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

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

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 159313- 1601

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J UNI OR H. DE LA CRUZ- FELI CI ANO,SANDRI RI J O,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

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

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Ri ppl e, * Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d J . Wenc, on br i ef , f or appel l ant J uni or H. De LaCr uz- Fel i ci ano.

Fel i ci a H. El l swor t h, wi t h whom Er i c F. Fl et cher , Howar d M.Shapi r o, and Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dorr LLP wer e on

br i ef , f or appel l ant Sandr i Ri j o.Hct or E. Ram r ez- Car bo, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guezVl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Nel son Pr ezSosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,

*Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/28

Appel l at e Di vi si on, and J ohn A. Mat hews I I , Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

___________________

May 13, 2015___________________


3/28

- 3 -

RIPPLE,Circuit Judge. J uni or H. De La Cr uz- Fel i ci ano

( De La Cr uz) and Sandr i Ri j o wer e charged wi t h, and convi ct ed

of , conspi r i ng t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e f i ve

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and ai di ng and abet t i ng ot her s t o do t he

same. They now appeal t hei r convi ct i ons, al l egi ng var i ous

pr ocedur al and evi dent i ar y er r or s. For t he r easons set f or t h i n

t hi s opi ni on, we af f i r m t he j udgment s of t he di st r i ct cour t .

I

BACKGROUND

Thi s case i nvol ves a conspi r acy t o smuggl e over 900

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne i nt o Sant a I sabel , Puer t o Ri co. Eduar do

Ubi er a and J uan Bal t azar or chest r at ed t he oper at i on. They

r ecr ui t ed Fr anci sco Sandy Navarr o- Reyes ( Navarr o) and Gary

Br i t o- Gonzl ez ( Br i t o) t o t r anspor t t he cocai ne, vi a a

mot or boat , f r om a mot her shi p at sea t o Puer t o Ri co. The

oper at i on, however , di d not r un smoot hl y. Whi l e at sea, Navar r o

and Br i t o ran out of f uel and were unabl e to make i t back t o

shor e. At t hat poi nt , accor di ng t o gover nment wi t nesses, Mr . De

La Cr uz was r ecr ui t ed t o t ake anot her cr af t out t o rendezvous

wi t h and ref uel t he st r anded mot or boat .

Mr . De La Cr uz successf ul l y del i ver ed t he f uel t o the

st r anded mot or boat . Whi l e st i l l at sea, however , hi s own cr af t

devel oped mechani cal pr obl ems. St r anded at sea, Mr . De La Cr uz

and anot her i ndi vi dual aboar d t he vessel used a sat el l i t e phone


4/28

- 4 -

t o cal l f or hel p. Accor di ng t o Freddy Al t agr aci a- Medi na

( Al t agr aci a) , a codef endant , Mr . De La Cr uz had request ed the

sat el l i t e phone bef or e depar t i ng i n or der t o communi cat e wi t h

t he st r anded mot orboat . The Uni t ed St at es Coast Guard f ound

Mr . De La Cr uz s vessel adr i f t appr oxi mat el y si xt y mi l es f r om

shor e and r escued i t s cr ew. Coast Guard agent s quest i oned t he

men about t hei r sat el l i t e phone. Accor di ng t o Agent Chr i st opher

Davi d Xi r au, t he men cl ai med t o have t ossed t he phone over board

because i t had become wet .

Meanwhi l e, t r avel i ng i n t hei r r ef uel ed mot or boat ,

Navarr o and Br i t o reached t he shore wi t h the dr ugs on J anuary

26, 2012, t hr ee days af t er t he pl anned del i ver y dat e. Awai t i ng

t hei r ar r i val wer e sever al i ndi vi dual s r ecrui t ed t o hel p unl oad

t he motorboat . Mr . Ri j o was among t hi s gr oup. Accordi ng t o

gover nment wi t nesses, he or i gi nal l y pl anned t o ser ve onl y as a

l ookout ; however , due t o t he mot or boat s l at e ar r i val , he

i nst ead ended up hel pi ng t o unl oad t he cocai ne f r om t he

motorboat i nt o a Ni ssan Ar mada f or t r anspor t t o San J uan.

Fol l owi ng a t i p f r om a conf i dent i al i nf or mant , l aw

enf orcement ant i ci pated t he J anuary 26 del i ver y and wer e

sur vei l l i ng t he ar ea t hr oughout t he ni ght . They obser ved

sever al i ndi vi dual s unl oadi ng t he dr ugs f r om t he mot or boat i nt o

a vehi cl e, but wer e unabl e t o vi sual l y i dent i f y any of t hose

i nvol ved i n t he oper at i on. Two ot her vehi cl es wer e pr esent at


5/28

- 5 -

t he scene. Of f i cer s st opped t he mot or boat and t hr ee vehi cl es as

t hey depart ed t he beach. Ubi er a and t wo other i ndi vi dual s wer e

st opped i n t he Ni ssan Ar mada. Of f i cer s f ound over 900 ki l ogr ams

of cocai ne and t hr ee f i r ear ms i n t he vehi cl e. Navar r o, Br i t o,

and t wo ot her i ndi vi dual s wer e st opped i n a second vehi cl e.

Bal t azar , Mr . Ri j o, and one ot her per son wer e st opped i n a t hi r d

vehi cl e. Thr ee i ndi vi dual s wer e st opped i n t he mot or boat . Al l

t hi r t een men wer e ar r est ed i mmedi at el y. Of f i cer s ar r est ed

Mr . De La Cr uz si x days l at er .

On Febr uary 1, 2012, a gr and j ur y retur ned an

i ndi ct ment , char gi ng Mr . Ri j o, Mr . De La Cr uz, and t hei r t wel ve

codef endant s wi t h conspi r i ng t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) , and 846, and ai di ng and abet t i ng

t he same, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i )

and 18 U. S. C. 2. 1 Ever yone except Mr . Ri j o and Mr . De La Cr uz

accept ed pl ea agr eement s. Af t er a t r i al , t he j ur y f ound bot h

Mr . Ri j o and Mr . De La Cr uz gui l t y as t o al l char ges. 2 Af t er

sent enci ng, t he def endant s t i mel y appeal ed. 3

1 The i ndi ct ment al so char ged Ubi era and t wo ot her def endant swi t h possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ugt r af f i cki ng cri me, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( c)( 1) ( A) . 2 The di st r i ct cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on was premi sed on 18 U. S. C. 3231.3 Our j ur i sdi ct i on i s secur e under 28 U. S. C. 1291.


