United States v. Peake, 1st Cir. (2015)

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

1/40

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1088

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

FRANK PEAKE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d Oscar Mar kus, wi t h whomMona E. Markus, A. Margot Moss,and Mar kus & Mar kus, PLLC, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Shana M. Wal l ace, At t or ney, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce,Ant i t r ust Di vi si on, wi t h whom Wi l l i am J . Baer , Assi st ant At t or neyGener al , Br ent Snyder , Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr ai g Y.Lee and J ames J . Fredr i cks, At t or neys, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce,Ant i t r ust Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Oct ober 14, 2015


2/40

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. As a r esul t of hi s convi cti on

f or par t i ci pat i ng i n one of t he l ar gest ant i t r ust conspi r aci es i n

t he hi st or y of t he Uni t ed St at es, Def endant - Appel l ant Frank Peake

( "Peake") r ai ses a number of cl ai med er r or s wi t h r espect t o hi s

t r i al and sent enci ng f or a ser i ous pr i ce- f i xi ng of f ense i n

vi ol at i on of Sect i on 1 of t he Sher man Act , 15 U. S. C. 1

( "Sect i on 1") . Peake chal l enges: ( 1) t he val i di t y of hi s

i ndi ct ment ; ( 2) t he scope of t he sear ch war r ant execut ed by the

gover nment ; ( 3) t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s pr e- t r i al mot i on

t o change venue; ( 4) i mpr oper r emarks made by t he pr osecut or dur i ng

t r i al ; ( 5) t he di str i ct cour t ' s rul i ng per mi t t i ng pr ej udi ci al

t est i mony; ( 6) t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s request f or a

t heor y- of - def ense i nst r ucti on; ( 7) t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

hi s r equest f or a mi st r i al dur i ng j ur y del i ber at i ons, and ( 8) t he

l ength of hi s sent ence, whi ch was based on t he amount of commerce

af f ected by t he charged conspi r acy, and whi ch Peake cont ends t he

cour t i ncor r ect l y comput ed. Fi ndi ng no er r or s and concl udi ng t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t mar shal ed t hi s t r i al i n a commendabl e manner , we

af f i r m. Af t er a br i ef over vi ew of t he f act ual backgr ound, we wi l l

t ake each of t he i ssues one by one.

I. Background

We r ecount t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

j ury ver di ct , as suppor t ed by t he r ecor d. See Uni t ed Stat es v.

Andr ade, 94 F. 3d 9, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . Si nce 2002, wat er bor ne

-2-


3/40

cabotage bet ween Puer t o Ri co and t he mai nl and has been domi nat ed by

f our f r ei ght car r i er s: Hor i zon Li nes, Sea St ar , Cr owl ey, and

Tr ai l er Br i dge. See I n r e Puer t o Ri can Cabot age Ant i t r ust Li t i g. ,

815 F. Supp. 2d 448, 454 n. 3 ( D. P. R. 2011) . And, because of Puert o

Ri co' s geogr aphi cal si t uat i on, Puer t o Ri co' s consumer s r el y on

t hese car r i er s t o t r anspor t most goods i mpor t ed t o t he i sl and. See

Mer chant Mar i ne Act of 1920, Pub. L. No. 66- 261, 41 St at . 988, 999

( 1920) ( codi f i ed as amended at 46 U. S. C. 55101, et seq. ) .

Seeki ng t o maxi mi ze r evenues, Hor i zon Li nes and Sea St ar agr eed not

t o under cut each ot her i n pr i ce and al l ocat ed pr eci se mar ket shar e

quot as t hr ough an extensi ve conspi r acy that i ncl uded bi d r i ggi ng

and car ef ul pl anni ng, coor di nat i on, and t he ki nds of day- t o- day

sel f - enf orcement common of i l l egal agr eement s.

Thi s behavi or const i t uted an agreement i n r est r ai nt of

t r ade f or bi dden by Sect i on 1. Peake, t he f or mer Presi dent and

Chi ef Oper at i ng Of f i cer ( "COO") of Sea St ar , pl ayed a managi ng r ol e

i n t he conspi r acy, coor di nat i ng wi t h compet i t or s t hr ough meet i ngs,

phone cal l s, and emai l s, and at t endi ng t o pr i ci ng or consumer -

al l ocat i on di sput es t hat hi s subor di nat es coul d not r esol ve on

t hei r own.

For exampl e, dur i ng a meet i ng i n Or l ando i n 2006, Peake

coor di nat ed wi t h Hor i zon Li nes execut i ves t o r esol ve exi st i ng

di sput es by agr eei ng t o keep t he market shar es at t hei r cur r ent

l evel s, r at her t han r ei nstat i ng t he spl i t i n ef f ect pr i or t o hi s

-3-


4/40

j oi ni ng t he conspi r acy i n 2005. Lat er t hat year , t he mar ket

al l ocat i on became i mbal anced when Wal greens, a maj or i mpor t er of

consumer goods t o Puer t o Ri co, deci ded not t o di vi de f r ei ght

cont r act s bet ween Hor i zon Li nes and Sea St ar , and i nst ead al l ocat ed

al l of i t s f r ei ght t o Hor i zon Li nes. Peake qui ckl y agr eed wi t h an

execut i ve f r om Hor i zon Li nes t hat t he company woul d compensat e by

shi f t i ng car go t o Sea St ar vessel s or usi ng Tr anspor t at i on Ser vi ce

Agr eement s, whereby Hor i zon Li nes woul d pay Sea St ar t o car r y i t s

car go even t hough i t had capaci t y t o t r anspor t i t i n i t s own

vessel s.

Whi l e t he conspi r acy was i n f ul l swi ng, a Sea St ar seni or

execut i ve worki ng wi t h Peake became a government i nf or mant . Based

on hi s descr i pt i on of t he conspi r acy, t he gover nment i ni t i at ed an

ext ensi ve i nvest i gat i on t hat i ncl uded an FBI sear ch of Sea St ar ' s

headquar t er s i n 2008. Four of Peake' s co- conspi r at or s wer e char ged

wi t h ant i t r ust vi ol at i ons and pl eaded gui l t y bef or e t he U. S.

Di str i ct Cour t f or t he Mi ddl e Di str i ct of Fl or i da, J acksonvi l l e

Di vi si on. Fol l owi ng t hese event s, a gr and j ur y i n San J uan, Puer t o

Ri co, r etur ned an i ndi ct ment agai nst Peake i n November 2011 on one

char ge of conspi r acy t o suppr ess and el i mi nat e compet i t i on by

agr eei ng t o f i x r at es and sur char ges f or f r ei ght ser vi ces i n

i nt erst ate commerce between t he Uni t ed St ates and Puert o Ri co.

Peake' s co- conspi r at or s t est i f i ed agai nst hi m at t r i al ,

r eveal i ng hi s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy and t hei r di scussi ons

-4-


5/40

about set t i ng sur char ges, f ees, and mar ket shar e al l ocat i ons. One

such i nci dent i nvol ved an emai l exchange between Peake and a

compet i t or r egar di ng pr i ces of f er ed t o a cl i ent i n an at t empt t o

"avoi d a pr i ce war . "

Af t er a ni ne- day t r i al , whi ch t ook pl ace over t he cour se

of t hr ee weeks, t he j ur y f ound Peake gui l t y of par t i ci pat i ng i n a

conspi r acy t o f i x t he pr i ces of Puer t o Ri co f r ei ght ser vi ces, i n

vi ol at i on of Sect i on 1. The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Peake t o

si xt y mont hs' i mpr i sonment .

Thi s appeal ensued.

II. The Indictment

Bef or e addr essi ng t he mai n i ssues i n t hi s appeal , we

br i ef l y addr ess an i ssue t hat , al t hough Peake i s r ai si ng on appeal

f or t he f i rs t t i me, he cl ai ms woul d f or ecl ose our j ur i sdi ct i on on

t hi s mat t er . 1 Peake ar gues t hat Puer t o Ri co i s not a st at e, yet

t he i ndi ct ment char ges Peake under Sect i on 1, whi ch pr ohi bi t s

agr eement s i n r est r ai nt of t r ade or commerce "among t he several

1 " [ J ] ur i sdi ct i onal chal l enges t o an i ndi ct ment may be r ai sed atany t i me, " Uni t ed St at es v. Rosa- Or t i z, 348 F. 3d 33, 36 ( 1st Ci r .2003) , but al l ot her mot i ons r egar di ng a def ect i ve i ndi ct ment , suchas f ai l ur e t o st at e an of f ense, must be made bef or e t r i al , Fed. R.

Cr i m. P. 12( b) ( 3) ( B) , and t hus can onl y be r evi ewed f or pl ai n er r ori f r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , see Uni t ed St at es v.Turner , 684 F. 3d 244, 255 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Her e, i t mat t er s notwhet her we t r eat Peake' s argument as a j ur i sdi ct i onal chal l enge, oras an unt i mel y- made f ai l ur e- t o- st at e- a- cl ai m ar gument t o ber evi ewed f or pl ai n er r or , because, as we expl ai n, Peake wascor r ect l y char ged under Sect i on 1, so t her e was no er r or at al l .

-5-


6/40

St at es, " and t hat hi s convi ct i on must t her ef or e be vacat ed. 2 There

ar e at l east t wo i nsurmount abl e pr obl ems wi t h thi s ar gument .

Fi r st , i t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat , f or pur poses of t he Sher man Act ,

Puer t o Ri co i s " t o be t r eat ed l i ke a st at e and not l i ke a

t er r i t or y, " t her ef or e, Secti on 1 f ul l y appl i es t o Puer t o Ri co.

Crdova & Si monpi et r i I ns. Agency I nc. v. Chase Manhat t an Bank

N. A. , 649 F. 2d 36, 38, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) . Second, t he evi dence i n

t he r ecor d shows t hat par t of t he f r ei ght car r i ed by the compani es

i n t he conspi r acy or i gi nat ed i n one st at e bef or e bei ng t r anspor t ed

t o a por t i n a second st at e t o be shi pped t o Puer t o Ri co.

