned a f or f ei t ur e al l egat i on ( Count

VI I ) not at i ssue i n t hi s appeal .2 We have assi gned i ni t i al s i nst ead of usi ng r eal names " i n

l i ght of concer ns about t he saf et y of cooper at i ng wi t nesses r ai sedby t he Commi t t ee on Cour t Admi ni st r at i on and Case Management of t heJ udi ci al Conf er ence of t he Uni t ed St at es. " Uni t ed St at es v.Et i enne, 772 F. 3d 907, 910 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-4-


5/36

l eader Cheo Cabezon; an ambi t i ous dr ug sel l er named Mamar t ; and

L. O. ' s son, known as El Ar abe. Af t er her son' s deat h i n 2004, L. O.

became a conf i dent i al i nf ormant f or t he gover nment . She was l ater

i ndi ct ed f or her r ol e i n t he dr ug conspi r acy and t est i f i ed agai nst

Vzquez pur suant t o a pl ea agreement .

J . S. t est i f i ed ext ensi vel y about dr ug quant i t i es

di st r i but ed t hr ough t he drug poi nt s and t he manner i n whi ch Vzquez

oper at ed t he conspi r acy. Begi nni ng i n 2000 or 2001, J . S. wor ked

f or Vzquez' s cockf i ght i ng oper at i on. J . S. t est i f i ed t hat he

r egul ar l y at t ended cockf i ght i ng mat ches wi t h Vzquez and f i f t een t o

t went y ot her i ndi vi dual s. J . S. and t he ot her s pl aced bet s of up t o

$20, 000 wi t h money that Vzquez i nst r uct ed J . S. t o col l ect f r omt he

var i ous dr ug poi nt s whi l e wor ki ng wi t h Hi r am Tor r es- Avi l es

( "Tor r es" ) , who was i n char ge of t al l yi ng dr ug pr oceeds and

pr epar i ng dr ugs f or di st r i but i on. Af t er a f ew mont hs, Vzquez and

Tor r es t aught J . S. how t o pr epar e and package t he heroi n, cr ack

cocai ne, cocai ne, and mar i j uana f or di st r i but i on. J . S. , who had

t r ai ned i n account i ng, t est i f i ed i n det ai l about t he t echni que and

quant i t i es used t o pr epar e dr ugs f or t he var i ous dr ug poi nt s.

J . S. t est i f i ed t hat he st or ed ki l ograms of cocai ne and heroi n f or

Vzquez i n hi s J ar di nes apar t ment .

J . S. al so t est i f i ed about t he enf or cement si de of t he

dr ug conspi r acy. He st at ed t hat at Vzquez' s di r ect i on he st or ed

up t o 31 f i r ear ms, some of t hem machi ne guns, and t hat Vzquez

-5-


6/36

woul d or der ot her s to use t he f i r ear ms. J . S. r ecal l ed t hat Vzquez

t ol d J . S. t hat , i f he t ur ned on Vzquez, J . S. woul d end up dead

l i ke Cheo Cabezon. J . S. al so t est i f i ed t hat he was pr esent at t he

meet i ng at whi ch Vzquez and ot her member s of t he conspi r acy

deci ded t hat El Ar abe had t o be ki l l ed because he was t r yi ng t o

t ake over t he J ar di nes dr ug poi nt . J . S. l at er became a

conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on f or t he gover nment - - f or whi ch t he

government pai d hi m $18, 000- - and then st opped wor ki ng f or Vzquez

i n 2006.

F. R. t est i f i ed pur suant t o a pl ea agr eement he had

ent er ed f or hi s i nvol vement i n a di f f er ent dr ug conspi r acy. He

t ol d t he j ur y that he suppl i ed dr ugs t o and r ent ed t he J ar di nes

dr ug poi nt i n t he ear l y 1990s, whi l e Vzquez managed t he sal es at

t he drug poi nt . F. R. expl ai ned t hat Vzquez and Cheo Cabezon t ook

over t he J ar di nes dr ug poi nt af t er F. R. r et i r ed i n 1995 t o r un

l ocal st or es. F. R. mai nt ai ned cont act wi t h cocai ne suppl i er s,

however , and, on at l east t went y occasi ons bet ween 1995 and 2006,

he used t hese cont act s t o suppl y Vzquez wi t h a hal f - ki l ogr am or

mor e of cocai ne when Vzquez' s nor mal suppl y r an dry.

The gover nment al so pr esent ed t est i mony f r omf our t een l aw

enf or cement agent s about cont r ol l ed dr ug pur chases, ar r est s, and

sei zures of money, guns, and dr ugs at t he J ardi nes and Moral es drug

-6-


7/36

poi nt s and at co- conspi r at or s' r esi dences. 3 None of t hi s t est i mony

di r ect l y i mpl i cat ed Vzquez, al t hough at l east t wo of t he ar r est s

and sei zur es wer e t he r esul t of i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by J . S. and

cor r obor at ed par t s of hi s t est i mony. The l ead case agent , Ri car do

Cr uz- Vzquez, t est i f i ed about wi r et aps obt ai ned on t he phones of

co- conspi r at or s, i ncl udi ng a wi r et ap on Vzquez' s phone. Vzquez

was a par t i ci pant i n some of t he recor ded conver sat i ons pl ayed f or

t he j ur y, but onl y t wo ar guabl y i nvol ved di scussi ons about t he dr ug

oper at i on. 4 Vzquez cal l ed no wi t nesses i n hi s def ense.

3 The par t i es st i pul at ed as t o t he t ypes and quant i t i es ofdr ugs sei zed. The t otal quant i t y sei zed was 40. 427 gr ams ofher oi n, 56. 33 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne, 600. 23 gr ams of cocai ne, and265. 39 gr ams of mar i j uana.

4 Bot h phone cal l s were bet ween Vzquez and an i ndi vi dualknown as Pakay. The f i r st occur r ed on Febr uary 16, 2008, and wast r ansl at ed and t r anscr i bed as f ol l ows:

[ Vzquez] : Uh, do you al r eady have t hat money f or

Bar r e? I t ' s seven and a hal f .Pakay: Yes. I know i t ' s seven and a hal f but not

unt i l Zandy gi ves me t hi s. Remember , Ihave . . .

[ Vzquez] : Don' t be a [ expl et i ve. ] I t ' s t hat I needt hat money.. . .Br i ng down what you have and . . . at t heend, when you' r e f i ni shed you squar e i to f f .

The second conver sat i on occur r ed on Febr uary 25, 2008, and wast r ansl at ed and t r anscr i bed as f ol l ows:

[ Vzquez] : How about t hat t hi ng? . . . Ever yt hi ngworked out wel l ?

-7-


8/36

The j ur y f ound Vzquez gui l t y on al l si x count s. For t he

dr ug of f enses, t he j ur y checked of f boxes on t he ver di ct f or m

i ndi cat i ng t hat i t f ound t hat Vzquez conspi r ed t o possess and

possessed wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e t he quant i t i es of her oi n,

cocai ne, cr ack cocai ne, and mar i j uana speci f i ed i n the i ndi ct ment

and on t he ver di ct f or m. The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Vzquez t o

concur r ent t er ms of l i f e i n pr i son on al l si x count s.

On appeal , Vzquez asks us t o vacat e hi s convi ct i on based

on pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , evi dent i ar y er r or s, and i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel , and t o set asi de hi s sent ence based on a

l ack of i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng and because t he l i f e

sent ence on t he f i r ear m count exceeded t he st at ut or y maxi mum. We

addr ess each ar gument i n t ur n.