6/28

- 6 -

II

DISCUSSION

A. Mr. De La Cruz

On appeal , Mr . De La Cr uz r ai ses onl y one argument .

I t concer ns t he di st r i ct cour t s quest i oni ng of Agent Xi r au of

t he Uni t ed St at es Coast Guar d. At t r i al , t he agent t est i f i ed

about t he rescue of Mr . De La Cr uz aboar d the vessel t hat had

gone adr i f t . Agent Xi r au st at ed t hat he had asked

Mr . De La Cr uz and t he ot her i ndi vi dual aboar d t he vessel about

t he sat el l i t e phone t hat t hey had used t o cal l t he Coast Guar d.

Dur i ng t he agent s t est i mony, on t he f our t h day of a si x- day

t r i al , t he f ol l owi ng exchange t ook pl ace:

THE GOVERNMENT: I wi l l ask you t o cl ar i f y,when you r ef er t o one of t het wo i ndi vi dual s on t he boat ,what speci f i cal l y as t o each

i ndi vi dual t hey sai d, i fanyt hi ng?

AGENT XI RAU: Roger t hat .

THE GOVERNMENT: I was aski ng you aboutJ uni or De l a Cr uz, i f uponyou quest i oni ng hi m di d heanswer anyt hi ng t o you?

AGENT XI RAU: That was t he onl y quest i on

t hat I r emember hi mspeci f i cal l y gi vi ng me ananswer .

THE GOVERNMENT: What about t he ot heri ndi vi dual ?


7/28

- 7 -

AGENT XI RAU: I don t r emember hi s name.When I say t hey, I coul dmean ei t her one or t heot her , I don t r emember whoat t i me who was t he one t hat

gave answers t o the sever alquest i ons we asked.

THE COURT: But wer e quest i ons gener al l yanswer ed?

AGENT XI RAU: Yes, ma am.

THE COURT: Any of t hem express adi sagreement wi t h what t heother was sayi ng at t het i me?

AGENT XI RAU: No, ma am. [ 4]

Def ense counsel obj ect ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t s

quest i oni ng. I n par t i cul ar , counsel asser t ed t hat t he quest i ons

conveyed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was comment i ng on Mr . De La

Cr uz s si l ence when speaki ng wi t h Coast Guar d of f i ci al s. The

di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed, st at i ng t hat t he wi t ness i s not

sayi ng that [ Mr . De La Cr uz] di d not answer , he says he does not

r emember who answer ed what . 5 Never t hel ess, despi t e i t s

di sagr eement wi t h def ense counsel s char act er i zat i on of t he

exchange, t he di st r i ct cour t gave a caut i onar y i nst r uct i on,

st at i ng t hat t he j ur y was not t o dr aw any i nf er ences f r om t he

4 R. 401 at 6970. We have added t he names of t he speakers f ort he conveni ence of t he reader . 5 I d. at 71.


8/28

- 8 -

quest i ons t hat [ t he cour t ] posed. 6 My onl y i nt ent her e, t he

di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned, was t o assi st i n cl ar i f yi ng t he

si t uat i on. But once agai n I i nst r uct you t hat t her e i s no

i nt ent and . . . no i nf er ence [ shoul d be] dr awn f r om any t ype of

quest i on I have posed. 7

Fol l owi ng t he di st r i ct cour t s caut i onar y i nst r ucti on,

Agent Xi r au then test i f i ed that Mr . De La Cr uz and t he ot her

i ndi vi dual aboar d the vessel had of f er ed a st r ange expl anat i on

f or no l onger possessi ng t he sat el l i t e phone t hat t hey had used

t o cal l f or hel p. Accor di ng t o t he agent , t he men had t ol d hi m

t hat t hey t hr ew t he sat el l i t e phone over boar d because i t had

become wet . The agent descr i bed t hi s expl anat i on as odd. 8

Mr . De La Cr uz now cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s

quest i oni ng of Agent Xi r au evi nces j udi ci al bi as i n vi ol at i on of

hi s r i ght t o due pr ocess of l aw. When addr essi ng al l egat i ons

of j udi ci al bi as, we consi der whet her t he comment s wer e i mpr oper

and, i f so, whet her t he compl ai ni ng part y can show ser i ous

pr ej udi ce. Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 24 ( 1st

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

st at ement s i n l i ght of t he r ecor d as a whol e, not i n i sol at i on.

I d.

6 I d. at 72.7 I d.8 I d. at 7475.


9/28

- 9 -

I n assessi ng t hi s cl ai m of j udi ci al bi as, our star t i ng

poi nt i s t he basi c pr i nci pl e t hat t her e i s not hi ng i nher ent l y

i mpr oper about a j udge posi ng quest i ons at t r i al . I d. I ndeed,

as we have pr evi ousl y observed, a cour t has t he pr er ogat i ve,

and at t i mes t he dut y, of el i ci t i ng f act s [ i t ] deems necessar y

t o t he cl ear pr esent at i on of i ssues. Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a-

Rodr guez, 761 F. 3d 105, 111 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Paz Ur i be, 891 F. 2d 396, 400 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ) ; see

al so Fed. R. Evi d. 614( b) ( The cour t may exami ne a wi t ness

r egar dl ess of who cal l s t he wi t ness. ) . Such quest i oni ng i s

per mi ssi bl e so l ong as [ t he cour t ] pr eser ves an at t i t ude of

i mpar t i al i t y and guar ds agai nst gi vi ng t he j ur y an i mpr essi on

t hat t he cour t bel i eves t he def endant i s gui l t y. Ri ver a-

Rodr guez, 761 F. 3d at 111 ( quot i ng Paz Ur i be, 891 F. 2d at 400

01) . Not abl y, a quest i on i s not i mpr oper si mpl y because i t

cl ar i f i es evi dence t o t he di sadvant age of t he def endant . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mont as, 41 F. 3d 775, 781 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

[ T] he r ul e concer ni ng j udi ci al i nt er r ogat i on i s desi gned t o

pr event j udges f r om conveyi ng pr ej udi ci al messages t o t he j ur y.