Ther ef or e, t he commer ce af f ect ed by t he conspi r acy was not onl y

between a st ate and Puert o Ri co, but al so among t he st ates. Thus,

Peake was cor r ect l y char ged, and t he i ndi ct ment i s not def ect i ve.

We now move on to Peake' s appeal of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess, and t hen addr ess hi s ot her t r i al -

r el at ed cl ai ms, bef or e f i nal l y t ur ni ng t o t he appeal of hi s

sentence.

2 Peake ar gues that he shoul d i nst ead have been charged underSect i on 3 of t he Sher man Act , whi ch cont ai ns t he same pr ohi bi t i ons,but appl i es t o t er r i t or i es. 15 U. S. C. 3( a) ( "Ever y . . .conspi r acy[ ] i n r est r ai nt of t r ade or commer ce . . . bet ween anysuch Ter r i t or y and anot her , or bet ween any such Ter r i t or y orTer r i t or i es and any Stat e or Stat es . . . i s decl ar ed i l l egal . " ) .

-6-


7/40

III. Motion to Suppress

Peake appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s mot i on

t o suppr ess t he gover nment ' s sear ch of hi s per sonal el ect r oni cs.

For t he f ol l owi ng r easons, we af f i r m t he deni al .

A. Standard of Review

I n r evi ewi ng a chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al

of a mot i on t o suppr ess, "we vi ew t he f act s i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng, " and "r evi ew t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act and credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear

er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Camacho, 661 F. 3d 718, 723 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . However , we

r evi ew t he l ower cour t ' s l egal concl usi ons, i ncl udi ng i t s

determi nat i on of whether t he government exceeded t he scope of t he

war r ant , de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Fagan, 577 F. 3d 10, 12- 13 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) .

A sear ch war r ant must "descr i b[ e] t he pl ace to be

sear ched" and t he " t hi ngs t o be sei zed. " U. S. Const . amend. I V.

The aut hor i t y conf er r ed by t he war r ant " i s ci r cumscr i bed by t he

par t i cul ar pl aces del i neat ed i n t he war r ant and does not extend t o

ot her or di f f er ent pl aces. " Fagan, 577 F. 3d at 13. Sear ch

war r ant s al so have a speci f i ci t y requi r ement , meani ng " t hat

war r ant s shal l par t i cul ar l y descr i be t he t hi ngs t o be sei zed, "

whi ch "pr event s t he sei zure of one t hi ng under a war r ant descr i bi ng

anot her . " Mar r on v. Uni t ed St at es, 275 U. S. 192, 196 ( 1927) . Even

-7-


8/40

t hough sear ch war r ant s ar e l i mi t ed t o t he par t i cul ar pl aces and

t hi ngs descr i bed i n t hem, t her e i s some br eat hi ng r oom i n our

anal ysi s, si nce "sear ch war r ant s and af f i davi t s shoul d be

consi dered i n a common sense manner , and hyper t echni cal r eadi ngs

shoul d be avoi ded. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bonner , 808 F. 2d 864, 868

( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( ci t i ng Spi nel l i v. Uni t ed St at es, 393 U. S. 410,

419 ( 1969) ) .

A dr af t warr ant pr esent ed t o a magi st r ate j udge may be

al t er ed or modi f i ed by t he j udi ci al of f i cer or at hi s di r ecti on.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Hang Le- Thy Tr an, 433 F. 3d 472, 481 ( 6t h Ci r .

2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Kat oa, 379 F. 3d 1203, 1208 ( 10t h Ci r .

2004) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ar enal , 768 F. 2d 263, 267 ( 8t h Ci r . 1985) .

When par t of a war r ant i s consi der ed i nval i d, "evi dence sei zed

under t he val i d por t i on may be admi t t ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Geor ge,

975 F. 2d 72, 79 ( 2d Ci r . 1992) . Fur t her mor e, when a war r ant i s

l i mi t ed t o aut hor i ze t he sei zur e of onl y cer t ai n obj ect s,

"cont ai ner [ s] si t uat ed wi t hi n r esi dent i al pr emi ses whi ch ar e t he

subj ect of a val i dl y- i ssued war r ant may be sear ched i f i t i s

r easonabl e t o bel i eve t hat t he cont ai ner coul d conceal i t ems of t he

ki nd por t r ayed i n t he war r ant . " Uni t ed St at es v. Roger s, 521 F. 3d

5, 9- 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

B. The Search Warrants

I n t hi s case, a magi st r at e j udge was pr esent ed wi t h a

dr af t war r ant f or hi s consi der at i on. Upon r evi ewi ng i t , he cr ossed

-8-


9/40

out a paragr aph under At t achment A, whi ch descr i bed t he pr emi ses t o

be searched. The st r i cken paragr aph al l owed t he sear ch of

"br i ef cases, l apt op comput er s, hand- hel d comput er s, cel l phones,

Bl ackberr i es, and other movabl e document cont ai ners f ound on t he

pr emi ses descr i bed. "3 I n At t achment B, t he magi st r at e j udge al so

st r uck t he f ol l owi ng t ext f r om t he descri pt i on of t he pr oper t y to

be sei zed: "memor y cal cul at or s, pager s, per sonal di gi t al assi st ant s

such as Pal mPi l ot hand- hel d comput er s. " The magi st r at e j udge l ef t

st andi ng, however , ot her r ef er ences t o el ect r oni cal l y st or ed

document s and r ecords. As amended, At t achment B descr i bed t he

pr oper t y to be sei zed as f ol l ows:

As used above, t he t erms r ecords, document s, pr ogr ams,document at i on, appl i cat i ons or mat er i al s i ncl ude but ar enot l i mi t ed t o r ecor ds, document s, pr ogr ams, appl i cat i onsor mat er i al s cr eat ed, modi f i ed or st or ed i n any f or m,i ncl udi ng any opt i cal , el ect r i cal , el ect r oni c, ormagnet i c f or m ( such as any i nf or mat i on on an opt i cal ,el ect r i cal , el ect r oni c or magnet i c st or age devi ce) ,i ncl udi ng f l oppy di sks, har d di sks, ZI P di sks, CD- ROMs,

3 The f ul l t ext of t he par agr aph st r uck st at ed:

I n or der t o mi ni mi ze t he pr ospect of t he removal andsubsequent dest r uct i on of any of t he document s andr ecor ds i dent i f i ed i n Exhi bi t B t o t he Sear ch War r ant ,t he sear ch wi l l i ncl ude t he br i ef cases, l apt op comput er s,hand- hel d comput er s, cel l phones, Bl ackber r i es, and ot hermovabl e document contai ner s f ound on t he premi ses

descr i bed above, and i n t he possessi on of , or r eadi l yi dent i f i abl e as bel ongi ng to SEA STAR management ,pr i ci ng, and sal es per sonnel i ncl udi ng, but not l i mi t edt o, FRANK PEAKE, PETER A. BACI , CARL FOX, NED LAGOY, NEI LPERLMUTTER, ALEX CHI SHOLM, MI KE NI CHOLSON, EDWARD PRETRE,and WI LLI AM BYRNES.

-9-


10/40

opt i cal di sks, backup t apes, pr i nt er buf f er s or ot herdevi ce memor y buf f er s, smar t car ds . . . emai l server s,as wel l as opened and unopened e- mai l messages and anypr i nt out s or r eadout s f r om any opt i cal , el ectr i cal ,el ect r oni c, or magnet i c st or age devi ce . . . .

Addi t i onal l y, t he magi st r at e j udge added t wo handwr i t t en passages

t o t he por t i on of t he dr af t war r ant gover ni ng t he sei zur e of

comput er s and ot her el ect r oni c devi ces, and or der ed t hat any

sei zed comput er s or el ect r oni c devi ces wi t hi n t he scope of t he

war r ant be r et ur ned wi t hi n t hi r t y days of sei zur e. Speci f i cal l y,

t he f ol l owi ng l anguage was i nser t ed:

I n the event t hat comput er equi pment and ot her el ect r i calst or age devi ces must be t r anspor t ed t o t he appr opr i at el abor at or y, r at her t han sear ched on t he pr emi ses, t hesearch of comput er equi pment and other el ect r oni c st oragedevi ces must be compl eted wi t hi n 30 days of sei zure.

and

I f no evi dence i s f ound i n the comput er equi pment andel ect r oni c st or age devi ces by t he end of t he 30 dayper i od, or i f any el ect r oni cal l y st or ed i nf or mat i on i sout si de of t he scope of t he war r ant , such shal l ber etur ned pr ompt l y.

Fol l owi ng t he gui dance pr ovi ded i n t he war r ant , t he FBI

r ai ded Sea St ar ' s headquar t er s on Apr i l 17, 2008, and sei zed

Peake' s personal l apt op and Bl ackberr y. The i t ems were i maged

( t he data was copi ed) and r etur ned t o Peake on- si t e the same day.

Thi s evi dence was not i mmedi at el y r evi ewed, as t he FBI was under

t he i mpr essi on t hat Sea St ar ' s ser ver s st or ed copi es of al l sei zed

i nf or mat i on r el evant t o t he i nvest i gat i on. I mages of Peake' s

comput er and Bl ackber r y were event ual l y sent t o t he Depar t ment of

-10-


11/40

J ust i ce i n Washi ngt on, D. C. Mor e t han f our years passed bef or e

t he government sought and obt ai ned another sear ch warr ant f r om a

magi st r at e j udge i n Washi ngt on, D. C. , aut hor i zi ng a sear ch of

t hese dat a copi es. Thei r r evi ew r eveal ed emai l s t yi ng Peake t o

t he conspi r acy, whi ch t he government submi t t ed as evi dence at

t r i al .