II. Standard of Review

Wi t h one except i on t hat we note bel ow, Vzquez f ai l ed t o

r ai se bel ow t he er r ors he now asser t s on appeal . We r evi ew t hese

unpr eser ved cl ai ms f or pl ai n er r or , and t hus r equi r e Vzquez t o

meet t he "heavy bur den" of showi ng " ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed; ( 2)

t hat t he er r or was cl ear or obvi ous; ( 3) t hat t he er r or af f ect ed

hi s subst ant i al r i ght s; and ( 4) t hat t he er r or al so ser i ousl y

Pakay: I wor ked ever yt hi ng heavy wei ght .

[ Vzquez] : Yeah.

Pakay: We up t o t he ki l o, f or get i t .Ever yt hi ng' s ver y wel l .

-8-


9/36

i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Col on, 744 F. 3d 752, 757 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

III. Analysis

A. Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vzquez f i r st di r ect s us t o sever al r emar ks by the

pr osecut or dur i ng t he openi ng st at ement and cl osi ng argument t hat

Vzquez cl ai ms wer e pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . Havi ng not obj ect ed

at t r i al t o any of t hese r emar ks, he concedes t hat t he pl ai n er r or

st andard appl i es. See Uni t ed St ates v. Kasenge, 660 F. 3d 537, 541

( 1st Ci r . 2011) . I n t he cont ext of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , we

r ever se 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. " I d. at 542 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . We make t hi s det er mi nat i on consi der i ng

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

-9-


10/36

1. Witness Vouching

Vzquez' s f i r st char ge of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct i s

t hat t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y vouched f or L. O. ' s credi bi l i t y

dur i ng t he gover nment ' s i ni t i al cl osi ng argument . I mpr oper

vouchi ng encompasses st atement s by t he pr osecut or t hat "pl ace[ ] t he

pr est i ge of [ t he pr osecut or ' s] of f i ce behi nd t he gover nment ' s

case. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

The pr eci se l i ne between i mpr oper vouchi ng and per mi ssi bl e ar gument

i s a "hazy one. " Uni t ed St ates v. Vi zcar r ondo- Casanova, 763 F. 3d

89, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We

t her ef or e begi n by descr i bi ng a f ew t ypes of ar gument t hat f al l

f ai r l y cl ear l y on ei t her si de of t hat l i ne.

I t i s gener al l y per mi ssi bl e f or t he gover nment t o of f er

speci f i c " r easons why a wi t ness ought t o be accept ed as t r ut hf ul by

t he j ur y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez, 215 F. 3d 110, 123 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) ( not i mpr oper f or pr osecut or t o ar gue t hat cooper at i ng

wi t ness was cr edi bl e because hi s t est i mony put hi m and hi s f ami l y

i n danger ) . One such r eason i s t hat t he wi t ness t est i f i ed pur suant

t o a pl ea agr eement t hat r equi r ed t he wi t ness t o t est i f y t r ut hf ul l y

t o r ecei ve t he benef i t of t he bar gai n. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Hansen, 434 F. 3d 92, 101- 02 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( not i mpr oper f or

pr osecut or t o r emi nd j ur y t hat wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat he agr eed t o

t el l t he t r ut h i n a pl ea agr eement ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son,

320 F. 3d 92, 106 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( same) . Another proper

-10-


11/36

cr edi bi l i t y ar gument i s t hat a wi t ness woul d have t ol d a bet t er ,

mor e consi st ent st or y i f t he wi t ness had been l yi ng, see, e. g. ,

Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at 9- 10 ( " I f t hey wer e al l goi ng t o get up and

make up a st or y, woul dn' t i t have been a bet t er st or y?") , at l east

as l ong as t he argument does not asser t t hat t he l ack of

consi st ency was vi ewed as a si gn of cr edi bi l i t y by the gover nment

i t sel f , see Vi zcar r ondo- Casanova, 763 F. 3d at 96 ( possi bl y er r or ,

but not cl ear or obvi ous er r or , when pr osecut or ' s st at ement t hat

" t he Government knew t hat t he [ wi t nesses' ] ver si ons wer e goi ng t o

conf l i ct " coul d have been under st ood as " a suggest i on t hat t he

gover nment i t sel f concl uded t hat t he st or i es wer e cr edi bl e. " ) .

I n cont r ast , sever al f or ms of cr edi bi l i t y ar gument

pl ai nl y cr oss over i nt o i mpr oper vouchi ng. The f i r st f or m occur s

when t he pr osecut or t el l s t he j ur y that t he pr osecut or t akes

per sonal r esponsi bi l i t y or owner shi p of t he case and t hus di r ect l y

pl aces the gover nment ' s cr edi bi l i t y at i ssue. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Roj as, 758 F. 3d 61, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "[ I ] f you have

any i ssues wi t h t he way t hi s i nvest i gat i on was r un, bl ame me. I ' m

i n char ge. I ' m r esponsi bl e. ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. J osl eyn, 99 F. 3d

1182, 1197 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( " I ' m a mar r i ed per son wi t h a f ami l y,

and I go home at ni ght wi t h a sound consci ence. I have worked very

hard on t hi s case. . . . And we are ver y pr oud of what we have

done. We have done not hi ng t o be ashamed of . " ) . The second f or mof

pr ohi bi t ed vouchi ng occur s when t he pr osecut or " i mpar t [ s] her

-11-


12/36

per sonal bel i ef i n a wi t ness' s ver aci t y, " Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at

9, or i n t he def endant ' s gui l t , see Uni t ed St at es v. Andj ar - Basco,

488 F. 3d 549, 560- 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( " I f eel comf or t abl e and t he

Uni t ed St ates f eel s comf or t abl e that t hey have pr oven beyond a

r easonabl e doubt t hat t hi s man del i ver ed f i ve ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne. " ) . Bar e asser t i ons t hat a wi t ness was honest or cor r ect

ar e t her ef or e i mpr oper . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Rodr guez- Ador no, 695 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "Was [ t he

passenger ] cr edi bl e? Was he honest ? Of cour se, he was. " ( al t er at i on

i n or i gi nal ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gomes, 642 F. 3d 43, 46 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( t el l i ng a j ur y t hat a pol i ce det ect i ve "gave you honest ,

candi d, t r ut hf ul t est i mony" ( emphasi s r emoved) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Cast r o- Davi s, 612 F. 3d 53, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "I t hi nk [ t he

i dent i t y wi t ness' s] t est i mony was ver y cl ear . . . . I t seems t o

me, and I submi t t o you, t hat [ t he wi t ness] i s r i ght on t he money. "

( emphasi s r emoved) ) .

I t i s t hi s l at t er f or mof i mpr oper vouchi ng- - t he per sonal

assur ance of a wi t ness' s cr edi bi l i t y- - t hat Vzquez accuses t he

pr osecut or of empl oyi ng dur i ng hi s i ni t i al cl osi ng ar gument . The

al l eged vouchi ng, emphasi zed and accompani ed by t he sur r oundi ng

argument , went as f ol l ows:

Now, l et ' s t al k about [ L. O. ] . She had a t hi r d gr adeeducat i on. I submi t t o you she was a di f f i cul t wi t ness,di f f i cul t t o get her stor y out . Di f f i cul t t o get f r omher t he t hi ngs t hat she had t o t el l . You saw her on t hest and, you wer e abl e t o eval uat e her cr edi bi l i t y.

-12-


13/36

And I ask you, was she t el l i ng you t he t r ut h? Isubmi t t o you t hat she was.