I t i s not concer ned wi t h t he damagi ng t r ut h t hat t he quest i ons

mi ght uncover . Uni t ed St ates v. Mart i n, 189 F. 3d 547, 554 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1999) .

Even i f a comment i s i mproper , however , a def endant

al so must show t hat t he j udi ci al i nt er vent i on r esul t ed i n


10/28

- 10 -

ser i ous pr ej udi ce. Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 761 F. 3d at 112. As we

r ecent l y have observed, t hi s bur den i s comparabl e t o

demonst r at i ng pr ej udi ce under pl ai n er r or r evi ew. See i d. I n

ot her wor ds, i mpr oper j udi ci al i nt er vent i on ser i ousl y

pr ej udi ce[ s] a def endant s case when we f i nd t hat t her e i s a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or t he er r or , t he ver di ct

woul d have been di f f er ent . I d. The bur den of est abl i shi ng

ser i ous pr ej udi ce i s mor e di f f i cul t wher e, as her e, a cour t

f ol l ows i t s comment s wi t h an appr opr i at e caut i onar y i nst r uct i on.

See Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d at 26 ( not i ng t hat wi t hi n wi de

mar gi ns, t he pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce st emmi ng f r om i mpr oper

t est i mony or comment s can be sat i sf act or i l y di spel l ed by

appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Pagn- Fer r er , 736 F. 3d 573, 582 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) ) .

Her e, Agent Xi r au t est i f i ed t hat he coul d not r emember

who, between Mr . De La Cr uz and t he ot her i ndi vi dual aboar d the

vessel , had answer ed hi s quest i ons r egar di ng t he sat el l i t e

phone. The di st r i ct cour t t hen asked whet her ei t her of t he men

expr ess[ ed] a di sagr eement wi t h what t he ot her was sayi ng at

t he t i me. 9 Thi s quest i on, Mr . De La Cr uz cont ends, conveyed t o

t he j ur y t hat t he def endant was i n t aci t agr eement wi t h any

answer s t o t he quest i on about t he sat el l i t e phone, t hus

9 I d. at 70.


11/28

- 11 -

creat [ i ng] cover f or t he gover nment t o at t r i but e t he

sat el l i t e phone t o hi m. 10

We per cei ve no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t s r emar ks.

The cour t s i nqui r y was nei t her t i nged wi t h par t i al i t y nor

suggest i ve of t he cour t s st ance on Mr . De La Cr uz s gui l t .

Rat her , t hi s i nqui r y mer el y cl ar i f i ed an ambi gui t y i n Agent

Xi r au s t est i mony. That t he r esul t i ng cl ar i f i cat i on was adver se

t o Mr . De La Cr uz s case i s not , wi t hout mor e, i ndi cat i ve of

j udi ci al bi as. See Mar t i n, 189 F. 3d at 554. I n any event , t he

cour t s r emar ks, whi ch came on t he f our t h day of a si x- day t r i al

and wer e f ol l owed by an appr opr i at e caut i onar y i nst r uct i on, di d

not ser i ousl y pr ej udi ce Mr . De La Cr uz s case. See Ayal a-

Vazquez, 751 F. 3d at 2526.

B. Mr. Rijo

Mr . Ri j o r ai ses t hr ee ar gument s on appeal . Fi r st , he

cont ends t hat t he Gover nment vi ol ated i t s dut y under Br ady v.

Mar yl and, 373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) , by f ai l i ng t o di scl ose er r or s i n

an i nvest i gat i ve r epor t pr i or t o hi s counsel s openi ng

st at ement . Second, he submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

admi t t i ng evi dence of hi s pr i or bad act s. Fi nal l y, he cont ends

t hat t he Gover nment s cl osi ng argument i naccur atel y descr i bed

10 Appel l ant s Br . 28.


12/28

- 12 -

hi s rol e i n t he of f ense, t hus resul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce t hat

war r ant s a new t r i al . 11 We addr ess t hese i ssues i n t ur n.

1.

Mr . Ri j o f i r st submi t s t hat t he Gover nment commi t t ed a

Br ady vi ol at i on by f ai l i ng t o di scl ose er r or s i n a DEA Repor t of

I nvest i gat i on- - known as a DEA 6- - pr i or t o def ense counsel s

openi ng st at ement . The DEA 6 at i ssue was pr epared by Agent

Wi l l i am Rosar i o and summar i zed st atement s made by Al t agr aci a.

The DEA 6 cont ai ned several er r oneous st at ements due t o t he

agent s conf usi on of Sandr i Ri j o, t he def endant , wi t h

Sandy Navar r o. I n par t i cul ar , t he r epor t er r oneousl y st at ed

t hat Mr . Ri j o, r at her t han Navar r o, was on t he mot or boat wi t h

Br i t o and had hel ped t o t r anspor t t he dr ugs f r om t he mot her

shi p t o shor e. Agent Rosar i o al so cr eat ed handwr i t t en not es

bef ore pr epar i ng t he DEA 6. Those not es, however , were

par t i al l y i n Spani sh and cont ai ned at l east one i nst ance wher e

t he agent agai n conf used Mr . Ri j o wi t h Navar r o.

The Government t urned over t he DEA 6 and t he agent s

handwr i t t en not es t o def ense counsel dur i ng pr et r i al di scover y.

The Government al so di scl osed i t s pl ans t o cal l Al t agraci a as a

11 Or i gi nal l y, Mr . Ri j o al so appeal ed hi s sent ence on pr ocedur aland subst ant i ve gr ounds. Fol l owi ng oral argument , however ,Mr . Ri j o, t hr ough hi s at t or ney, f i l ed a si gned l et t er aski ng t owi t hdr aw hi s sent enci ng chal l enge. We gr ant Mr . Ri j o s r equestand t hus do not consi der t hi s i ssue f ur t her .