C. Appeal of the Suppression Ruling

Peake ar gues t hat t he i nf or mat i on col l ect ed f r om hi s

personal comput er and Bl ackber r y shoul d be suppr essed because t he

t wo i t ems wer e out si de t he scope of t he i ni t i al war r ant , and

t her ef or e i l l egal l y sei zed. He cont ends t hat when t he magi st r at e

j udge st r uck t he par agr aph i n At t achment A speci f yi ng comput er s

and Bl ackber r i es as pl aces t hat coul d be sear ched, doi ng so

speci f i cal l y di sal l owed any sear ch and sei zur e of sai d i t ems. A

good f ai t h except i on t o t he pur por t ed vi ol at i on of t he i ni t i al

war r ant , Peake cont i nues, cannot appl y i n the pr esent case wher e

t he pr oper t y sei zed was expr essl y di sal l owed by the i ssui ng

magi st r at e j udge.

Peake al so ar gues t hat t he government di d not have

aut hor i t y t o i mage t he sei zed el ect r oni cs, and t hat t he second

war r ant f r om t he magi st r at e j udge i n Washi ngt on, D. C. , di d not

cur e t he vi ol at i on because i t coul d not aut hor i ze a sear ch of

mat er i al out si de t he scope of t he or i gi nal war r ant , especi al l y

af t er t he t hi r t y days per mi t t ed by the f i r st war r ant had passed.

-11-


12/40

1. The First Warrant

Appl yi ng de novo r evi ew, we concl ude t hat t he i nf or mat i on

col l ect ed f r omt he comput er and Bl ackber r y was wi t hi n t he scope of

t he or i gi nal sear ch war r ant . We t hi nk Peake i s mi st aken i n hi s

r el i ance on t he st r i cken par agr aph; ot her , i nt act passages i n t he

warr ant expr essl y demonst r ate t hat t he magi st r ate j udge appr oved

sear chi ng f or al l document s and r ecor ds t hat per t ai ned t o the

conspi r acy st or ed i n "an el ect r oni c or di gi t al f or mat . " That t he

war r ant l i st ed document s st or ed i n el ect r oni c f or m on an

el ect r oni c st or age devi ce, i ncl udi ng emai l messages, and r ef er r ed

i n At t achment B t o Bl ackber r y addr ess books, conf i r ms t he l egal i t y

of t he FBI ' s sear ch.

Thi s case i s anal ogous t o Uni t ed St at es v. Roger s, wher e

we hel d t hat t he gover nment ' s sei zur e of a vi deot ape was val i d,

even though vi deot apes wer e not l i st ed i n t he war r ant , because t he

warr ant ment i oned "photos, " and a vi deot ape was a pl ausi bl e

r eposi t or y f or a phot o. 521 F. 3d at 10. Or Uni t ed St at es v.

Gi annet t a, 909 F. 2d 571, 577 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) , wher e we hel d t hat

t he of f i cer s coul d l ook i n movabl e cont ai ner s and wher ever t hey

had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o thi nk "document s coul d be hi dden,

whi ch woul d i ncl ude pocket s i n cl ot hi ng, boxes, f i l e cabi net s and

f i l es, " because "[ a] s t o document sear ches especi al l y, t he easi l y

conceal ed natur e of t he evi dence means t hat qui t e br oad searches

ar e per mi t t ed. "

-12-


13/40

Her e, gi ven t hat Peake' s per sonal el ect r oni c devi ces wer e

on t he pr emi ses t o be sear ched, and t he war r ant speci f i cal l y

ment i oned el ect r oni cal l y- st or ed document s, t he FBI act ed wi t hi n t he

scope of t he warr ant when i t sear ched Peake' s devi ces. And t he

f act t hat t he i ssui ng magi st r at e j udge had handwr i t t en on t he

warr ant t hat comput ers and el ect r oni c devi ces must be r etur ned

wi t hi n t hi r t y days i s evi dence enough t hat t he scope of t he war r ant

i ncl uded t hese obj ect ed- t o i t ems. Fut her mor e, t he gover nment ' s

i magi ng of t he comput er and Bl ackber r y di d not const i t ut e a

warr ant l ess sei zure because doi ng so was cont empl ated by t he

or i gi nal war r ant , whi ch expl i ci t l y aut hor i zed t he gover nment t o

sei ze el ect r oni cal l y- st or ed emai l s and document s.

Nor does t he f act t hat t he magi st r at e j udge crossed out

l anguage i n t he war r ant af f ect our concl usi on. The war r ant

aut hor i zed a sear ch of t he "premi ses" of Sea St ar ' s headquar t er s;

t hus, as t he di st r i ct cour t hel d i n denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess,

t he magi st r ate j udge coul d have r easonabl y cr ossed out t he i t ems

ment i oned i n At t achment A, "br i ef cases, l apt op comput er s, hand- hel d

comput ers, cel l phones, Bl ackberr i es and ot her movabl e document

cont ai ner s, " i n or der t o i ndi cat e t hat t he gover nment shoul d not be

l i mi t ed t o sear chi ng sol el y i n t hose pl aces f or r ecor ds document i ng

t he conspi r acy, but shoul d be per mi t t ed t o sear ch t he ent i r e

pr emi ses. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Br adl ey, 644 F. 3d 1213, 1266

-13-


14/40

( 11t h Ci r . 2011) ( observi ng t hat war r ant t o sear ch "pr emi ses"

per mi t t ed sear ch of t he ent i r e bui l di ng) .

As t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s cr ossi ng out of "per sonal

di gi t al assi st ant " i n At t achment B, we concl ude t hat t he cr ossed-

out t ext shoul d si mpl y be t r eat ed as nonexi st ent . 4 Peake does not

poi nt us t o any case l aw est abl i shi ng t hat el i mi nat i ng a par t of

t he t ext f r om a dr af t war r ant necessar i l y means t hat t he cr ossed-

out s t at ement s have cont i nued si gni f i cance. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

Thomas, 489 F. 2d 664, 672- 73 ( 5th Ci r . 1973) ( st at i ng t hat wher e a

magi st r at e j udge cr ossed out " i n t he dayt i me" whi l e l eavi ng t he

phr ase "at any t i me i n t he day or ni ght , " t he war r ant "coul d be

served at any t i me, day or ni ght " ) . Thus, t he agent s woul d have

been per mi t t ed t o sei ze Peake' s Bl ackber r y, so l ong as t he

r emai ni ng t ext of t he war r ant was val i d and aut hor i zed t hem t o do

so. As we expl ai ned above, t he sei zur e and sear ch of t he

Bl ackber r y was aut hor i zed by t he i nt act par agr aphs of t he war r ant .

We t her ef or e concl ude that t he Bl ackber r y was al so l awf ul l y sei zed

and searched.

4 Al t er nat i vel y, t he magi st r at e j udge may have i nt ended t oel i mi nat e per sonal i t ems f r om t he sear ch, and l i mi t t he agent s t osei zi ng company proper t y onl y. See Bi vens v. Si x Unknown Named

Agent s of Fed. Bur eau of Nar cot i cs, 403 U. S. 388, 395 n. 7 ( 1971)( " [ T]he Four t h Amendment conf i nes an of f i cer execut i ng a sear chwar r ant st r i ct l y wi t hi n t he bounds set by t he war r ant . " ( quot i ngMarr on, 275 U. S. at 196) ) . But Peake does not appear t o argue t hatt he i nf or mat i on f r om hi s comput er and Bl ackber r y shoul d have beensuppr essed because t hey were personal , and not company pr oper t y, sowe wi l l not go down t hi s r oad.

-14-


15/40

2. The Second Warrant

Peake cor r ect l y ar gues t hat i f hi s comput er and

Bl ackber r y had been i l l egal l y sei zed, t he gover nment shoul d not

have been permi t t ed t o l ater obt ai n a more expansi ve warr ant f r om

an ar guabl y f r i endl i er f or umi n or der t o sear ch pr evi ousl y- excl uded

i t ems, as doi ng so woul d weaken i mpor t ant Four t h Amendment

pr ot ect i ons. But her e, we have concl uded t hat t he sei zed and

i maged evi dence Peake seeks suppr essed was wi t hi n t he scope of t he

f i r st war r ant . We do not f i nd t hat t he gover nment used t he second

war r ant t o unl awf ul l y si dest ep t he f i r st one, and we need not

consi der whether t he second warr ant was i nval i d. Nor do we need t o

r each t he quest i on whet her t he good f ai t h except i on appl i es. I n

sum, t he suppr essi on mot i on was pr oper l y deni ed. We t ur n now t o

Peake' s pre- t r i al mot i on f or change of venue.

IV. Motion for Change of Venue

Because Peake was i ndi ct ed i n Puer t o Ri co - - whi l e hi s

co- conspi r at or s' cases wer e br ought i n J acksonvi l l e, Fl or i da - -

Peake f i l ed a pr e- t r i al mot i on f or change of venue under Feder al

Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 21( b) " f or t he conveni ence of t he

par t i es, any vi ct i m, and t he wi t nesses, and i n t he i nt er est of

j ust i ce. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 21( b) . I n hi s mot i on, Peake di scussed

t he f act or s consi der ed i n Pl at t v. Mi nnesota Mi ni ng & Manuf act ur i ng

Co. , 376 U. S. 240, 243- 45 ( 1964) , st r essi ng t hat i t was

i mpr act i cabl e t o hol d a t r i al i n Puer t o Ri co, si nce most per sons

-15-


16/40

i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy and t he i nvest i gat i on wer e i n

J acksonvi l l e. See al so Uni t ed Stat es v. Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d

177, 184 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( appl yi ng t he Pl at t f act or s i n a cr i mi nal

case) . Peake l at er f i l ed suppl ement al br i ef i ng, ar gui ng t hat

change of venue was al so proper under Federal Rul e of Cr i mi nal

Procedur e 21( a) because i t woul d be i mpossi bl e t o obt ai n a f ai r and

i mpar t i al j ur y composed of Puer t o Ri can consumer s.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on, r easoni ng t hat any

i nconveni ence suf f ered by Peake was out wei ghed by t he i nt erest of

havi ng t he case hear d i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on most ser i ousl y af f ect ed

by t he conspi r acy. I t al so expl ai ned t hat under Rul e 21( a) ,

t r ansf er i s a mandat or y r emedy i f t he cour t f i nds " an unaccept abl e

l evel of pr ej udi ce, " such as wher e "per vasi ve pr et r i al publ i ci t y

has i nf l amed passi ons i n t he host communi t y past t he br eaki ng

poi nt . " Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 223 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Angi ul o, 497 F. 2d 440, 440- 42 ( 1st Ci r .