Now, do you t hi nk she mi ni mi zed t hi ngs? Do yout hi nk she di dn' t want t o tel l you about t he ver dugo br andof dr ugs? Possi bl y. Possi bl y. But i s t her e any doubt

t hat she was a member of [ Vzquez' s] conspi r acy,begi nni ng i n t he ear l y 1990s, al l t he way up unt i l 2004?

Ther e shoul d be no r easonabl e doubt based on t heevi dence you hear d of her par t i ci pat i on, and mor epar t i cul ar l y, of t hi s Def endant ' s i nvol vement i n aconspi r acy, and when i t began . . . . You hear d t hatt est i mony. You r emember t hat .

Vzquez ar gues t hat t he emphasi zed l anguage i mproper l y conveyed t o

t he j ur y t he pr osecut or ' s per sonal opi ni on t hat L. O. was t r ut hf ul .

We doubt t he f or egoi ng st at ement amount ed t o i mproper

vouchi ng. The pr osecut or di d not cl ai m t o t hi nk or bel i eve t he

poi nt asser t ed. Cf . Cast r o- Davi s, 612 F. 3d at 67. Al so, t he

pr osecut or ' s wor ds as pr i nt ed on t he page are ambi guous. "Submi t "

can mean " t o pr esent or pr opose to another f or r evi ew,

consi der at i on or deci si on. " Mer r i am- Webst er ' s Col l egi at e

Di ct i onar y 1244 ( 11t h ed. 2012) . I n t hi s sense, i t i s

unobj ect i onabl e. See Hansen, 434 F. 3d at 102 ( " [ Wi t ness' s] [ pl ea]

deal her e i s t o t el l t he t r ut h, and I submi t t o you, t hat i s

pr eci sel y what he di d dur i ng t hi s t r i al , " was not i mpr oper

vouchi ng) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar shal l , 109 F. 3d 94, 100 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) ( "They say, I submi t t o you, t hey have t ol d t he st ory the wayi t t r ul y unf ol ded, " was not i mpr oper ) . "Submi t " can al so mean " t o

put f orwar d as an opi ni on or cont ent i on. " Mer r i am- Webst er ' s

Col l egi at e Di ct i onar y 1244 ( 11t h ed. 2012) . Whet her a j ur or woul d

-13-


14/36

hear t he spoken words as conveyi ng a pr oposi t i on f or r evi ew, or

conveyi ng what t he pr osecut or hi msel f t hi nks, l i kel y depends on

t one, cont ext , and t he j ur or ' s di sposi t i on.

Def ense counsel hear d t he pr osecut or ' s t one, i n cont ext .

Hi s l ack of any obj ect i on suggest s t hat nei t her t one nor cont ext

poi nt ed t owar d vouchi ng. See Marshal l , 109 F. 3d at 100 ( " [ A] n

excel l ent t est [ f or det er mi ni ng whet her t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement

was a per sonal endor sement ] i s whet her counsel contempor aneousl y

t hi nks t he l i ne has been cr ossed, and obj ect s, whi ch, i n t ur n,

enabl es t he cour t t o i nst r uct t he j ur y. ") . The pr ohi bi t i on agai nst

vouchi ng i s wi del y under st ood by def ense counsel , t he obj ect i on i s

easy t o make, and t he col l at er al ef f ect s of scor i ng a cor r ect i on i n

t he pr osecut or ' s cl osi ng ar e of t en advant ageous f or t he def endant .

Even on the col d page, cont ext suggest s t hat t he message

as conveyed and r ecei ved was not one of personal vouchi ng. The

pr osecut or ' s i mmedi atel y pr ecedi ng st atement ( " [ y] ou saw her on t he

st and, you wer e abl e to eval uat e her cr edi bi l i t y") dr ew t he j ur or s'

at t ent i on t o i t s pr oper f ocus- - t hei r eval uat i on of L. O. ' s

cr edi bi l i t y based on t hei r obser vat i ons dur i ng her t est i mony. And

i mmedi atel y af t er ward t he pr osecut or ant i ci pated and addr essed t he

-14-


15/36

def ense' s poi nt t hat L. O. mi ni mi zed her i nvol vement i n t he

conspi r acy. 5

I n sum, t he pr osecut or ' s s t at ement upon whi ch Vzquez

pr i nci pal l y bases hi s ar gument was l i kel y not vouchi ng, 6 and i n any

case was not cl ear l y or obvi ousl y vouchi ng. See

Vi zcar r ondo- Casanova, 763 F. 3d at 96 ( "Whi l e t he pr osecut or

unwi sel y put hi s t oes up t o t he l i ne, i f t her e was er r or i t was not

' cl ear and obvi ous. ' ") . For t hat r eason al one we must r ej ect t hi s

gr ounds f or appeal .

2. Comment on Failure to Testify

Vzquez next ar gues t hat dur i ng r ebut t al t he pr osecut or

i mpr oper l y comment ed on Vzquez' s deci si on not t o t est i f y. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi hbey, 75 F. 3d 761, 769 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . The

chal l enged comment came i n r esponse t o def ense counsel ' s cl osi ng

5 The pr osecut or devel oped t hi s poi nt i n r ebut t al , and i ndoi ng so emphasi zed t o the j ur y t hat i t al one was t o det er mi ne t het r ut hf ul ness of L. O. ' s t est i mony:

You can deter mi ne whether [ L. O. ] was compl et el y l yi ng,whether she was shadi ng t he t r ut h, or whet her ever yt hi ngt hat she sai d was t he t r ut h. That ' s your j ob as j ur or s.. . . And I submi t t o you t he evi dence of [ L. O. ] t hatshe pr esent ed t o you i s t el l i ng. You can make t hedet er mi nat i ons of wher e she shaded and wher e she was al i t t l e hesi t ant . Make t hose det er mi nat i ons.

6 We al so r ej ect Vzquez' s addi t i onal cont ent i on t hat t heprosecutor somehow vouched f or t he wi t ness when he poi nted out herl ack of educat i on, t her eby i mpl yi ng, says Vzquez, t hat she coul dnot have made up a l i e. As we have al r eady noted, supr a, t her e i snothi ng wr ong wi t h poi nt i ng out f act s t hat may be vi ewed as bear i ngon cr edi bi l i t y. See Rodr guez, 215 F. 3d at 123.

-15-


16/36

argument , whi ch f ocused on t he government ' s t hr ee mai n wi t nesses- -

L. O. , J . S. , and F. R. - - and what t hose t hr ee wi t nesses had t o gai n by

t est i f yi ng. The pr osecut or t hen began hi s rebut t al as f ol l ows:

Member s of t he j ur y, I submi t t hat i n r esponse todef ense counsel sai d [ si c] , i f t hi s wer e such a si mpl ecase, why ar e [ si c] we her e two weeks? . . .

I submi t t o you t hat t he wi t nesses t hat you hear dand t he t est i mony you hear d and t he evi dence t hat youhear d took t wo weeks t o get i n bef ore you.

The t hr ee wi t nesses, t he t hr ee key wi t nesses, t hereweren' t t hr ee wi t nesses agai nst t he Def endant , members oft he j ur y. Ther e wer e 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 wi t nesses- - Idon' t have t he exact count . But ever y wi t ness t hat cameand t est i f i ed bef or e you was a wi t ness agai nst t heDef endant ; ever y pol i ce of f i cer , ever y agent , ever ycooper at i ng def endant , ever y cooper at i ng wi t ness. Ever yone of t hem was a wi t ness agai nst t he Def endant . Notj ust t hr ee.

( emphasi s added) .