13/28

- 13 -

wi t ness t o t est i f y t hat Mr . Ri j o was on t he shor e dur i ng t he

del i ver y and hel ped t o unl oad the dr ugs.

Bef ore openi ng st at ement s, def ense counsel i nf ormed

t he di st r i ct cour t and t he Gover nment of hi s i nt ent t o at t ack

Al t agr aci a s cr edi bi l i t y, i n par t by cl ai mi ng t hat Al t agr aci a

had of f er ed t hr ee di f f er ent account s of t he r el evant event s.

One of t hose account s was pr emi sed on t he er r oneous st at ement s

i n Agent Rosar i o s DEA 6. Def ense counsel never expl i ci t l y t ol d

t he Gover nment of hi s i nt ent t o r el y on t hose st at ement s.

Dur i ng openi ng st at ement s, Mr . Ri j o s counsel

pr esent ed a def ense pr emi sed i n l arge par t on i mpeachi ng t he

Gover nment s t hr ee mai n wi t nesses, one of whom was Al t agr aci a.

Def ense counsel pr esent ed hi s at t ack on Al t agr aci a s cr edi bi l i t y

as f ol l ows:

[ Al t agr aci a] has gi ven t he gover nment atl east t hr ee di f f er ent ver si ons as t o whathappened. The f i r st t i me he gave a ver si ont o t he government when he was or i gi nal l ycaught , he sai d that he had been f i shi ngsi nce J anuary 23. Now, t hat same wi t nessdi d not ment i on anyone el se at t hat t i me, hesai d I was f i shi ng si nce J anuar y 23, t hr eedays bef ore t hey wer e caught . Then, i nApr i l when he i s al r eady negot i at i ng wi t ht he gover nment and t r yi ng t o get t hem t o

gi ve hi m a good deal , he says t hat onJ anuar y 22, I t ook Sandr i Ri j o t o Faj ar do,my cl i ent , t o Faj ar do t o get on a boat t omeet t he mother boat , or t he boat br i ngi ngi n t he dr ugs cl oser t o Puer t o Ri co, t o got her e. And he al so says t hat he di d not seeSandr i Ri j o agai n unt i l dawn on J anuar y 26


14/28

- 14 -

when he came i n pi l ot i ng the boat t hatbr ought t he dr ugs i n.

Now, t he t hi r d ver si on t hat hegave, you j ust hear d f r om t he pr osecut or .

Notabl y when he gave t he ver si on of Apr i l hedi d not pl ace Sandr i Ri j o anywher e el sebet ween t he 22 t o t he 26, because Sandr iRi j o was out on t he boat , t he mother boat .What do we say here, as I sai d you al r eadyheard the gover nment gi ve us a pr evi ew as t o

that. [ 12]

Af t er openi ng st at ement s, t he Government i nf ormed

def ense counsel about t he mi st akes i n i t s DEA 6. Def ense

counsel i n t ur n moved f or a mi st r i al , cl ai mi ng t hat hi s

cl i ent [ s] r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al ha[ d] been compr omi sed. 13 I n

par t i cul ar , def ense counsel expr essed concer n t hat t he

Gover nment s l ate di scl osur e under mi ned t he def ense st r ategy

t hat he had pr esent ed t o t he j ur y dur i ng openi ng st atement s.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Mr . Ri j o s mot i on. I t

concl uded t hat def ense counsel s abi l i t y t o pr esent Mr . Ri j o s

def ense bef or e t he j ur y had not been i mpai r ed because he st i l l

coul d at t ack Al t agr aci a s cr edi bi l i t y at t r i al and coul d cal l

Agent Rosar i o t o t est i f y about t he DEA 6. Fur t her , t he cour t

hel dt hat Agent Rosar i o s handwr i t t en not es made cl ear t hat t he

per son i dent i f i ed was Sandy N[ a] var r o, and t hat t he i naccur acy

i n t he DEA 6 . . . coul d be gat her ed by revi ewi ng t he [ agent s]

12 R. 385 at 1213.13 R. 394 at 5.


15/28

- 15 -

r ough not es. 14 Def ense counsel di d not cal l Agent Rosar i o as a

wi t ness at t r i al .

Mr . Ri j o now cont ends t hat t he Gover nment vi ol at ed i t s

dut y under Br ady by f ai l i ng t o di scl ose, i n a t i mel y manner , t he

er r or s i n i t s DEA 6. Speci f i cal l y, Mr . Ri j o submi t s t hat t hose

er r ors are excul patory because they pr ovi de evi dence of a sl oppy

pol i ce i nvest i gat i on. Al t hough Mr . Ri j o s mot i on f or a mi st r i al

di d not expl i ci t l y al l ege a Br ady vi ol at i on, bot h par t i es assume

on appeal t hat t he mot i on was based on Br ady. I ndeed, t he

Gover nment has not ar gued t hat t he cl ai m was f or f ei t ed or

wai ved. For t hi s r eason, we assume t hat a Br ady cl ai m was

pr oper l y rai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , see Uni t ed St at es v.

Gonyer , 761 F. 3d 157, 166 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , and we revi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on f or abuse of di scret i on, see

Uni t ed St at es v. Cel est i n, 612 F. 3d 14, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Br ady

r equi r es t hat t he Gover nment di scl ose evi dence

f avor abl e t o an accused t hat i s mat er i al ei t her t o gui l t or t o

puni shment . 373 U. S. at 87. I n or der t o pr evai l on a Br ady

cl ai m, a def endant must show t hat : ( 1) evi dence was suppr essed;

( 2) t he evi dence was f avorabl e t o the accused; and ( 3) t he

evi dence was mat er i al t o ei t her gui l t or puni shment . See

St r i ckl er v. Gr eene, 527 U. S. 263, 28182 ( 1999) . Wi t h r egar d

14 I d. at 12, 16.


16/28

- 16 -

t o t he f i r st pr ong, we do not consi der f avor abl e evi dence

suppr essed i f t he def endant ei t her knew, or shoul d have

known[ , ] of t he essent i al f act s per mi t t i ng hi m t o t ake advant age

of any excul pat or y evi dence. El l swor t h v. War den, 333 F. 3d 1,

6 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. LeRoy, 687 F. 2d 610,

618 ( 2d Ci r . 1982) ) . As f or t he second and t hi r d pr ongs,

[ e] vi dence i s f avor abl e t o t he accused i f i t i s ei t her

excul pat or y or i mpeachi ng i n nat ur e and mat er i al i f t her e i s a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , had i t been di scl osed, t he r esul t

of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . Uni t ed St at es v.