1974) ( per cur i am) ) . The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t her e was

no per vasi ve pr e- t r i al publ i ci t y i nf l ami ng t he passi ons i n t he

communi t y t o the poi nt t hat Peake coul d not have a f ai r and

i mpar t i al t r i al i n Puer t o Ri co, and t hus t he cour t al l owed t he

gover nment t o exer ci se i t s r i ght t o choose the venue at i t s

pr osecut or i al di scr et i on.

A di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he r equest f or a change of

venue i s revi ewed f or abuse of di scr et i on. Qui l es- Ol i vo, 684 F. 3d

-16-


17/40

at 181. We f i nd no such abuse i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al .

Peake di d not al l ege any out si de i nf l uence or publ i ci t y t hat coul d

have af f ected, f r om t he out set of t r i al , t he j ur y' s consi der at i on

of t he evi dence pr esent ed. Thus, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ul i ng on t he mot i on t o change venue.

V. Trial

Peake' s next set of i ssues on t hi s appeal per t ai ns t o

mat t er s t hat ar ose at t r i al , and can be boi l ed down i nt o f our

cl ai ms: t he f i r st i s Peake' s cl ai mt hat he shoul d have been gr ant ed

a new t r i al on t he basi s of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , t he second i s

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n per mi t t i ng pr ej udi ci al t est i mony,

t he t hi r d i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng hi s r equest

f or a j ur y i nst r uct i on r egar di ng hi s t heor y of def ense, and t he

f our t h i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have decl ar ed a mi st r i al

when, dur i ng del i ber at i ons, t he j ur y sent t he j udge a not e st at i ng

t hat i t coul d not come t o a ver di ct . As we wi l l expl ai n, we f i nd

no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s handl i ng of each of t hese mat t er s,

but f i r st , we begi n by pr ovi di ng some addi t i onal backgr ound on what

happened dur i ng t he t r i al .

Peake' s t r i al was hel d i n San J uan, Puer t o Ri co, i n

J anuar y 2013, and l ast ed ni ne days. I n i t s openi ng ar gument on t he

second day of t r i al , t he gover nment made r ef er ences t o mul t i pl e

nat i onal r et ai l chai ns and f r anchi ses whose busi nesses pur por t edl y

exper i enced ar t i f i ci al l y hi gher shi ppi ng cost s as a r esul t of t he

-17-


18/40

ant i t r ust conspi r acy, and st at ed t hat even t he cost of school

l unches had been af f ect ed by t he conspi r acy. Peake obj ect ed t o

t hese comment s, whi ch we wi l l descr i be i n mor e det ai l l at er , and

f i l ed a mot i on f or mi st r i al . I n hi s mot i on, he ar gued t hat t he

government had communi cat ed t o t he j ur y t hat hi gher pr i ces were

bei ng passed on t o t hem as di r ect l y af f ect ed consumer s, and

r easoned t hat i f j ur or s f el t t hei r per sonal f i nanci al i nt er est s

wer e af f ected by t he conspi r acy, t hei r j udgment woul d be cl ouded.

The di st r i ct cour t t ook not e of t he mot i on on t he mor ni ng of t he

t hi r d day of t he t r i al , and gr ant ed t he gover nment t hr ee days t o

f i l e i t s r esponse.

As t he t r i al cont i nued, t he gover nment cal l ed Peake' s co-

conspi r at or s, Gabr i el Ser r a, Gr egor y Gl ova, and Pet er Baci , t o t he

st and t o pr ovi de t est i mony t hat est abl i shed t he exi st ence of a

conspi r acy. On cr oss- exami nat i on, Peake al so el i ci t ed t est i mony

f r om t he co- conspi r at or s t hat he ar gues was excul pat or y, but

cont ends t hat , because t he j ur or s at t hi s poi nt bel i eved t hemsel ves

t o be "af f ect ed consumer s, " t hey wer e unabl e to f ai r l y consi der

t hi s pur por t ed excul pat or y t est i mony t hat was cr i t i cal t o hi s

def ense. 5

5 For exampl e, Baci t est i f i ed t hat , dur i ng par t of t he conspi r acy,Peake pushed f or per f ect l y l egal st r at egi es t hat woul d negat i vel yaf f ect t he st abi l i t y of t he "Fl or i da 50/ 50" ar r angement - - t he namegi ven t o t he st r at egy of al l ocat i ng equal mar ket shar es bet weenHor i zon Li nes and Sea St ar . One such pr o- compet i t i on st r at egy t hatPeake had advocat ed f or was f or a thi r d shi p t o ser ve t he Puer t oRi co- J acksonvi l l e r out e; anot her was a "sl ap st r at egy" wher eby Sea

-18-


19/40

On t he f our t h day of t r i al , t he di st r i ct j udge had a

di scussi on wi t h the par t i es r egar di ng the remar ks made by t he

government dur i ng t he openi ng st at ement s when Peake rai sed an

obj ect i on t o the gover nment cal l i ng wi t nesses whose ret ai l and

consumer busi ness oper at i ons i n Puer t o Ri co wer e af f ect ed by t he

hi gher shi ppi ng r at es gener at ed by t he conspi r acy. Peake ar gued

t hat t he ef f ect on mar ket pr i ces f or consumer s had not hi ng t o do

wi t h whether t here was an agr eement amongst compet i t or s t o f i x

t hei r pri ces. That i s, Peake cont ended t hat t he i ssue bef or e t he

j ury shoul d be l i mi t ed t o t he agr eement , r egar dl ess of i t s ef f ect s,

and ar gued t hat al l owi ng t he t est i mony of wi t nesses f r om af f ect ed

busi nesses was i n l i ne wi t h t he gover nment ' s i nappr opr i at e r emar ks

dur i ng openi ng st at ement s t hat t he conspi r acy af f ect ed Puer t o Ri can

consumers. The government argued t hat t he wi t nesses' t est i mony was

necessar y to demonst r at e t he ant i t r ust har mt o di r ect consumer s of

t he shi ppi ng compani es ( and not t o i mpl y t hat members of t he publ i c

who pat r oni zed t hose busi nesses, or i ndi r ect consumer s, wer e

af f ected) , 6 because t he government needed t o est abl i sh t hat t he

St ar woul d pur sue t he busi ness of any company that t r i ed t o st ealt hei r cl i ent s. I n hi s t est i mony, Ser r a conf i r med Baci ' s st at ementt hat Peake want ed t o add a t hi r d shi p. He al so t est i f i ed t hatPeake aut hor i zed compet i t i ve shi ppi ng r at es and t hat t hei r meet i ngs

wer e st r i ct l y l egal . I n addi t i on, on t he st and, Gl ova coul d noti dent i f y any di r ect r ef er ences t o Peake i n hi s r ecor ds ofcommuni cat i ons made i n f ur t herance of t he conspi r acy.

6 Gener al l y, t her e i s a di st i nct i on bet ween di r ect and i ndi r ectconsumer s i n ant i t r ust cases. See Hanover Shoe, I nc. v. Uni t edShoe Mach. Corp. , 392 U. S. 481, 492- 94 ( 1968) . The harm t o be

-19-


20/40

conspi r acy af f ect ed i nt er st at e commer ce, a r equi r ed el ement of t he

charged of f ense.

The di st r i ct j udge agr eed t hat t est i mony r egar di ng t he

ef f ect on t he wi t nesses' compani es showed t hat t he conspi r acy had

i mpact ed i nt erst ate commerce, whi ch was an el ement of t he of f ense,

and t hus r ul ed t hat t est i mony t o t hat ef f ect woul d be al l owed.

However , t he di st r i ct cour t war ned t he pr osecut or s agai nst

el i ci t i ng t est i mony beyond t hat scope, and not ed t hat t he

i mpl i cat i on i n t he gover nment ' s openi ng t hat school l unch pr ogr ams,

and t her ef or e chi l dr en, had been af f ect ed by t he conspi r acy was

"r eal l y way out of bounds. " The di st r i ct j udge al so of f er ed,

notwi t hst andi ng t he yet - undetermi ned out come of t he mot i on f or

mi st r i al , t o gi ve a cur at i ve i nst r uct i on t o t he j ur y t hat day t hat

woul d addr ess Peake' s concerns about t he pr osecut or ' s openi ng

st at ement and cl ar i f y t hat j ur or s shoul d not t ake i nt o account t he

i mpact of t he conspi r acy on Puer t o Ri co' s ci t i zens. At t he cour t ' s

i nvi t at i on, t he par t i es submi t t ed pr oposed cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons,

and t he di st r i ct j udge gave a ver si on of t he cur at i ve i nst r uct i on

t o t he j ur y that day. 7

consi der ed i s onl y t hat t o di r ect consumer s. See I l l . Br i ck Co. v.I l l i noi s, 431 U. S. 720, 752 ( 1977) ( "Li mi t i ng def endant s' l i abi l i t y

t o t he l oss of pr of i t s suf f er ed by di r ect pur chaser s woul d t husal l ow t he ant i t r ust of f ender t o avoi d havi ng t o pay the f ul l soci alcost of hi s i l l egal conduct i n many cases i n whi ch i ndi r ectpur chaser s f ai l ed t o br i ng sui t . ") .