I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat " [ c] omment by a pr osecut or on

a def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y vi ol at es t he Fi f t h Amendment

guar ant ee agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on. " Wi hbey, 75 F. 3d at 769

( ci t i ng Gr i f f i n v. Cal i f or ni a, 380 U. S. 609, 615 ( 1965) ) . When a

st atement i s not obvi ousl y a comment on t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o

t est i f y, we ask "[ w] het her , i n t he ci r cumst ances of t he par t i cul ar

case, t he l anguage used was mani f est l y i nt ended or was of such

char act er t hat t he j ur y woul d nat ur al l y and necessar i l y t ake i t t o

be a comment on t he f ai l ur e of t he accused t o t est i f y. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Newt on, 327 F. 3d 17, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Gl ant z, 810 F. 2d 316, 322 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) .

-16-


17/36

I n cont ext , t he pr osecut or ' s comment was not i mpr oper .

See Uni t ed St ates v. Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1187 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( " I n assayi ng t he appr opr i at eness of a pr osecut or ' s r emar ks,

cont ext f r equent l y det er mi nes meani ng. " ) . Al t hough i n i sol at i on

t he st atement "ever y wi t ness t hat came and t est i f i ed bef ore you was

a wi t ness agai nst t he Def endant " mi ght suppor t t he negat i ve

i nf er ence t hat Vzquez di d not hi msel f t est i f y, t hi s was not t he

comment ' s " mani f est l y i nt ended" or "nat ur al [ ] and necessar [ y] "

meani ng when r ead i n t he cont ext of t he def ense' s cl osi ng argument .

Newt on, 327 F. 3d at 27. We wi l l "not l i ght l y i nf er t hat a

prosecut or i ntends an ambi guous r emar k t o have i t s most damagi ng

meani ng or t hat a j ur y, si t t i ng t hr ough a l engt hy exhor t at i on, wi l l

dr aw t hat meani ng f r om t he pl et hor a of l ess damagi ng

i nt er pr et at i ons. " Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 54 F. 3d 967, 979 ( 1st

Ci r . 1995) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s i s especi al l y

t r ue when the ambi guous r emar k draws no obj ect i on, as was t he case

her e. I d. ( "We ar e especi al l y r el uct ant t o ' f i sh i n t he pool of

ambi gui t y' when . . . t he compl ai ni ng par t y f ai l ed t o br i ng a

dubi ous comment , easi l y cor r ect ed on pr oper not i ce, t o t he

i mmedi at e at t ent i on of t he t r i al cour t . " ( quot i ng Sepul veda, 15

F. 3d at 1188) ) . The mor e nat ur al , pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

pr osecut or ' s st at ement i s si mpl y that he was r ebut t i ng t he cl ai m

t hat t he gover nment ' s case r est ed on t he t est i mony of onl y t hr ee

wi t nesses.

-17-


18/36

I n any event , even i f t he pr osecut or ' s comment had

crossed t he l i ne, i t woul d not r i se t o t he l evel of pl ai n er r or .

The di st r i ct cour t gave t he j ur y cl ear i nst r uct i ons on Vzquez' s

r i ght not t o t est i f y and t he bur den of pr oof . 7 These i nst r uct i ons,

and t he si gni f i cant evi dence of Vzquez' s gui l t , made i t unl i kel y

t hat t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement af f ect ed t he out come of t he t r i al .

See Wi hbey, 75 F. 3d at 770- 71. 8

7 The r el evant j ur y i nst r uct i ons wer e as f ol l ows:

Members of t he j ur y, a def endant has aConst i t ut i onal r i ght not t o t est i f y, and t her ef or e, noi nf er ence of gui l t or of anythi ng el se may be dr awn f r omt he f act t hat t he Def endant does not t est i f y.

For any of you, t he j ur or s, t o i ndul ge i n such ani nf er ence woul d be wr ong. I ndeed, i t woul d be a vi ol at i onof your oat h as a j ur or . The f act t hat Mr . I smaelVzquez- Lar r aur i di d not t est i f y or of f er any evi dencemust not be consi der ed by you i n any way, or evendi scussed by any of you dur i ng your del i ber at i ons.

I r emi nd you, member s of t he j ur y, t hat i t i s up t ot he Gover nment t o prove t he Def endant , I smaelVzquez- Lar r aur i , gui l t y beyond a reasonabl e doubt . I t i snot up t o t he Def endant t o pr ove t hat he i s not gui l t y.

8 To t he ext ent Vzquez f ur t her cont ends t hat t he chal l engedcomment i mper mi ss i bl y shi f t ed t he bur den of pr oof , t hi s argumental so f ai l s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gl over , 558 F. 3d 71, 77 ( 1st Ci r .2009) . Ascr i bi ng a bur den- shi f t i ng meani ng t o t he pr osecut or ' scomment i s even mor e of a st r et ch t han i nt erpr et i ng i t as a commenton Vzquez' s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y.

-18-


19/36

3. Duty to Acquit

Dur i ng t he i ni t i al cl osi ng, t he pr osecut or t ol d t he

j ur or s, " I ask you and I advi se you i t ' s your dut y as j ur or s, i f

you have r easonabl e doubt , you must acqui t [ Vzquez] , you must

acqui t hi m. That ' s your j ob. " Vzquez ar gues t hat advi si ng t he

j ur y of i t s dut y somehow i nf l amed i t s passi ons and i nt er f er ed wi t h

i t s i mpar t i al i t y. We di sagr ee. Ther e i s not hi ng wr ong wi t h t he

gover nment aski ng t he j ur y to acqui t i f i t f i nds t he gover nment

f ai l ed t o meet i t s bur den, and t he cour t i n f act i nst r uct ed t he

j ur y t o do t he same. 9 Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Gar c a, 574 F. 3d

5, 17- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i t was i nappr opr i at e f or t he pr osecut or ,

af t er sever al i nf l ammat or y r emar ks, t o t el l t he j ur y, "I char ge you

t o do your j ob, f i nd t he Def endant s gui l t y. ") .

4. Misstating the Evidence

For t he r emai ni ng chal l enged comment s, Vzquez

essent i al l y compl ai ns t he pr osecut or mi sst at ed or exagger at ed t he

evi dence i n t he r ecor d. Sever al of t hese chal l enges ar e

per f unct ory, undevel oped, and t her ef or e wai ved. Uni t ed St at es v.

Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . I n any event , we f i nd

none of t hese comment s i mpr oper and br i ef l y addr ess each i n t ur n.

9 The cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat , "i f af t er a f ai r and ani mpar t i al consi der at i on of al l t he evi dence you have a r easonabl edoubt as t o t he Def endant ' s gui l t of a par t i cul ar of f ense, i t i syour dut y to acqui t hi m of t hat of f ense. "

-19-


20/36

Vzquez f i r st chal l enges a st at ement dur i ng t he

gover nment ' s i ni t i al cl osi ng ar gument t hat " [ Vzquez] got r i d of

anybody t hat r epr esent ed a t hr eat t o hi m, begi nni ng wi t h Cheo,

cont i nui ng wi t h Mamart , and El Ar abe. That ' s how t he dr ug

t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on wor ked. " Vzquez ar gues t hat t he use of

"anybody" was an unsuppor t ed ext r apol at i on f r om t he t hr ee mur der s

i n evi dence and r ef er r ed t o the excl uded evi dence of other mur der s,

but t hi s st at ement mer el y summar i zed t he t est i mony of L. O. and J . S.

t hat Vzquez got r i d of al l t hr ee of t he t hr eat s t hat t hey

t est i f i ed about - - Cheo Cabezon, Mamar t , and El Ar abe. J . S.

t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez t ol d hi m much the same t hi ng, " t hat whoever

woul d be agai nst hi m, t he same t hi ng woul d happen t o t hat per son

t han [ si c] t o t he ones who are dead. "