Pr ochi l o, 629 F. 3d 264, 268 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Br ady al so appl i es i n cases wher e t he Government

del ays di scl osur e of r el evant evi dence. I n such cases, t he

def endant f ur t her must show t hat t he del ay pr event ed def ense

counsel f r om usi ng t he di scl osed mat er i al ef f ecti vel y i n

pr epar i ng and pr esent i ng t he def endant s case. Uni t ed St at es

v. Van Anh, 523 F. 3d 43, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . To car r y t hi s

bur den, [ t ] he def endant must at a mi ni mum make a pr i ma f aci e

showi ng of a pl ausi bl e st r at egi c opt i on whi ch t he del ay

f or ecl osed. I d.

The par t i es di sput e l ar gel y cent er s on t he t i mi ng of

t he Gover nment s di scl osur e. Rul i ng f or t he Gover nment , t he

di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat Agent Rosar i o s handwr i t t en

notes, di scl osed al ong wi t h t he DEA 6, adequatel y i nf ormed


17/28

- 17 -

Mr . Ri j o of t he er r or s i n t he DEA 6. Fur t her , t he cour t hel d

t hat , even i f t he Gover nment s di scl osur e was l at e, Mr . Ri j o was

not pr ej udi ced by t he del ay because he st i l l coul d cal l Agent

Rosar i o as a wi t ness t o t est i f y about t he er r or s at t r i al . We

ar e t r oubl ed by t he di st r i ct cour t s f i r st r at i onal e, but do

agr ee t hat t he second has mer i t .

As we not ed ear l i er , evi dence i s not suppr essed wi t hi n

t he meani ng of Br ady i f t he def endant ei t her knew, or shoul d

have known[ , ] of t he essent i al f act s per mi t t i ng hi m t o t ake

advant age of the evi dence. El l swort h, 333 F. 3d at 6 ( emphasi s

added) ( quot i ng LeRoy, 687 F. 2d at 618) . The shoul d have

known st andar d r ef er s t o t r i al pr epar at i on, and wi l l gener al l y

i mput e t o t he def endant knowl edge whi ch he other wi se woul d have

possessed f r om a di l i gent r evi ew of t he evi dence i n hi s cont r ol .

See i d.

at 7; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Pandozzi , 878 F. 2d 1526,

1529 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( Br ady does not r equi r e the gover nment t o

t ur n over i nf or mat i on whi ch, wi t h any reasonabl e di l i gence, t he

def endant can obt ai n hi msel f . ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng

J ar r el l v. Bal kcom, 735 F. 2d 1242, 1258 ( 11t h Ci r . 1984) ) ) .

Her e, t he di str i ct cour t f aul t ed Mr . Ri j o f or f ai l i ng t o not i ce

i ncongr ui t i es bet ween Agent Rosar i o s r ough not es and t he DEA 6,

whi ch, accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t , woul d have ( or at l east

shoul d have) al er t ed hi m t o t he er r or s i n t he DEA 6. Al t hough

we agr ee that a def endant or di nar i l y shoul d not i ce er r or s i n an


18/28

- 18 -

i nvest i gat i ve r epor t when such i ncongr ui t i es ar e cl ear l y

pr esent , 15 we have si gni f i cant r eser vat i ons, i n t hi s i nst ance,

about t he di st r i ct cour t s concl usi on. Agent Rosar i o s not es

ar e of poor qual i t y. The agent s rough handwr i t i ng, combi ned

wi t h t he f act t hat t he not es wer e di scl osed i n t he f or m of a

dar kened phot ocopy, r ender ed the mat er i al t hat Mr . Ri j o r ecei ved

al most ent i r el y i l l egi bl e. Mor eover , t he agent s not es wer e

par t i al l y i n Spani sh and cont ai ned at l east one i nst ance i n

whi ch t he agent f ur t her conf used Mr . Ri j o wi t h Navar r o.

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t , however , t hat t he

Gover nment s l at e di scl osur e of t hi s evi dence di d not pr event

def ense counsel f r om ef f ect i vel y usi ng i t at t r i al . The

Gover nment di scl osed these er r ors af t er openi ng st atement s on

t he f i r st day of t r i al , Monday, Sept ember 10, 2012. The

Gover nment r est ed i t s case at t he end of t he day on Fr i day,

Sept ember 14. The def ense r est ed on Tuesday, Sept ember 18,

wi t hout cal l i ng a si ngl e wi t ness. Nei t her par t y cal l ed Agent

Rosar i o t o t est i f y even t hough t he di st r i ct cour t , i n denyi ng

Mr . Ri j o s mot i on f or a mi st r i al , expl i ci t l y had advi sed

Mr . Ri j o t hat he coul d do so. Def ense counsel t hus had seven

15 Cf . El l swor t h v. War den, 333 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( not i ngt hat a def endant s Br ady cl ai m coul d be bar r ed i f he knew of[ pot ent i al l y excul pat or y evi dence] at t he t i me of hi s t r i al andf ai l ed t o pur sue t he l ead) .


19/28

- 19 -

days- - t hr ee of whi ch wer e unencumber ed by t r i al - - t o use t hi s

evi dence i n pr epar i ng and pr esent i ng Mr . Ri j o s case.