7 Near t he end of t r i al , t he cour t i ssued a memorandumopi ni on andor der denyi ng Peake' s mot i on f or a new t r i al , f i ndi ng no mi sconduct

-20-


21/40

Over Peake' s obj ect i ons, t he gover nment t hen cal l ed t o

t he st and Gabr i el Laf i t t e, who wor ked f or t he oper at or of Bur ger

Ki ng r est aur ant s i n Puer t o Ri co, who t est i f i ed t hat t he conspi r acy

af f ect ed t he cost s pai d by Bur ger Ki ng f or pr oduct s i t sol d on t he

i sl and. Lat er i n t he t r i al , Ron Reynol ds, a U. S. Depar t ment of

Agr i cul t ur e r epr esent at i ve, t est i f i ed t o bei ng of f er ed

"t ake- i t - or - l eave- i t " r at es f or shi ppi ng ser vi ces f or f ood f or

school l unch pr ogr ams i n Puer t o Ri co.

Af t er cl osi ng ar gument s, t he j ur y began del i ber at i ons on

t he af t er noon of Fr i day, J anuar y 25, 2013. Whi l e del i ber at i ng on

t he f ol l owi ng Monday - - J anuar y 28 - - t he j ur y sent t he di st r i ct

j udge t wo not es, i n whi ch i t st at ed t hat i t coul d not r each a

unani mous agr eement . The second not e, del i vered on Monday eveni ng

af t er t en hour s of del i ber at i on, st at ed t hat each j ur or had r eached

a per sonal ver di ct , but t hat t he j ur y as a whol e was unabl e t o

r each unani mi t y. Af t er t he second not e, Peake asked f or a mi st r i al

and the government asked f or an Al l en char ge, 8 bot h of whi ch t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed. I nst ead, t he cour t asked t he j ur y t o

"r et ur n [ t he next day] t o cont i nue del i ber at i ons. " On Tuesday, t he

on t he basi s of t he pr osecut or ' s openi ng st at ement , but , evenassumi ng mi sconduct , concl udi ng t hat any pr ej udi ce was cur ed by t hef act t hat t he r emar ks wer e i sol at ed, t he j ur y was gi ven a det ai l edcur at i ve i nst r uct i on, and t he obj ect ed- t o st at ement s di d not bearon any el ement s of t he char ged of f ense.

8 An Al l en char ge i s "[ a] suppl ement al j ur y i nst r uct i on gi ven byt he cour t t o encour age a deadl ocked j ur y, af t er pr ol ongeddel i ber at i ons, t o r each a ver di ct . " Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y ( 10t hed. 2014) ; see Al l en v. Uni t ed St at es, 164 U. S. 492 ( 1896) .

-21-


22/40

j ury del i ber at ed f or anot her t hree hours and f i nal l y r eached a

unani mous gui l t y ver di ct .

Af t er t he ver di ct , Peake f i l ed a Mot i on f or New Tr i al and

a Mot i on f or J udgment of Acqui t t al under Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal

Pr ocedur e 33 and 29 r espect i vel y, ar gui ng, i nt er al i a, t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n al l owi ng t he gover nment t o appeal t o j ur y

bi as and pr ej udi ce, i n r ef usi ng t o gi ve a t heor y- of - def ense j ur y

i nst r uct i on, and i n or der i ng t he j ur y t o cont i nue del i ber at i ons. 9

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i ons. We t urn now t o Peake' s

appeal of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s var i ous tr i al - r el at ed r ul i ngs.

A. Prosecutorial Misconduct

We addr ess f i r st Peake' s ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

shoul d have gr ant ed hi m a new t r i al on gr ounds t hat t he

government ' s openi ng st atement i mpl i ed t he conspi r acy had i mpact ed

consumer s, and ther ef or e t he j ur or s t hemsel ves, t hus "poi soni ng the

wel l . " 10

9 Peake does not appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ngs on t he ot heri ssues r ai sed i n t he Rul e 33 and 29 mot i ons, whi ch chal l enged t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s deni al s of : ( 1) Peake' s r equest t o submi t hear sayevi dence f r omone of t he co- conspi r at or s; ( 2) Peake' s obj ect i on t ot he admi ssi bi l i t y of f i nanci al di scl osur es; and ( 3) Peake' s r equestf or a new t r i al on gr ounds t hat t he gover nment had f ai l ed t odi scl ose excul pat or y evi dence i n vi ol at i on of Br ady v. Mar yl and,373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) .

10 Peake addi t i onal l y cl ai ms t hat he was i ncor r ect l y pr ohi bi t edf r om di mi ni shi ng t he negat i ve ef f ect s of t hose st at ement s becauset he gover nment moved successf ul l y t o pr ohi bi t hi mf r omar gui ng t hat- - despi t e t he ant i t r ust conspi r acy - - shi ppi ng cost s r emai nedr easonabl e and f ai r . But whether t he agr eed- upon pr i ces char ged byt he conspi r at or s wer e nonet hel ess f ai r or r easonabl e does notaf f ect our concl usi on. A per se Sect i on 1 vi ol at i on i s not excused

-22-


23/40

I n i t s openi ng st at ement s, t he gover nment t ol d t he j ur y

t hat "most consumer goods t r avel t o Puer t o Ri co f r om t he shi ppi ng

l anes" af f ect ed by the conspi r acy; t hat t he conspi r acy "was so

si gni f i cant t hat i t af f ect ed bi l l i ons of dol l ar s of f r ei ght t o and

f r omPuer t o Ri co"; and t hat "[ b] usi nesses l i ke Bur ger Ki ng, Of f i ce

Max and Wal gr eens, busi nesses t hat have st or es al l over Puer t o

Ri co, t hey wer e al l payi ng mor e than t hey shoul d have t o shi p

f r ei ght t o Puer t o Ri co because Sea St ar and Hor i zon wer e

conspi r i ng, not compet i ng. " The gover nment al so t ol d t he j ur y t hat

Bur ger Ki ng' s shi ppi ng cost s af f ect ed t he pr i ce of hambur ger s sol d

t o cust omers, and t hat t he f ederal government had i ncur r ed hi gher

cost s f or t he school l unch pr ogr am, l eavi ng i t wi t h " l ess money .

. . t o buy f ood f or school chi l dr en. " The gover nment added t hat

t he ant i t r ust l aws under whi ch Peake was char ged had been enact ed

out of t he "concern[ ] t hat consumers need t o buy thi ngs t o f eed and

cl ot he t hei r f ami l i es. "

I mpr oper r emarks by pr osecut ors ar e r evi ewed de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d 48, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Gar c a, 574 F. 3d 5, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

Even i f mi sconduct occur r ed, we woul d st i l l need t o consi der

whet her i t was har ml ess. Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Pr ez, 778 F. 3d

by a showi ng t hat t he supr a- compet i t i ve pr i ces were somehow st i l lr easonabl e. Uni t ed St at es v. Socony- VacuumOi l Co. , 310 U. S. 150,212- 13 ( 1940) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Topco Assoc. , I nc. , 405U. S. 596, 610 ( 1972) ( " [ N] aked r est r ai nt s of t r ade ar e [ not ] t o bet ol er at ed because t hey ar e wel l i nt ended or because t hey ar eal l egedl y devel oped t o i ncr ease compet i t i on. " ) .

-23-


24/40

3, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) , cer t . deni ed, 135 S. Ct . 1911 ( 2015) . I n

doi ng so, we determi ne whether t he mi sconduct "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, t hus war r ant i ng a new

t r i al . " I d. ( quot i ng Rodr guez, 675 F. 3d at 62) . "I n maki ng t hi s

det er mi nat i on, we f ocus on ( 1) t he sever i t y of t he mi sconduct ,

i ncl udi ng whet her i t was i sol at ed and/ or del i ber at e; ( 2) whet her

cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons wer e gi ven; and ( 3) t he st r engt h of t he

evi dence agai nst t he def endant . " I d. at 19 ( ci t i ng Rodr guez, 675

F. 3d at 62) .

Here, we agr ee t hat t he pr osecut or ' s r emarks were

i mpr oper . We t her ef or e di r ect our i nqui r y at whet her t hese

st atement s were nonethel ess harml ess. As we expl ai n, because of

t he ext ent and t he l evel of det ai l t he di st r i ct cour t i ncl uded i n

i t s cur at i ve i nstr uct i on; t he f act t hat t he di str i ct j udge

i nt er vened r epeat edl y i n t he exami nat i on of wi t nesses t o avoi d any

r ef erence t o end consumers; and t he over whel mi ng amount of

cor r obor at i ng document ar y evi dence t hat t i ed Peake t o t he

conspi r acy, we concl ude that t he ef f ect s of t he pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct di d not so poi son t he wel l t hat a new t r i al woul d be

warr ant ed.

Fi r st , t he day af t er Peake f i l ed hi s mot i on f or a

mi st r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t gave t he j ur y t he f ol l owi ng

compr ehensi ve and det ai l ed cur at i ve i nst r uct i on:

The f act t hat Puer t o Ri co may have pot ent i al l y beenaf f ect ed or consumer s and/ or pr i ces and/ or busi ness i snot t o be consi dered by [ you] i n your j udgment as t o t he

-24-


25/40

i nnocence or gui l t of t he def endant . The ef f ect onpr i ces or consumer s i n Puer t o Ri co i s not per se anel ement of t he [ of f ense] .

You ar e not t o deci de t hi s case based on pi t y andsympat hy to Puer t o Ri can busi nesses, t o Puert o Ri co, or

t o Puert o Ri can consumers.

The ef f ect on Puer t o Ri co onl y i s mat er i al as t opot ent i al l y est abl i shi ng an ef f ect on i nt er st at ecommer ce. Thi s case i s about a pot ent i al conspi r acy i nvi ol at i on of t he ant i t r ust l aw, and whet her or not t hedef endant , Mr . Frank Peake, j oi ned t he conspi r acy.

Sympat hy to Puer t o Ri co i s, t her ef or e, t o pl ay absol ut el yno r ol e i n your consi der at i on of t hi s case. Anyst at ement t hat may have i mpl i ed or t hat you may haveunder st ood t hat t hi s i s a case r el at i ng t o t he ef f ect on

Puer t o Ri co i s an er r oneous i nt er pr et at i on, and I don' twant you t o have t hat i nt er pr et at i on. So, t her ef or e, anyef f ect on Puer t o Ri co i s not t o be consi der ed at al l .