Vzquez next chal l enges t he pr osecut or ' s pr omi se dur i ng

hi s openi ng st at ement t hat t he j ur y woul d "hear what happened t o

[ L. O. ' s] son [ El Ar abe] at t he hands of [ Vzquez] . " Al t hough

Vzquez cor r ect l y not es t hat t her e was no evi dence t hat he ki l l ed

El Ar abe l i t er al l y wi t h hi s hands, bot h L. O. and J . S. t est i f i ed

t hat Vzquez or der ed El Ar abe ki l l ed. I t was t her ef or e har dl y

i mper mi ssi bl e t o make t he f i gur at i ve argument t hat El Ar abe di ed

"at t he hands of " Vzquez when ki l l ed by Vzquez' s cr ony at hi s

behest . Vzquez si mi l ar l y chal l enges t he pr osecut or ' s st at ement

dur i ng t he i ni t i al cl osi ng ar gument t hat "[ L. O. ] got up her e and

t est i f i ed t hat t hi s man her e, I smael Vzquez, dest r oyed her l i f e,

-20-


21/36

t hat ' s what she t est i f i ed, he destr oyed her l i f e. . . . [ T] hat ' s

why [ L. O. ] says t he Def endant dest r oyed her l i f e, because her son

never made i t t o Chr i st mas 2004. " Thi s mer el y r est at ed L. O. ' s

admi ssi bl e test i mony, see i nf r a, t hat Vzquez order ed her son' s

deat h and i n doi ng so "dest r oyed [ her ] l i f e. "

Fi nal l y, Vzquez chal l enges t wo of t he pr osecut or ' s

comment s t o t he j ur y about dr ug quant i t y. Fi r st , dur i ng t he

openi ng st at ement , t he pr osecut or r ef er r ed t o Vzquez as " t he

l argest dr ug deal er i n Cayey. " Vzquez argues t hat t her e was no

basi s f or t hi s comment because t here was no evi dence of ot her dr ug

deal er s' sal es i n Cayey dur i ng t hi s t i me. I t woul d be r easonabl e

t o i nf er t hat Vzquez was t he l ar gest dr ug deal er i n Cayey,

however , gi ven t he t est i mony t hat he cont r ol l ed " t he mega dr ug

poi nt [ ] " at J ar di nes, whi ch was "t he l ar gest . . . housi ng pr oj ect

of Cayey, " as wel l as dr ug poi nt s at Mor al es and El Pol vor n i n

Cayey, and t hat he or der ed pot ent i al compet i t or s ki l l ed. I n any

event , we doubt t he j ur y woul d have changed i t s ver di ct i f i t

t ur ned out he was t he second- or t hi r d- l ar gest deal er i n t he ar ea.

Si mi l ar l y, we f i nd not hi ng obj ect i onabl e i n t he pr osecut or ' s

pl ausi bl e suggest i on t hat t he t ot al quant i t y of dr ugs di st r i but ed

over t he f our t een years of Vzquez' s l eader shi p was gr eat er

( pr obabl y si gni f i cant l y gr eat er ) t han t hat di st r i but ed over a

t hr ee- year snapshot .

-21-


22/36

B. Evidentiary Challenges

1. The Murder Testimony

Two of t he gover nment ' s cooper at i ng wi t nesses, L. O. and

J . S. , t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez or dered t he ki l l i ngs of t hr ee

i ndi vi dual s- - L. O. ' s son El Ar abe, Cheo Cabezon, and Mamar t - - who

posed a t hr eat t o hi s dr ug poi nt s. The di st r i ct cour t r ef used t o

admi t addi t i onal t est i mony or evi dence about t hese t hr ee mur der s or

any evi dence about t wo ot her mur ders. Vzquez argues t hat t hi s

t est i mony was i nadmi ssi bl e because " i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s

subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "

Fed. R. Evi d. 403.

We revi ew pr eser ved evi dent i ary chal l enges f or an abuse

of di scr et i on. Vi zcar r ondo- Casanova, 763 F. 3d at 94. Vzquez di d

obj ect at si debar bef or e J . S. ' s t est i mony about t he mur der s of El

Ar abe and Cheo t hat such t est i mony woul d be unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al .

He f ai l ed t o t i mel y obj ect , however , t o L. O. ' s ear l i er t est i mony

about t he t hr ee murders. We t heref ore r evi ew t he admi ss i on of her

t est i mony f or pl ai n er r or . Regar dl ess of t he st andar d of r evi ew,

however , "[ o] nl y r ar el y and i n ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng

ci r cumst ances wi l l we, f r om t he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d,

r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s on- t he- spot j udgment concer ni ng t he

r el at i ve wei ghi ng of pr obat i ve val ue and unf ai r ef f ect . " I d.

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-22-


23/36

Ther e ar e no such compel l i ng ci r cumst ances here, under

ei t her abuse of di scr et i on or pl ai n er r or r evi ew. The i ndi ct ment

char ged t hat i t was "par t of t he manner and means of t he conspi r acy

t hat some of t he co- conspi r at or s woul d use vi ol ence, f or ce and

i nt i mi dat i on agai nst member s of t hei r own dr ug t r af f i cki ng

or gani zat i on and r i val s i n or der t o mai nt ai n cont r ol of t he dr ug

t r af f i cki ng oper at i ons. " Bot h wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez

ordered t he mur ders because Vzquez vi ewed t he vi ct i ms as t hr eat s

t o hi s cont r ol over t he dr ug poi nt s. The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

deter mi ned t hat t hi s t est i mony was hi ghl y pr obat i ve t o show t he

manner i n whi ch t he dr ug conspi r acy operat ed and t he way i t s

member s f ur t her ed i t s goal s, as char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d 78, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

More i mpor t ant l y, t he t est i mony showed t hat Vzquez l ed t he

conspi r acy by enf or ci ng i t s r ul es and pr ot ect i ng i t f r om i nt er nal

and ext er nal t hr eat s. See i d.

Nor di d any unf ai r pr ej udi ce f r om t hi s t est i mony

subst ant i al l y out wei gh i t s pr obat i ve val ue. The mur der evi dence

was l i mi t ed t o t est i mony f r omt he f i r st t wo wi t nesses i n a ni ne- day

t r i al and was not over l y gr aphi c. 10 There was no t est i mony f r om

10 The most gr aphi c t est i mony came f r omL. O. I n descr i bi ng herson' s deat h, she sai d, " I pi ck up my son. He t el l s me t o st and hi mup, t hat he was bl eedi ng out t oo much i n t he upper par t of t he l egt hr ough a vei n. " Wi t h r egar d t o Mamar t ' s deat h, she t est i f i ed,"Wel l , you coul d f eel a whol e bunch of shoot i ng. You coul d j usthear a whol e mess of shoot i ng. And we went downst ai r s wher eever ybody was scr eami ng. Mamar t was al r eady on t he gr ound and he

-23-


24/36

bal l i st i cs exper t s, pat hol ogi st s, or cri me scene i nvest i gat or s.

Cf . i d. at 98- 99 ( such t est i mony was not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al i n

dr ug conspi r acy case) . The onl y photogr aphs t he j ur y saw wer e of

El Ar abe' s body ( cl eaned, apparent l y i n a morgue, and used f or

i dent i f i cat i on pur poses) and the bl oody st ai r wel l wher e he was

shot . Mor eover , af t er t he gover nment el i ci t ed t est i mony f r omL. O.

about her son' s deat h, t he di st r i ct cour t t ook st eps t o scr een f or

unf ai r pr ej udi ce by requi r i ng t he pr osecut or t o f i r st make a

pr of f er of any f ur t her mur der t est i mony. Ther e was no abuse of

di scret i on or pl ai n er r or i n admi t t i ng t hi s t est i mony.