Mr . Ri j o has of f er ed no reason why t hi s i nt er val was

not enough t i me f or def ense counsel t o make ef f ect i ve use of t he

di scl osed mat er i al , nor coul d he. See Uni t ed St at es v. Pet er s,

732 F. 2d 1004, 1009 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) ( hol di ng t hat t he

Government s bel at ed di scl osure of i mpeachment evi dence, whi ch

was shor t , uncompl i cat ed, and f ai r l y pr edi ct abl e, di d not

vi ol at e Br ady wher e t he def endant s had t wo f ul l days, i ncl udi ng

one nont r i al day, i n whi ch t o pr epar e t o cr oss- exami ne t he

wi t ness) . To t he ext ent t hat t hi s evi dence was excul pat or y, i t s

r el evance t o Mr . Ri j o s case was st r ai ght f or war d: i t under mi ned

t he thor oughness and good f ai t h of t he Government s

i nvest i gat i on. Thi s def ense i s nei t her compl i cat ed nor

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he def ense st r at egy pur sued by Mr . Ri j o.

Seven days af f or ded ampl e t i me f or i t s pr epar at i on. See i d. On

t hese f act s, we cannot concl ude t hat t he Gover nment s bel ated

di scl osur e of t hi s evi dence pr event ed def ense counsel f r om usi ng

i t i n pr epar i ng and pr esent i ng Mr . Ri j o s case.

2.

Mr . Ri j o next submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed,

under Feder al Rul es of Evi dence 403 and 404( b) , i n admi t t i ng ( 1)

t est i mony by Al t agr aci a t hat Mr . Ri j o had t hr eat ened hi m whi l e

i n pr i son and ( 2) t est i mony by Agent J esus Mar r er o t hat dr ug-


20/28

- 20 -

t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i ons woul d l ook f or exper i enced peopl e t o

handl e a shi pment of t he si ze i nvol ved i n t hi s case. We r evi ew

f or abuse of di screti on a di st r i ct cour t s deci si on r egar di ng

t he admi ssi bi l i t y of evi dence under Rul es 403 and 404( b) .

Uni t ed St at es v. Lugo Guer r er o, 524 F. 3d 5, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Rul e 404( b) pr ovi des t hat [ e] vi dence of a cr i me,

wr ong, or ot her act i s not admi ssi bl e t o pr ove a per son s

char act er i n or der t o show t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on t he

per son act ed i n accor dance wi t h t he charact er . Fed. R. Evi d.

404( b) ( 1) . However , t hi s r ul e per mi t s t he admi ssi on of pr i or

act s evi dence havi ng speci al r el evance- - t hat i s, evi dence

r el evant f or a non- pr opensi t y- based pur pose, such as pr ovi ng

mot i ve, oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, knowl edge,

i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent . I d.

404( b) ( 2) . 16 I n assessi ng whet her pr i or act s evi dence i s

admi ssi bl e f or such a pur pose, we appl y a t wo- st ep t est . Uni t ed

St at es v. Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 60102 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Fi r st ,

we ask whet her t he pr of f er ed evi dence t r ul y possesses speci al

r el evance. I d.

at 602. I f i t does, we t hen appl y Rul e 403,

admi t t i ng t he evi dence so l ong as i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s not

subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he r i sk of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. I d.

16 As we have noted on pr evi ous occasi ons, Rul e 404( b) ( 2) sl i st i ng of per mi ssi bl e pur poses i s i l l ust r at i ve r at her t hanexhaust i ve. Uni t ed St at es v. Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 602 ( 1stCi r . 2011) .


21/28

- 21 -

We st ar t wi t h t he admi ssi on of Al t agr aci a s t est i mony.

At t r i al , Mr . Ri j o s def ense counsel cross- exami ned Al t agr aci a

about hi s l i mi t ed r el at i onshi p wi t h Mr . Ri j o. I n par t i cul ar ,

def ense counsel asked when, i f ever , he had spoken wi t h

Mr . Ri j o. Af t er f i r st descr i bi ng how t hey had spoken i n t he

f i el d dur i ng t hei r cr i mi nal act i vi t i es, Al t agr aci a t hen

r esponded t hat Mr . Ri j o had t hr eat ened hi m whi l e i n pr i son:

When I was at t he 2B uni t , Mr . Sandr i Ri j oyel l ed at me t hr ough t he- - i n ot her wor ds Iwas pl ayi ng basket bal l out i n t he yar d andhe yel l ed at me and sai d t hat i f I t ur nedar ound wi t h the aut hor i t i es he was goi ng t ohave my f ami l y ki dnaped [ si c] , t hat he wasgoi ng t o al so have me beat up and t hat hehad al r eady gi ven orders t o have my f ami l y

ki dnaped [ si c] . [ 17]

Def ense counsel obj ect ed t o t hi s unexpected t est i mony, but t he

di st r i ct cour t over r ul ed hi s obj ect i on, not i ng t hat def ense

counsel had pl ent y of t i me t o st op t h[ e] wi t ness. 18

The Gover nment cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not er r i n admi t t i ng evi dence of Mr . Ri j o s t hr eat , gi ven t hat

def ense counsel was t he one who el i ci t ed t hi s t est i mony. We

agr ee. As we have acknowl edged pr evi ousl y, a def endant cannot

compl ai n about t he admi ssi on of t est i mony di r ect l y responsi ve t o

a quest i on posed by def ense counsel . See Uni t ed St ates v.

Ri ver a- Ri ver a, 477 F. 3d 17, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( Ri ver a cannot

17 R. 401 at 21. 18 I d. at 22.


22/28

- 22 -

per suasi vel y compl ai n about t he admi ssi on of t hi s evi dence,

gi ven t hat i t was t he def ense- - not t he gover nment - - whi ch

el i ci t ed i t i n t he cour se of i t s cr oss- exami nat i on. . . . ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)

( not i ng t hat wher e a def endant el i ci t ed chal l enged t est i mony on

cr oss- exami nat i on, he coul d not cont est hi s own i nvi t ed er r or

on appeal ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cr est a, 825 F. 2d 538, 552 ( 1st Ci r .