The cour t ' s i nst r uct i on was ar guabl y mor e det ai l ed t han t he

pr oposed i nst r uct i on Peake submi t t ed. 11 I n addi t i on, t he di str i ct

j udge i nt er vened i n t he quest i oni ng of t he gover nment ' s wi t nesses

t o pr event undue r ef er ence t o t he conspi r acy' s ef f ect on Puer t o

11 Peake' s pr oposed cur at i ve i nst r uct i on r ead as f ol l ows:

I woul d l i ke t o i nst r uct you t hat t hi s case i s not aboutpr i ci ng ef f ect s i n Puer t o Ri co or whet her pr i ces i nPuer t o Ri co have gone up or down. The onl y quest i ons f oryou are whether t here was a conspi r acy as al l eged i n t hei ndi ct ment and whether Fr ank Peake knowi ngl y andi nt ent i onal l y j oi ned t hat conspi r acy. I al so i nst r uctyou t hat t he pr osecut or ment i oned i n openi ng st atementt hat t hi s case af f ect ed Puer t o Ri co and Puer t o Ri cans.Thi s was i mproper . Thi s case i s not t o be deci ded basedon t hose f act or s. Ther ef or e, I i nst r uct you t o di sr egar dt hose comment s. You shoul d j udge t hi s case onl y on t heevi dence and not an appeal t o sympathy or bi as. Any suchat t empt s by t he pr osecut i on i n i t s openi ng st at ement ori n t he quest i oni ng of i t s wi t nesses shoul d bedi sr egar ded.

-25-


26/40

Ri can consumer s, and t he i nst r uct i ons gi ven t o t he j ur y af t er

cl osi ng argument s agai n st r essed t hese poi nt s. For exampl e, t hey

emphasi zed t hat t he j ur y "must not be i nf l uenced by any personal

l i kes or di sl i kes, pr ej udi ces or sympat hy. " The si xt h i nst r uct i on

cl ar i f i ed t hat " [ a] r gument s and st at ement s by l awyer s are not

evi dence. The l awyer s ar e not wi t nesses. What t hey say i n t hei r

openi ng st at ement s . . . and at ot her t i mes . . . i s not evi dence. "

And t he t went y- f i r st i nst r uct i on, l abel ed "What Not t o Consi der , "

cont ai ned t he exact same cur at i ve i nst r uct i on gi ven t o t he j ur y on

t he f our t h day of t r i al , wi t h one i mpor t ant addi t i on: i nst ead of

t el l i ng t he j ur or s t hat t he cour t di d not want t hem t o "have" an

"er r oneous i nt er pr et at i on" about st at ement s i mpl yi ng t hat t hi s case

r el at ed t o t he ef f ect on Puer t o Ri co, t he cour t i nst r uct ed, "I

st er nl y or der you not t o t ake such st at ement s i nt o consi der at i on. "

We have st at ed t hat t her e i s no mi scarr i age of j ust i ce

r equi r i ng a new t r i al when t her e ar e cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons and t he

evi dence does not "pr eponder at e[ ] heavi l y agai nst t he ver di ct . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Mangual - Gar c a, 505 F. 3d 1, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mooney, 315 F. 3d 54, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) .

The degr ee of consi der at i on and ef f or t on t he par t of t he di st r i ct

cour t t o respond t o the def endant ' s val i d concer n over t he

pr osecut or s' appeal t o t he j ur y' s per sonal i nt er est s al l ows us t o

concl ude t hat i t cur ed any pr ej udi ce. I ndeed, cur at i ve

i nst r uct i ons ar e "or di nar i l y an appr opr i at e met hod of pr eempt i ng a

mi st r i al . " Uni t ed St at es v. Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773 F. 3d 298, 308

-26-


27/40

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sot omayor - Vzquez, 249

F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) . We pr esume t hat j ur i es f ol l ow

i nst r uct i ons, Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez- Vzquez, 219 F. 3d 37, 48

( 1st Ci r . 2000) , and t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o suggest t hat

t he i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he gover nment ' s r emarks was di sr egar ded

by t he j ur y.

The st r ength of t he gover nment ' s cor r obor at i ng evi dence

agai nst Peake al so suppor t s our concl usi on i n t hi s mat t er . See

Mangual - Garc a, 505 F. 3d at 14 ( "Nor can we say t hat t he cumul at i ve

ef f ect of t he al l eged er r or s, gi ven t he cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons t hat

wer e gi ven and t he st r engt h of t he ot her evi dence, const i t ut es a

mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. " ) ; Mooney, 315 F. 3d at 60 ( " [ W] e not e t hat

any l i nger i ng pr ej udi ci al ef f ect f r om t he r emar ks pal es i n

compar i son wi t h t he overwhel mi ng st r engt h of t he government ' s

evi dence agai nst t he def endant . " ) . Her e, t he gover nment ' s case was

r obust . The t est i mony of co- conspi r at or s and di r ect cust omer s of

t he shi ppi ng compani es est abl i shed t hat t her e was a conspi r acy t o

f i x pr i ces, t hat Peake knowi ngl y par t i ci pat ed, t hat t he conspi r acy

had t he ef f ect of i ncr easi ng shi ppi ng r at es and sur char ges, and

t hat t hi s af f ect ed i nt er st at e commer ce. The gover nment al so

i nt r oduced numer ous exhi bi t s, i ncl udi ng emai l s sent by Peake

hi msel f f r om hi s company emai l , est abl i shi ng t he exi st ence of a

conspi r acy. For exampl e, i n one emai l f r om J ul y 11, 2005, Peake

t ol d Baci , hi s co- conspi r at or and subor di nat e, t hat he had l ear ned

t hat Hor i zon Li nes had t ol d Sea St ar ' s cl i ent s t hat Hor i zon Li nes

-27-


28/40

was wi l l i ng t o "wor k wi t h t hem, " and i nst r uct ed Baci t o come up

wi t h a "sl ap. " Baci sent Hor i zon Li nes an emai l t he next day,

expr essi ng concer n about t he " l evel of di st r ust " bui l di ng bet ween

Sea St ar and Hor i zon Li nes.

I n another exchange between Peake and Ser r a f r om March

22, 2008, Peake compl ai ned t o Serr a t hat Hor i zon Li nes had been

"hur t i ng" hi m by negot i at i ng wi t h Sea St ar cl i ent s "Fl exi , Goya,

At ek and BK. " Peake added a warni ng: " I f you' r e swi ngi ng at

Cr owl ey[ , one of t he ot her f r ei ght car r i er s, ] you ar e mi ssi ng and

hi t t i ng me. " Ser r a r esponded wi t h det ai l ed i nf or mat i on about

Hor i zon Li nes t ar get i ng cer t ai n cl i ent s and ment i oned wher e he

t hought Sea St ar woul d set pr i ces. He concl uded, " I ' l l have t o go

wi t h t he best i nf o I have. Not sur e communi cat i on and avai l abi l i t y

i s wor ki ng as wel l as i t used t o. " Peake r esponded:

BK I amnot al l t hat concerned about ( we don' t have muchof t hat ) .

I am t he onl y one t hat wi l l l ose on ATEC, I f I l ose i t( 10 l oads a week) I wi l l have t o f i r e back.Agr ee that t hi ngs aren' t wor ki ng as wel l as t hey wer e.Pet e [ Baci ] has si mi l ar compl ai nt s.Fl exi i s about f uel and you gave t hem a BSC di scount .Ti sk t i sk.Goya i s about you not char gi ng f or t he over wei ghtper mi t s. Agai n t i sk t i sk. Same as cut t i ng t he r at e i n mybook.

Ser r a wr ot e back, "I ' l l check t hem al l . . . you ar e cer t ai nl y not

t he t ar get . "

Gi ven t hi s f ai r l y di r ect evi dence of t he conspi r acy' s

exi st ence, ai ms, and obj ect i ves, we f i nd t hat t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al di d not preponder at e agai nst t he ver di ct . To

-28-


29/40

t he cont r ar y, t he st r engt h of t he gover nment ' s case wei ghs i n f avor

of f i ndi ng t hat t he mi sconduct was har ml ess. 12 Thus, whi l e we are

concer ned by the i mpr opr i et y of t he pr osecut ors' r emar ks, we ar e

conf i dent t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed t i mel y and deci si vel y t o

i nst r uct t he j ur y i n gr eat det ai l t o di sr egar d t he of f endi ng

st at ement s. And we ar e consci ous t hat we shoul d "not set gui l t y

per sons f r ee si mpl y t o puni sh pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Vzquez- Bot et , 532 F. 3d 37, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The

gover nment ' s r emar ks di d not so poi son t he wel l as t o necessi t at e

a new t r i al , and we af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of a

mi st r i al on gr ounds of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct .

B. Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence

Peake ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t al so er r ed i n

per mi t t i ng t he t est i mony f r om wi t nesses i nvol ved i n busi nesses

harmed by t he conspi r acy because t he t est i mony i mpl i ed t hat t he

conspi r acy i mpact ed Puer t o Ri can consumer s, t her ef or e agai n causi ng

t he j ur or s t o consi der t hemsel ves vi ct i ms of t he char ged

conspi r acy. Peake cl ai ms t he t est i mony shoul d have been excl uded

under Feder al Rul es of Evi dence 402 and 403 ei t her as i r r el evant or

because i t caused "unf ai r pr ej udi ce" and had an "undue tendency t o

12 On t hi s f i nal poi nt , we cannot i gnor e t hat a per se vi ol at i onof Sect i on 1 onl y r equi r es t hat "an ant i t r ust pl ai nt i f f [ pr esent ]ei t her di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of def endant s' ' consci ouscommi t ment t o a common scheme desi gned t o achi eve an unl awf ulobj ect i ve. ' " Ever gr een Par t ner i ng Gr p. , I nc. v. Pact i v Cor p. , 720F. 3d 33, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Monsant o Co. v. Spr ay Ri t eSer v. Cor p. , 465 U. S. 752, 764 ( 1984) ) .