2. Leading Questions

Vzquez al so cl ai ms t hat t he government i mpr oper l y used

l eadi ng quest i ons dur i ng t he di r ect exami nat i ons of t wo of i t s

wi t nesses, L. O. and Agent Cr uz- Vzquez. Because Vzquez di d not

obj ect t o any of t he quest i ons he now chal l enges on appeal , we

r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 611( c) pr ovi des

t hat " [ l ] eadi ng quest i ons shoul d not be used on di r ect exami nat i on

except as necessar y t o devel op t he wi t ness' s t est i mony. " We af f or d

t he di st r i ct cour t "ext ensi ve di scr et i on over t he phr asi ng of

quest i ons, " because "t he t r i al j udge i s best si t uat ed t o st r i ke a

pr act i cal and f ai r bal ance. " Hansen, 434 F. 3d at 105 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

was al r eady dead, wi t h hi s head sor t of squi shed by t he shot s. "

-24-


25/36

Vzquez ci t es t wo exampl es of al l egedl y i mpr oper l eadi ng

quest i ons dur i ng L. O. ' s t est i mony. The f i r st quest i on was not even

l eadi ng- - t he pr osecut or mer el y ref er enced i n hi s quest i on L. O. ' s

pr i or t est i mony t hat Vzquez f i r ed Cheo Cabezon f r om t he dr ug

conspi r acy. 11 I n t he second exampl e, t he pr osecut or l ed L. O.

t hr ough some basi c ar i t hmet i c t o cl ar i f y t he year her son di ed. 12

Thi s was har dl y i mpr oper . Uni t ed St at es v. Mul i nel l i - Navas, 111

F. 3d 983, 990 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( not al ways i mpr oper f or pr osecut or

t o use l eadi ng quest i ons " t o assi st i n devel opi ng coher ent

11 The exchange between t he pr osecut or , L. O. , and t he cour twent as f ol l ows:

Q. Now, Cheo, you t est i f i ed was one of t hel eader s, cor r ect ?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why- - you t est i f i ed yest er day

al so t hat he was ki cked out .

A. Yes.

. . . .

The Cour t : Don' t become a wi t ness . . . .

[ Pr osecut or ] : Your Honor , I was j ust r ecappi ng t het est i mony f r om yest er day.

The day bef or e t hi s exchange, L. O. had t est i f i ed t hat Vzquez

" f i r ed" Cheo Cabezon.12 L. O. coul d not r emember whet her her son had di ed i n 2004 or

2005, but knew t hat t he seventh anni ver sar y of hi s deat h had beeni n December 2011. ( She t est i f i ed i n 2012. ) Vzquez t akes i ssuewi t h t he pr osecut or ' s cl ar i f yi ng quest i on: "So woul d you agr ee wi t hme t hat 11 mi nus 7 i s 4, and so i t woul d be 2004?"

-25-


26/36

t est i mony") . Al t hough t he gover nment di d use l eadi ng quest i ons

wi t h Agent Cr uz- Vzquez, t hese quest i ons l ai d a f oundat i on f or

pl ayi ng wi r et ap r ecor di ngs. The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r , l et

al one cl ear l y or obvi ousl y er r , i n al l owi ng t hese quest i ons, and i n

any event Vzquez f aces " an i nsurmount abl e hur dl e" on pl ai n er r or

r evi ew because he has made no "ef f or t t o show t hat such er r or

l i kel y af f ect ed t he out come bel ow. " Hansen, 434 F. 3d at 105.

C. Sentencing Challenges

Vzquez chal l enges hi s l i f e sent ences pr i mar i l y on t he

basi s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed pl ai n er r or i n f ai l i ng t o

make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng on dr ug quant i t y when det er mi ni ng

t he Gui del i nes Sent enci ng Range. He al so makes a f l eet i ng, passi ng

asser t i on t hat a l i f e sent ence exceeds t he "maxi mum penal t y" f or

t he f i r ear m of f ense ( Count VI ) . We addr ess each cont ent i on i n

t ur n.

1. Guidelines Calculation

Vzquez' s Pr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( PSR)

r ecommended that he be hel d account abl e f or at l east 48 ki l ogr ams

of her oi n and 48 ki l ogr ams of cr ack cocai ne based onl y on a f our -

year sampl e of t he conspi r acy. Thi s r ecommendat i on was based on

" i nf or mat i on made avai l abl e by t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce. " The

PSR al so not ed t hat accor di ng t o t est i mony at t r i al , Vzquez used

hi s f ar m t o st or e and sel l dr ugs by t he ki l ogr am. Vzquez di d not

f i l e any wr i t t en obj ect i ons t o t he PSR.

-26-


27/36

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ouped t oget her t he

f i ve dr ug of f enses, see U. S. S. G. 3D1. 2( d) , and t he f i r ear m

of f ense, see i d. 3D1. 2( c) , t o det er mi ne Vzquez' s Base Of f ense

Level of 38. 13 The di st r i ct cour t made no speci f i c f i ndi ng on dr ug

quant i t y and di d not st at e t hat i t was r el yi ng on t he PSR' s f i ndi ng

t hat Vzquez was responsi bl e f or at l east 48 ki l ogr ams each of

her oi n and cr ack cocai ne. I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t si mpl y

announced t hat

The gui del i ne f or a 21 U. S. Code, sect i on 846,of f ense i s f ound i n Gui del i ne Sect i on 2D1. 1, whi chpr ovi des t hat of f enses i nvol vi ng i n excess of 30ki l ogr ams of her oi n and i n excess of 8. 4 ki l ogr ams ofcr ack cocai ne, have a base of f ense l evel of 38 underGui del i ne Sect i on 2D1. 1( c) ( 1) .

The di st r i ct cour t t hen appl i ed t wel ve l evel s of enhancement 14 t o

ar r i ve at a Total Of f ense Level of 50. Because t he maxi mum Tot al

Of f ense Level under t he Gui del i nes i s 43, t he di st r i ct cour t

assi gned Vzquez a Tot al Of f ense Level of 43. See i d. ch. 5, pt .

13 The di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he November 1, 2012,Gui del i nes, t he edi t i on i n ef f ect on t he dat e of sent enci ng. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 630 F. 3d 39, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .Ci t at i ons i n t hi s opi ni on ar e t o t he 2012 Gui del i nes.

14 The di st r i ct cour t appl i ed a t wo- l evel enhancement f orcommi t t i ng t he of f ense i n a pr ot ect ed l ocat i on, U. S. S. G. 2D1. 2( a) ( 1) , a t wo- l evel enhancement f or possessi on of a

danger ous f i r ear mi n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense, i d. 2D1. 1( b) ( 1) , a t wo- l evel enhancement f or di r ect i ng t he use ofvi ol ence, i d. 2D1. 1( b) ( 2) , a t wo- l evel enhancement f ormai nt ai ni ng a pr emi ses f or t he pur pose of di st r i but i ng a cont r ol l edsubst ance, i d. 2D1. 1( b) ( 12) , and a f our - l evel enhancement f orbei ng a l eader of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on wi t h f i ve or mor epar t i ci pant s, i d. 3B1. 1( a) .

-27-


28/36

A, cmt . n. 2. Based on a Cr i mi nal Hi st or y Cat egor y of I I , t he

di st r i ct cour t cal cul at ed Vzquez' s Gui del i nes Sent enci ng Range as

l i f e i n pr i son. Af t er r evi ewi ng t he 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) sent enci ng

f act or s, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced Vzquez t o concur r ent

sent ences of l i f e i n pr i son f or al l si x count s.