1987) ( I t i s appar ent f r om t he r ecor d t hat def ense counsel di d

el i ci t t he r esponse, al t hough per haps i nadver t ent l y, and cannot

now compl ai n of t he al l eged er r or . ) . Her e, def ense counsel

asked Al t agr aci a whet her he ever had spoken wi t h Mr . Ri j o. I n

r esponse, Al t agr aci a st at ed t hat Mr . Ri j o ver bal l y had

t hr eat ened hi m whi l e i n pr i son. Because t hi s answer was

di r ect l y r esponsi ve t o def ense counsel s open- ended quest i on,

Mr . Ri j o cannot now compl ai n of i t s admi ssi on on appeal .

I n any event , Al t agr aci a s t est i mony woul d have been

admi ssi bl e even i f el i ci t ed by t he Gover nment . As t he

Gover nment cor r ect l y not es, evi dence t hat Mr . Ri j o t hr eat ened a

gover nment wi t ness i s pr obat i ve of hi s consci ousness of gui l t .

Uni t ed St at es v. Bur net t , 579 F. 3d 129, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Such t hr eat s may i mpl y t hat t he def endant has somethi ng t o hi de

or a desi r e t o cover somet hi ng up. Uni t ed St ates v. Rosa, 705

F. 2d 1375, 1377 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Thi s use of pr i or act s evi dence i s ent i r el y


23/28

- 23 -

per mi ssi bl e under Rul e 404( b) . See Bur net t , 579 F. 3d at 133.

Thus, because Mr . Ri j o s t hreat i s probat i ve i n t hi s r egar d,

Rul e 404( b) does not r equi r e i t s excl usi on.

Mr . Ri j o s Rul e 403 chal l enge i s equal l y unavai l i ng.

I n pr i or cases i nvol vi ng t he appl i cat i on of Rul e 403 t o evi dence

of a def endant s t hr eats agai nst a gover nment wi t ness, we have

consi der ed a var i et y of f act or s, i ncl udi ng whet her t he j ur y

hear d gr aphi c det ai l s of how t he t hr eat woul d be car r i ed out ,

whet her t he t hreat was made as an emot i onal or i mpul si ve

r eact i on, and how i mpor t ant t he evi dence about t he t hr eat was t o

t he Government s case. 19 I d. at 134 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Her e,

t he di st r i ct cour t cer t ai nl y di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n

admi t t i ng t he evi dence. Al t agr aci a s t est i mony di d not i nvol ve

gr aphi c or sensat i onal det ai l s of t he cont ent of Mr . Ri j o s

t hr eat . Fur t her , as we not ed ear l i er , t hi s evi dence i s

pr obat i ve of Mr . Ri j o s consci ousness of gui l t , whi ch, gi ven hi s

def ense t hat he was essent i al l y i n t he wr ong pl ace at t he wr ong

t i me, was hi ghl y r el evant t o t he Gover nment s case. For t hese

r easons, we cannot concl ude t hat t he pr obat i ve val ue of

Al t agr aci a s t est i mony was out wei ghed, much l ess subst ant i al l y

so, by t he r i sk of unf ai r pr ej udi ce.

19Thi s l i st of r el evant f act or s i s by no means exhaust i ve.


24/28

- 24 -

Turni ng t o Agent Mar r er o s t est i mony, at t r i al t he

agent of f er ed test i mony about cocai ne sal es i n Puer t o Ri co and

t he pr act i ces of dr ug smuggl er s. I n par t i cul ar , he t est i f i ed

t hat a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on woul d l ook f or exper i enced

peopl e t o handl e a shi pment of t he si ze i nvol ved i n t hi s case. 20

Mr . Ri j o cont ends t hat t hi s t est i mony ran af oul of Rul es 404( b)

and 403 by i mpl yi ng that he had pr i or exper i ence i n dr ug

t r af f i cki ng. Because Mr . Ri j o di d not r ai se t hese obj ect i ons

bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Ador no, 695 F. 3d 32, 38 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) .

Wi t h r espect t o hi s Rul e 404( b) obj ect i on, Mr . Ri j o s

ar gument f ai l s at i t s f i r st st ep. Rul e 404( b) onl y appl i es t o

[ e] vi dence of a cr i me, wr ong, or ot her act . Fed. R. Evi d.

404( b) ( 1) . Agent Mar r er o s t est i mony di d not r eveal a cr i me,

wr ong, or ot her act commi t t ed by Mr . Ri j o. Rather , he mer el y

descr i bed t he way i n whi ch dr ug- t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i ons

gener al l y oper at e. As such, hi s test i mony does not f al l wi t hi n

t he ambi t of Rul e 404( b) .

I n hi s Rul e 403 obj ect i on, Mr . Ri j o cont ends t hat

Agent Marr er o s t est i mony suggest s t hat Mr . Ri j o was an

exper i enced dr ug t r af f i cker , t hus gi vi ng t he i mpr essi on t hat he

20 R. 405 at 147.


25/28

- 25 -

had par t i ci pat ed i n such act s i n t he past and was l i kel y t o do

so i n t he f ut ur e. Thi s ar gument f al l s wi de of t he mar k. The

agent s t est i mony si mpl y st ated t hat dr ug deal er s who under t ake

sea- t o- shor e del i ver y oper at i ons r eal i ze t he hi gh r i sk of such

an under t aki ng. Consequent l y, t hey empl oy onl y i ndi vi dual s who

are commi t t ed t o the success of t he operat i on and who have t he

exper i ence necessar y t o br i ng t he vent ur e to a successf ul

concl usi on. Thi s t est i mony was bot h r el evant and pr obat i ve; i t

r ebut t ed Mr . Ri j o s cl ai m t hat he was not a member of t he

conspi r acy but r at her a mer e t ag- al ong or i nnocent byst ander .

The i mpor t ance of t hi s evi dence out wei ghed any possi bl e unf ai r

pr ej udi ce t hat may have r esul t ed f r om t he i mpl i cat i on t hat

exper i ence i n t he dr ug t r ade necessar i l y i ndi cat es a pr i or

cri mi nal hi st or y. The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scret i on i n admi t t i ng t hi s t est i mony and cer t ai nl y di d not

commi t pl ai n er r or .