-29-


30/40

suggest deci si on on an i mpr oper basi s, commonl y, t hough not

necessar i l y, an emot i onal one. " Fed. R. Evi d. 403 advi sor y

commi t t ee' s not e to 1972 pr oposed r ul es; see al so Fed. R. Evi d. 402

( "I r r el evant evi dence i s not admi ssi bl e. ") ; Fed. R. Evi d. 403 ( "The

cour t may excl ude rel evant evi dence i f 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

prej udi ce . . . . " ) .

We r evi ew a t r i al cour t ' s obj ect ed- t o evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs

f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Romer o- Lpez, 695 F. 3d

17, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guezBer r os, 573

F. 3d 55, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . That i ncl udes a t r i al cour t ' s

determi nat i on under Rul e 403 t hat evi dence i s more pr obat i ve t han

pr ej udi ci al . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ram r ez- Ri ver a, Nos. 13- 2285,

13- 2289, 13- 2291, 13- 2320, 2015 WL 5025225, at *26 ( 1st Ci r . Aug.

26, 2015) ( ci t i ng Wal ker , 665 F. 3d at 229) .

Rul e 403 " r equi r es t he t r i al cour t t o excl ude t he

evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by ' t he

danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Var oudaki s, 233

F. 3d 113, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 403) . Thi s

anal ysi s "' i s a qui nt essent i al l y f act- sensi t i ve ent er pr i se' whi ch

t he di st r i ct cour t i s i n t he best posi t i on t o make. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Soto, Nos. 13- 2343, 13- 2344, 13- 2350, 2015 WL 5011456, at *17

( 1st Ci r . Aug. 25, 2015) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. J ouber t , 778

F. 3d 247, 255 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) , cer t . deni ed, 135 S. Ct . 2874

( 2015) ) . Al l evi dence i s by desi gn pr ej udi ci al , Var oudaki s, 233

-30-


31/40

F. 3d at 122, but unf ai r pr ej udi ce r ef er s " t o t he capaci t y of some

concededl y r el evant evi dence t o l ur e t he f act f i nder i nt o decl ar i ng

gui l t on a gr ound di f f er ent f r om pr oof speci f i c t o t he of f ense

char ged. " Uni t ed St at es v. Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d 144, 153 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( quot i ng Ol d Chi ef v. Uni t ed St at es, 519 U. S. 172, 180

( 1997) ) . One such exampl e i s when " t he evi dence ' i nvi t es t he j ur y

t o r ender a ver di ct on an i mpr oper emot i onal basi s. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 604 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng

Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at 122) .

An abuse of di scr et i on f i ndi ng on a Rul e 403 r ul i ng " i s

not an easy one t o make" and "onl y i n ' ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng

ci r cumst ances' " woul d we r ever se the j udgment of t he di st r i ct

cour t . Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d at 154 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741

F. 3d 217, 229 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) ; see al so Landr y, 631 F. 3d at 604

( "Rul e 403 j udgment s ar e t ypi cal l y bat t l ef i el d det er mi nat i ons, and

gr eat def er ence i s owed t o t he t r i al cour t ' s super i or coi gn of

vant age. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Shi nder man, 515 F. 3d 5, 17 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) ) ) .

Gui ded by t he above f r amework, we do not f i nd t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n per mi t t i ng t he t est i mony of

r epr esent at i ves f r om busi nesses af f ect ed by t he conspi r acy. The

wi t nesses never st at ed t hat t he hi gher cost s i ncur r ed by t he di r ect

cust omer s of t he shi ppi ng compani es wer e i ndi r ect l y t r ansf er r ed t o

t hei r consumer s, and t he def ense was al so al l owed t o st r i ke

quest i ons r egar di ng t he ef f ect of t he i ncr eased cost s on t he

-31-


32/40

busi nesses' bot t oml i ne. The t est i mony el i ci t ed by t he gover nment

pr oper l y est abl i shed t he ef f ect s of f i xi ng pr i ces and r i ggi ng bi ds.

Af t er al l , t he conspi r acy' s ef f ect on i nt er st at e commer ce was an

el ement of t he of f ense t he gover nment was r equi r ed t o est abl i sh.

See Nat ' l Col l egi at e At hl et i c Ass' n v. Bd. of Regent s of Uni v. of

Okl a. , 468 U. S. 85, 104 ( 1984) ( "Under t he Sherman Act t he

cri t er i on t o be used i n j udgi ng t he val i di t y of a r est r ai nt on

t r ade i s i t s i mpact on compet i t i on. " ) . The gover nment ' s

exami nat i on of t he wi t nesses was l i mi t ed t o est abl i shi ng t hat

el ement . Ther ef or e, we f i nd no abuse of di scr et i on, and af f i r mt he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng per mi t t i ng t he wi t nesses' t est i mony.

C. Theory of Defense Instruction

Peake next ar gues t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al

because he was i mpr oper l y deni ed hi s r equest ed t heor y- of - def ense

j ury i nst r uct i on. Speci f i cal l y, Peake r equest ed t he f ol l owi ng

i nstr uct i on:

Mr . Peake does not cont est t hat t here was a conspi r acyt hat exi st ed bet ween Gabr i el Ser r a, Kevi n Gi l l , Gr egor yGl ova, and Pet er Baci . Rat her , he cont ends t hat he di dnot knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y par t i ci pat e i n t hi sconspi r acy and di d not knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y j oi nt he conspi r acy as a member . Mr . Peake f ur t her cont endst hat any di scussi ons he had wi t h Gabr i el Ser r a wer el egi t i mat e and compet i t i ve di scussi ons and notant i - compet i t i ve conspi r acy r el at ed. Mr . Peake al socont ends t hat he was compet i ng wi t h Hor i zon, i ncl udi ng onmarket share and pr i ce.

Al t hough t hi s i s Mr . Peake' s def ense, t he bur den al waysr emai ns on t he government t o pr ove t he el ement s of t heof f ense beyond a r easonabl e doubt . I f you do not bel i evet he gover nment has proven beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

-32-


33/40

Mr . Peake i nt ent i onal l y and knowi ngl y j oi ned t heconspi r acy, you must f i nd hi m not gui l t y.

A def endant i s " ent i t l ed t o an i nst r uct i on on hi s t heor y

of def ense so l ong as t he theor y i s a val i d one and t her e i s

evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o suppor t i t . " Uni t ed St at es v. McGi l l ,

953 F. 2d 10, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

However , " t he def endant has no r i ght t o put wor ds i n t he j udge' s

mout h. So l ong as the char ge suf f i ci ent l y conveys t he def endant ' s

t heor y, i t need not par r ot t he exact l anguage t hat t he def endant

pr ef er s. " I d. A di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a t heor y of def ense

i nst r uct i on i s revi ewed de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Bai r d, 712 F. 3d

623, 627- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But a t r i al cour t ' s ref usal t o gi ve

a par t i cul ar i nst r ucti on const i t ut es rever si bl e er r or onl y i f t he

r equest ed i nst r uct i on ( 1) was cor r ect as a mat t er of l aw, ( 2) was

not subst ant i al l y i ncor por at ed i nt o t he char ges as r ender ed, and

( 3) was i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant poi nt i n t he case. I d. at 628.

Here, r egardl ess of whether Peake shoul d have been

gr ant ed hi s i nst r uct i on, t her e i s no r ever si bl e er r or because t he

di st r i ct cour t of f er ed essent i al l y t he same i nst r uct i on Peake

r equest ed, j ust i n i t s own wor ds. Fi r st , t he i nst r uct i ons t he

di st r i ct cour t gave st at ed t hat " t he Gover nment [ must pr ove t o t he

j ury] t hat Mr . Peake i s gui l t y of t he cr i me wi t h whi ch he i s

char ged beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Second, t hey ment i oned t hat

t he government bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat Peake "knowi ngl y

and i nt ent i onal l y became a member of t he conspi r acy" and that t he

-33-


34/40

"conspi r acy . . . af f ect ed i nt er st at e commer ce. " Thi r d, t he

i nst r uct i ons r ef er enced t he possi bi l i t y that "compet i t or s may have

l egi t i mat e, l awf ul r easons t o have cont act wi t h each ot her , " and

t hat "si mi l ar i t y of conduct . . . does not necessar i l y est abl i sh

t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy, " because "t her e woul d be no

conspi r acy . . . [ i ] f act i ons wer e t aken i ndependent l y by t hem

sol el y as a mat t er of i ndi vi dual busi ness j udgment . " Compar i ng

t hese passages wi t h Peake' s pr oposed i nst r uct i on, we cannot

concl ude t hat anyt hi ng Peake asked f or was excl uded. There i s

t her ef or e no r ever si bl e er r or .

D. Jury Deliberations

The l ast t r i al - r el at ed ar gument Peake r ai ses i s t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n i t s r esponse t o t he t wo not es f r om t he

j ury, bot h r ecei ved on t he second day of del i ber at i ons, i n whi ch

t he j ur y st at ed i t was not abl e t o r each a unani mous ver di ct . Bot h

t i mes, t he di st r i ct j udge sent a not e back t o t he j ur y, aski ng t he

j uror s t o "cont i nue del i ber at i on. " Peake ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t shoul d have decl ar ed a mi st r i al af t er t he second not e because

i t was cl ear t hat t he j ur y was at an i mpasse. Peake al so ar gues

t hat , i f t he cour t was goi ng t o r espond t o t he not e, i t was at

l east r equi r ed t o i ncl ude i n i t s r epl y t he t hr ee el ement s nor mal l y

r equi r ed i n an Al l en char ge.