Nei t her par t y made any obj ect i ons dur i ng t he sent enci ng

hear i ng. Vzquez' s def ense counsel not ed t hat Vzquez pr eached at

t he cor r ect i onal f aci l i t y and suggest ed onl y t hat t he cour t

r ecommend t heol ogy cour ses. Vzquez personal l y di d not make any

ar gument s about hi s sent ence.

The Base Of f ense Level f or dr ug of f enses depends most l y

on t he quant i t y of dr ugs i nvol ved i n t he of f ense. U. S. S. G.

2D1. 1( c) . When f ashi oni ng a Gui del i nes r ecommended sent ence f or

a dr ug conspi r acy or possessi on of f ense, t he di st r i ct cour t must

make a f i ndi ng of dr ug quant i t y by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence.

Uni t ed St at es v. Pi zar r o, 772 F. 3d 284, 294 nn. 13 & 14 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . Thi s f i ndi ng must be "an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o dr ug

amount s at t r i but abl e t o, or f or eseeabl e by, t hat def endant . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ;

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Escobar - Fi guer oa, 454 F. 3d 40, 51 n. 3

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( appl yi ng Col n- Sol s t o Gui del i nes cal cul at i ons) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not make t he r equi r ed

i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng. The bar e r eci t at i on of t he

her oi n and cr ack cocai ne t hr eshol d quant i t i es f or a Base Of f ense

-28-


29/36

Level of 38 under U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) does not qual i f y as such a

f i ndi ng. See Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d at 103- 04. However , because

Vzquez never l odged an obj ect i on at sent enci ng, we revi ew hi s

cl ai m f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Medi na- Vi l l egas, 700 F. 3d

580, 583 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o

make an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng was an er r or t hat was

cl ear and obvi ous, Vzquez cannot make t he r equi si t e showi ng t hat

t hi s er r or af f ected hi s subst ant i al r i ght s or "ser i ousl y i mpai r ed

t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56,

60 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . I n par t i cul ar , f or at l east t wo r easons he

cannot show t hat "but f or t he er r or , t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have

i mposed a di f f er ent , mor e f avor abl e sent ence. " I d. ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Fi r st , because Vzquez di d not obj ect t o t he PSR, t he

di st r i ct cour t coul d have r el i ed on t he PSR' s r ecommended f i ndi ng

t hat Vzquez was responsi bl e f or at l east 48 ki l ogr ams each of

her oi n and cr ack cocai ne. See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A) ( "At

sent enci ng, t he cour t . . . may accept any undi sput ed por t i on of

t he pr esent ence r epor t as a f i ndi ng of f act . ") ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Ocasi o- Cancel , 727 F. 3d 85, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "When a f act i s set

out i n a pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t and i s not t he subj ect of

a t i mel y obj ect i on, t he di st r i ct cour t may t r eat t he f act as t r ue

f or sent enci ng pur poses. " ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Medi na, 167

-29-


30/36

F. 3d 77, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "The unchal l enged por t i ons of t he PSR

pr ovi de us wi t h an i ndependent gr ound on whi ch t o j ust i f y our

deci si on. " ) . The PSR' s unchal l enged r ecommended quant i t y f i ndi ng

was mor e t han adequat e t o meet t he t hreshol d of 30 ki l ogr ams of

her oi n or 8. 4 ki l ogr ams of cr ack cocai ne requi r ed f or a Base

Of f ense Level of 38. U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) .

Second, even r el yi ng onl y on t he l esser quant i t i es of

dr ugs f or whi ch the j ur y f ound Vzquez r esponsi bl e beyond a

r easonabl e doubt , Vzquez st i l l woul d have been subj ect t o a

Gui del i nes Sent enci ng Range t hat i ncl uded l i f e i n pr i son. Vzquez

does not chal l enge t he t wel ve l evel s wor t h of enhancement s t he

di st r i ct cour t appl i ed t o det er mi ne hi s Tot al Of f ense Level .

Ther ef or e, a Base Of f ense Level of 31 or mor e woul d have r esul t ed

i n t he same maxi mum Tot al Of f ense Level of 43 and t he same

Gui del i nes Sent enci ng Range of l i f e i n pr i son. And i ndeed,

consi der i ng onl y t he f our possessi on count s ( Count s I I - V) and

l eavi ng asi de t he conspi r acy count ( Count I ) , t he j ur y f ound beyond

a r easonabl e doubt t hat Vzquez possessed wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

enough of each dr ug t hat hi s Base Of f ense Level woul d have been 32

based onl y on t he j ur y' s f i ndi ngs. See U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) ( 4) . The

ver di ct f or m compl et ed by the j ur y asked, f or Count s I I t hr ough V,

" [ d] o you f i nd beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he quant i t y of

cont r ol l ed subst ances t hat [ Vzquez] possessed wi t h the i nt ent t o

di st r i but e was" equal t o or mor e t han one ki l ogr am of her oi n, 50

-30-


31/36

gr ams of cr ack cocai ne, f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, and 100

ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana. The j ur y checked "yes" i n r esponse t o each

quest i on. One ki l ogr am of her oi n or f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne

al one woul d be suf f i ci ent f or a Base Of f ense Level of 32. I d.

Al t er nat i vel y, gr oupi ng t oget her t he quant i t i es f ound by t he j ur y

yi el ds a t ot al of f ense quant i t y equal t o 2, 278. 55 ki l ogr ams of

mar i j uana equi val ent s. 15 See i d. 3D1. 2( d) , 3D1. 3( b) ( gr oupi ng

dr ug of f enses) ; 2D1. 1 cmt s. 8( B) , ( D) ( combi ni ng di f f er ent

cont r ol l ed subst ances usi ng mar i j uana equi val ent s) . Because t hi s

amount i s bet ween 1, 000 and 3, 000 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana, i t t oo

yi el ds a Base Of f ense Level of 32. I d. 2D1. 1( c) ( 4) .

A Base Of f ense Level of 32, wi t h t he unchal l enged t wel ve

l evel s of enhancement , woul d have resul t ed i n a Total Of f ense Level

of 44. The Tot al Of f ense Level must be r educed t o t he maxi mum of

43, i d. ch. 5, pt . A, cmt . n. 2, t he same Tot al Of f ense Level t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t used i n sent enci ng Vzquez t o l i f e i n pr i son.

Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s cl ear and obvi ous er r or di d not

af f ect Vzquez' s sent ence, and does not r equi r e rever sal on pl ai n

er r or r evi ew.

15 One ki l ogr am of her oi n i s equi val ent t o 1, 000 ki l ogr ams ofmar i j uana; 50 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne i s equi val ent t o 178. 55ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana; and f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne i s equi val entt o 1, 000 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana. U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1 cmt . 8( D) . Thet ot al gr ouped mar i j uana equi val ent s f or Count s I I t o V i s t her ef or e1, 000 ki l ogr ams + 178. 55 ki l ogr ams + 1, 000 ki l ogr ams + 100ki l ogr ams = 2, 278. 55 ki l ogr ams.

-31-


32/36

2. Life Sentence in Excess of Statutory Maximum on

Count VI

I n hi s openi ng br i ef , Vzquez ment i ons i n passi ng t hat

hi s l i f e sent ence f or t he f i r ear m of f ense ( Count VI ) exceeded "t he

maxi mum penal t y. " 16 He di d not devel op t hi s poi nt i n any of hi s

br i ef s or at or al ar gument . Usual l y, we deem such a per f unct or y

chal l enge t o wai ve a chal l enge t o many t ypes of cl ai med er r or .

Zanni no, 895 F. 2d at 17 ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct or y

manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel oped ar gument at i on,

are deemed wai ved. " ) . Here, t hough, where t he er r or t hat comes t o

our at t ent i on on di r ect r evi ew i s a pl ai nl y unl awf ul and excessi ve

sent ence ( al bei t on one count onl y) , we may set asi de the er r or t o

pr event a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Gar c a- Or t i z, 528 F. 3d 74, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( deci di ng t o addr ess

ot herwi se wai ved ar gument t hat l i f e sent ence on one count exceeded

st at ut or y maxi mumt o pr event a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce, even t houghdef endant was st i l l subj ect t o l i f e sent ence on anot her count ) .

16 Thi s passi ng r ef er ence r eads i n f ul l , "[ h] er e, wher e t hedef endant was i ssued a l i f e sent ence on count s one thr ough si x oft he i ndi ct ment , exceedi ng t he maxi mum penal t y f or count s t hr ee,f i ve, and si x of t he i ndi ctment , t he f ai l ur e t o per f or m t her equi r ed anal ysi s of dr ug amount af f ect ed t he def endant ' ssubst ant i ve r i ght s and t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c reput at i onof t he j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Hi s suggest i on t hat t he l i f e

sent ences on t he crack cocai ne and mar i j uana possessi on char ges( Count s I I I and V) exceeded t he st at ut or y maxi mumi s wi t hout mer i t .Vzquez f aced a st at ut ory maxi mumof l i f e i mpr i sonment on t hose t wocount s based on a pr i or f el ony dr ug convi ct i on and t he quant i t i esof cr ack cocai ne and mar i j uana ( f i f t y gr ams and one hundr edki l ogr ams, r espect i vel y) t hat t he j ur y f ound Vzquez possessed wi t hi nt ent t o di st r i but e. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( B) ( i i i ) , ( vi i ) .

-32-


33/36

The er r or here i s Vzquez' s l i f e sentence f or t he f i r ear m

of f ense, Count VI , whi ch exceeds t he appl i cabl e st atut ory maxi mum.

18 U. S. C. 924( o) ( a def endant convi ct ed of conspi r acy to possess

a f i r ear mi n f ur t her ance of a dr ug of f ense "shal l be i mpr i soned f or

not more t han 20 years" ) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Al mont e- Nuez, 771

F. 3d 84, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "Gui del i ne cal cul at i ons si mpl y cannot

usurp a maxi mum l evel of i mpr i sonment est abl i shed by Congr ess. " ) .

Sect i on 924( o) does provi de f or a maxi mum l i f e sent ence " i f t he

f i r ear m i s a machi negun or dest r uct i ve devi ce, or i s equi pped wi t h

a f i r ear m si l encer or muf f l er , " but t her e was no such f i ndi ng by

t he j ur y her e.

As a pr act i cal mat t er , Vzquez' s over al l sent ence of l i f e

i n pr i son wi l l not change even i f we vacate hi s above- t he- maxi mum

sent ence f or t he f i r ear m possessi on of f ense, because t he l i f e

sent ences on hi s ot her f i ve count s ( Count s I - V) wi l l r emai n. We

r ecent l y observed t hat " [ w] e have not adopt ed a uni f or m r ul e about

whet her , wi t hout a pr eser ved cl ai m of er r or , a def endant who i s

sent enced t o a t er m of i mpr i sonment i n excess of a st at ut or y

maxi mum i s ent i t l ed t o rel i ef even t hough hi s over al l per i od of

i mmur ement wi l l not be af f ect ed. " Al mont e- Nuez, 771 F. 3d at 92.

Despi t e t he l ack of a uni f or m r ul e, we f ur t her not ed t hat

"[ a] l t hough par t i cul ar cases may di f f er , f l exi bi l i t y exi st s and,

under nor mal ci r cumst ances, our di scr et i on shoul d be exer ci sed i n

f avor of t r i mmi ng back an excessi ve sent ence. " I d. I n

-33-


34/36

Al mont e- Nuez, we deci ded t o exer ci se t hi s di scr et i on i n f avor of

modi f yi ng a 150- mont h sent ence on one count t hat was i n excess of

t he 120- mont h st at utor y maxi mum, even t hough t he def endant st i l l

f aced a concur r ent 150- mont h sent ence on anot her count . I d. Two

f act or s i nf l uenced our deci si on. Fi r st , "l eavi ng i nt act a sent ence

t hat exceeds a congr essi onal l y mandated l i mi t may sul l y t he

publ i c' s per cept i on of t he f ai r ness of t he pr oceedi ng. " I d.

Second, we f ound i t "unwi se and unf ai r " t o ask a def endant t o bear

t he r i sk of "di f f i cul t t o pr edi ct" "col l at er al consequences [ t hat ]

may ar i se as a r esul t of an above- t he- maxi mum sent ence i mposed on

a par t i cul ar count . " I d.

Her e, Vzquez f aces a smal l er r i sk of har m f r om

col l ater al consequences t han t he def endant i n Al mont e- Nuez

because, r egar dl ess of our deci si on, he must serve f i ve concur r ent

l i f e sent ences on f i ve ot her count s. But l eavi ng i n pl ace t he

pl ai nl y unl awf ul sent ence f or Count VI coul d sul l y publ i c

per cept i on of t he pr oceedi ng. And, at l east i n t heor y, col l at er al

r evi ew or ot her unpr edi ct abl e event s mi ght al t er someday t he i mpact

of t he convi ct i on on t he other count s. We t her ef ore r emand t o t he

di st r i ct cour t wi t h i nst r uct i ons t o ent er a modi f i ed sent ence of

t went y year s i n pr i son f or t he f i r ear mof f ense ( Count VI ) . See i d.

at 92- 93.

-34-


35/36

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Vzquez' s f i nal chal l enge i s t hat hi s t r i al counsel was

const i t ut i onal l y def i ci ent f or f ai l i ng t o obj ect t o l eadi ng

quest i ons on di r ect exami nat i on, i nadmi ssi bl e hear say t est i mony,

t est i mony about t he mur der s, and t he pr osecut or ' s al l egedl y

i mpr oper r emar ks dur i ng cl osi ng. See St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466

U. S. 668 ( 1984) . As a gener al r ul e, t hi s cour t does not r evi ew

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai ms on di r ect appeal . Uni t ed

St at es v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302, 309 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . Ther e i s an

except i on "wher e t he cr i t i cal f act s ar e not genui nel y i n di sput e

and t he r ecor d i s suf f i ci ent l y devel oped t o al l ow r easoned

consi der at i on of an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m, " Uni t ed St at es

v. Reyes, 352 F. 3d 511, 517 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) , but "why counsel act ed as he di d [ i s] i nf or mat i on

r ar el y devel oped i n t he exi st i ng r ecor d, " and t hi s i nf or mat i on i s

cruci al t o r esol ve an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m. Uni t ed St at es

v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 447 F. 3d 61, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Because we can

onl y specul ate based on t hi s r ecor d as t o "why counsel acted as he

di d, " i d. , we decl i ne t o r evi ew Vzquez' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel cl ai m on di r ect appeal .

IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m Vzquez' s

convi ct i ons on al l si x count s. We al so af f i r m hi s l i f e sent ences

-35-


36/36

on Count s I , I I , I I I , I V, and V, but or der t he di str i ct cour t t o

ent er a modi f i ed sent ence of t went y year s on Count VI .

So or der ed.

Documents

United States v. Vazquez-Larrauri, 1st Cir. (2015)