3.

Fi nal l y, Mr . Ri j o cont ends t hat t he Government s

cl osi ng ar gument i naccur at el y descr i bed hi s r ol e i n t he of f ense,

t hus r esul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce war r ant i ng a new t r i al . Mr . Ri j o s

ar gument i s pr emi sed on t he or i gi nal t r anscr i pt f i l ed i n t hi s

case. That t r anscr i pt shows f our i nst ances i n whi ch t he

Gover nment i ncor r ect l y r ef er r ed to Sandy Navar r o as ei t her

Sandi Ri j o or Sandr i Ri j o dur i ng i t s cl osi ng ar gument .


26/28

- 26 -

These mi sst at ements, assumi ng t hey occur r ed, por t r ayed Mr . Ri j o

as consi der abl y mor e i nvol ved i n the conspi r acy t han the

evi dence woul d ot herwi se show.

Dur i ng t he pendency of t hi s appeal , t he di st r i ct

cour t , act i ng pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e

10( e) , grant ed a mot i on by t he Gover nment t o suppl ement t he

r ecor d on appeal wi t h a r evi sed t r anscr i pt . Thi s r evi sed

t r anscri pt , whi ch t he cour t r epor t er had cer t i f i ed and f i l ed

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t near l y ni ne mont hs ear l i er , i ndi cat es

t hat t he Gover nment di d not i n f act conf use Navarr o wi t h

Mr . Ri j o dur i ng i t s cl osi ng ar gument . The di st r i ct cour t

grant ed t he Gover nment s Rul e 10( e) mot i on on t he same day t hat

i t was f i l ed, wi t hout gi vi ng Mr . Ri j o an oppor t uni t y t o r espond.

Fol l owi ng t he di str i ct cour t s or der , Mr . Ri j o f i l ed a

suppl ement al br i ef i n t hi s cour t aski ng us t o r ej ect t he r evi sed

t r anscri pt . He al so f i l ed a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on i n t he

di str i ct cour t . I n bot h f i l i ngs, Mr . Ri j o r ai sed sever al

si gni f i cant ar gument s at t acki ng t he r el i abi l i t y of t he r evi sed

t ranscr i pt .

Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) gover ns t he

modi f i cat i on or cor r ect i on of t he r ecor d on appeal . I n

par t i cul ar , Rul e 10( e) ( 1) pr ovi des t hat , [ i ] f any di f f er ence

ar i ses about whet her t he recor d t r ul y di scl oses what occur r ed i n

t he di st r i ct cour t , t he di f f er ence must be submi t t ed t o and


27/28

- 27 -

set t l ed by t hat cour t and t he r ecor d conf or med accor di ngl y.

Fed. R. App. P. 10( e) ( 1) . A di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on

under Rul e 10( e) ( 1) i s concl usi ve absent a showi ng of

i nt ent i onal f al si f i cat i on or pl ai n unr easonabl eness. Pagn-

Fer r er , 736 F. 3d at 582 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ser r ano, 870

F. 2d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ) .

Because Mr . Ri j o was not af f orded an opport uni t y t o

r espond t o the Gover nment s Rul e 10( e) mot i on, t he di st r i ct

cour t never hear d or consi der ed any of hi s ar gument s bef ore

cer t i f yi ng t he r evi sed t r anscri pt as par t of our r ecor d on

appeal . I n or der t o r emedy t hi s def i ci ency, we st ayed

Mr . Ri j o s appeal f ol l owi ng or al ar gument and, whi l e ret ai ni ng

j ur i sdi ct i on, r emanded t he case f or t he l i mi t ed purpose of

obt ai ni ng a r ul i ng f r om t he di st r i ct cour t on Mr . Ri j o s

obj ecti on. I n par t i cul ar , we or der ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o

addr ess Mr . Ri j o s t hen- pendi ng mot i on f or r econsi der at i on.

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t or der ed i t s cour t

r epor t er t o submi t a cer t i f i ed copy of her st enogr apher s not es

f r om t he Gover nment s cl osi ng ar gument as wel l as an af f i davi t

expl ai ni ng how t hose not es suppor t t he r evi sed t r anscr i pt . The

cour t r epor t er di d so, expl ai ni ng i n her af f i davi t t hat her

st enogr apher s not es showed t hat t he Gover nment had not conf used

Navar r o wi t h Mr . Ri j o dur i ng i t s cl osi ng. Rat her , as t he cour t

r epor t er expl ai ned, she had si mpl y mi st yped Ri j o i nst ead of


28/28

Navarro when transcr i bi ng her notes several mont hs af t er

the t r i al .

Af t er recei vi ng t he cour t repor t er s not es and accompanyi ng

af f i davi t , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d a hear i ng on Mr . Ri j o s mot i on

and, shor t l y t hereaf t er , deni ed t he mot i on i n a wr i t t en order . The

cour t based i t s deci si on on t he cour t repor t er s f i l i ngs, t he

par t i es pl eadi ngs and exhi bi t s, and t he cour t s own recol l ect i on

and not es of [ Mr . Ri j o s] cr i mi nal t r i al . 21 Based on t hi s evi dence,

t he cour t concl uded t hat i t was 100 percent cer t ai n t hat t he revi sed

t ranscr i pt [ was] cor rect. 22

The di st r i ct cour t s order t horoughl y and persuasi vel y

addressed each of Mr . Ri j o s argument s. I n l i ght of t he cour t s

caref ul consi derat i on of t hi s i ssue, we cannot concl ude t hat i t s

deci si on t o cer t i f y t he revi sed t ranscri pt as par t of t he record on

appeal was pl ai nl y unreasonabl e. See i d. Accordi ngl y, we accept t he

revi sed t ranscr i pt as par t of our record, and t hus concl ude t hat t he

Government di d not conf use Sandy Navarro wi t h Mr . Ri j o dur i ng i t s

cl osi ng argument .

III

CONCLUSION

The j udgment s of t he di st r i ct cour t are af f i rmed.

AFFIRMED

21 R. 635 at 9. 22 I d. at 15.

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

Documents