For some backgr ound, when a j ur y i s deadl ocked, t he t r i al

cour t may del i ver an Al l en char ge, di r ect i ng t he j ur y t o deci de t he

-34-


35/40

case i f at al l possi bl e. Gi ven t he pot ent i al coer ci veness of such

an i nst r uct i on, our case l aw hol ds t hat such a char ge must be

bal anced by i nst r uct i ons t hat ( 1) communi cat e t he possi bi l i t y of

t he maj or i t y and mi nor i t y of t he j ur y reexami ni ng t hei r per sonal

ver di ct s; ( 2) r est at e t he gover nment ' s mai nt enance of t he bur den of

pr oof ; and ( 3) i nf or m t he j ur y that t hey may f ai l t o agr ee

unani mousl y. Uni t ed St at es v. Angi ul o, 485 F. 2d 37, 39 ( 1st Ci r .

1973) .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on not t o decl ar e a

mi st r i al or t o pr ovi de addi t i onal gui dance t o a j ur y f or abuse of

di scret i on, Uni t ed St at es v. Vanvl i et , 542 F. 3d 259, 266 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) , and we f i nd t here was no abuse of di scr et i on here.

Fi r st , we not e t hat t he j ur y sent i t s not es on Monday

af t er noon and eveni ng, dur i ng i t s f i r st f ul l day of del i ber at i ons,

af t er havi ng del i ber at ed f or onl y hour s on Fr i day. I t was t hus not

an abuse of di scret i on f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o concl ude t hat ,

par t i cul ar l y af t er a ni ne- day t r i al , t he j ur y needed mor e t i me t o

consi der t he evi dence bef or e a mi st r i al mi ght be consi der ed.

Second, t he di st r i ct j udge' s r esponse t o t he j ur y,

i nst r uct i ng i t t o "cont i nue del i ber at i ons, " was not an Al l en

char ge, and t her ef or e di d not r equi r e t he suppl ement al bal anci ng

i nst r uct i ons nor mal l y requi r ed i n an Al l en char ge. 13 I n a si mi l ar

case, Uni t ed St at es v. Fi guer oa- Encar naci n, 343 F. 3d 23, 31- 32

13 I ndeed, we agr ee t hat i t woul d have been pr ematur e t o gi ve oneat t hi s ear l y poi nt i n t he del i ber at i ons, af t er a ni ne- day t r i al .

-35-


36/40

( 1st Ci r . 2003) , we hel d t hat a di st r i ct j udge' s i nst r uct i on t o t he

j ury t o go home, r el ax, and cont i nue del i ber at i ons t he f ol l owi ng

day cont ai ned no coerci ve el ement s and, as such, was not an Al l en

char ge r equi r i ng suppl ement al i nst r uct i ons. Li kewi se, her e, t he

di st r i ct cour t si mpl y asked t he j ur y t o r est and come back i n t he

mor ni ng t o cont i nue del i ber at i ons. Thi s was no Al l en char ge.

Accor di ngl y, we f i nd no abuse of di scret i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r esponse t o t he j ur y' s not es dur i ng del i ber at i on.

VI. Sentencing

As a f i nal mat t er , Peake ar gues t hat , even i f hi s

convi ct i on i s not over t ur ned, he shoul d be r esent enced. Peake

r ai ses onl y one ar gument r egar di ng hi s sent ence: t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t i ncor r ect l y cal cul at ed t he vol ume of commer ce af f ect ed by the

conspi r acy, and t her ef or e i mpr oper l y appl i ed, among ot her of f ense-

l evel enhancement s, a t wel ve- l evel enhancement under sect i on 2R1. 1

of t he Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ( U. S. S. G. ) . We deny t he

appeal of t he sent ence, f i ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

appl i ed t he sent enci ng gui del i nes.

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on and

appl i cat i on of t he sent enci ng gui del i nes de novo. Uni t ed St at es v.

St oupi s, 530 F. 3d 82, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . However , "we 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) .

-36-


37/40

For ant i t r ust of f enses af f ect i ng a vol ume of commer ce of

mor e t han $1 mi l l i on, t he sent enci ng gui del i nes pr ovi de t hat t he

of f ense l evel shoul d be adj ust ed by a cer t ai n number of l evel s

accordi ng t o t he vol ume of commerce t hat was af f ect ed by t he

conspi r acy, as i ndi cat ed by a t abl e pr ovi ded t her ei n. See U. S. S. G.

2R1. 1( b) ( 2) . The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat mor e t han $500

mi l l i on i n commer ce was af f ect ed, and t hat a t wel ve- l evel

enhancement appl i ed under 2R1. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) . Peake argues t he

vol ume of commerce was, at most , appr oxi matel y $386. 2 mi l l i on, and

t heref ore onl y a t en- l evel enhancement shoul d have been appl i ed

under 2R1. 1( b) ( 2) ( E) . He cont ends t hat , i n cal cul at i ng t he

vol ume of af f ect ed commer ce, t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

i ncl uded commer ci al act i vi t y that t ook pl ace bef or e 2005, whi ch i s

when the i ndi ct ment char ged Peake wi t h j oi ni ng the conspi r acy, and

t hat t he cour t al so i ncl uded commerce that was unaf f ected by the

conspi r acy.

Af t er a thor ough r evi ew of t he sent enci ng r ecor d, we f i nd

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n det er mi ni ng t hat t he

af f ected vol ume of commerce was more t han $500 mi l l i on. Fi r st , t he

r ecor d shows t hat t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have r eached i t s mor e-

t han- $500 mi l l i on number f or t he vol ume of af f ect ed commerce even

wi t hout i ncl udi ng commerce that mi ght have occur r ed bef ore 2005,

when Peake i s charged wi t h j oi ni ng t he conspi r acy. So we wi l l move

on t o Peake' s second ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y

-37-


38/40

i ncl uded i n i t s cal cul at i on what he cont ends was " unaf f ect ed"

commer ce.

I n cal cul at i ng t he "vol ume of commer ce, " t he di st r i ct

cour t i s t o consi der not j ust " t he damage caused or pr of i t made by

t he def endant , " but t he over al l amount of sal es dur i ng t he

conspi r acy. I d. at 2R1. 1( b) ( 2) & cmt . 7 ( " [ T] he vol ume of

commer ce at t r i but abl e to an i ndi vi dual par t i ci pant i n a conspi r acy

i s t he vol ume of commerce done by hi m or hi s pr i nci pal i n goods or

ser vi ces t hat wer e af f ect ed by t he vi ol at i on. ") ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Andr eas, 216 F. 3d 645, 678 ( 7t h Ci r . 2000) ( "[ I ] t i s

r easonabl e t o concl ude that al l sal es made by def endant s dur i ng

t hat per i od ar e ' af f ect ed. ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. SKW Met al s

& Al l oys, I nc. , 195 F. 3d 83, 90 ( 2d Ci r . 1999) ) ( emphasi s added) ) .

Al t hough t her e i s a pr esumpt i on t hat al l sal es made dur i ng t he

conspi r acy wer e af f ect ed, and shoul d t her ef or e be i ncl uded i n t he

vol ume of commer ce cal cul at i on, t hi s i s a pr esumpt i on t hat t he

def endant may r ebut by of f er i ng evi dence t hat some sal es were not

af f ect ed. Uni t ed St at es v. Gi or dano, 261 F. 3d 1134, 1146 ( 11t h

Ci r . 2001) .

I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t had bef or e i t dat a

pr oduced by Sea St ar i ndi cat i ng t hat i t s t ot al r evenue bet ween 2005

and 2008 amount ed t o over $565 mi l l i on, and i t used t hi s number t o

concl ude t hat t he t wel ve- l evel enhancement appl i ed. Peake argues

t hat t hi s was an er r or because t he f ol l owi ng r evenue was

"unaf f ect ed" commerce and shoul d have been subt r acted f r om t he

-38-


39/40

t ot al : ( 1) r evenue f r omnon- cont ai ner f r ei ght t hat he cont ends was

not a par t of t he ant i t r ust conspi r acy, ( 2) r evenue f r om 2, 634

cust omer s t hat wer e never di scussed i n t he conspi r acy, ( 3) r evenue

f r om f uel surchar ges, whi ch Peake argues woul d have been charged

even i f t her e had been no conspi r acy, and ( 4) r evenue f r om

Tr anspor t at i on Ser vi ces Agreement s, whi ch Peake cl ai ms wer e r out i ne

and ent i r el y l awf ul , and di d not af f ect i nt er st at e commer ce.

However , i n or der t o excl ude t hi s r evenue f r om t he vol ume of

af f ected commerce cal cul at i ons, Peake was r equi r ed t o show t hat

t hese t r ansact i ons wer e "compl et el y unaf f ect ed" by t he conspi r acy.

Andr eas, 216 F. 3d at 678- 79. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Peake

f ai l ed t o do so.

Thi s i s essent i al l y a f act ual quest i on, and we f i nd no

cl ear er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs t hat t he obj ected- t o

r evenue shoul d have been i ncl uded i n t he vol ume of commerce

cal cul at i on. Test i mony, par t i cul ar l y Baci ' s, and document ar y

evi dence, i ncl udi ng var i ous emai l s, pr esent ed at t r i al showed t hat

t he conspi r at or s had col l uded t o f i x t he f uel sur char ges, and t hat

r evenue f r om t he f uel sur char ge was t her ef or e a par t of t he

conspi r acy. The f i xed sur char ges af f ect ed al l car go t r anspor t ed,

t hus af f ect i ng al l sal es, i ncl udi ng r evenue f r om non- cont ai ner

f r ei ght and f r om al l cust omer s, even i f t hat f r ei ght and t hose

cust omer s had never expl i ci t l y been made a par t of t he conspi r acy.

Fi nal l y, evi dence at t r i al showed t hat Tr anspor t at i on Ser vi ces

Agr eement s were used i n f ur t herance of t he conspi r acy. Thus,

-39-


40/40

f i ndi ng no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s comput at i on of a vol ume of

af f ect ed commer ce i n excess of $500 mi l l i on, we af f i r m t he

sentence.

VII. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he convi ct i on and sent ence of

Def endant - Appel l ant Fr ank Peake i s

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Peake, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents