United States v. Melendez, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Melendez, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/25

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13- 1899

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

WI LFREDO MELENDEZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

___________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]___________________

Bef ore

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Ri ppl e* and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

___________________

Mar k E. Howar d f or appel l ant .Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

___________________

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


2/25

2

December 22, 2014

___________________


3/25

3

RIPPLE,Circuit Judge. Wi l f r edo Mel endez was char ged

wi t h conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) and 846, and possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance

of a dr ug of f ense, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) .

Mr . Mel endez pl eaded not gui l t y, and the case was t r i ed to a

j ury. Dur i ng i t s del i berat i ons, t he j ury posed t wo quest i ons t o

t he di st r i ct cour t , whi ch t he cour t answer ed af t er consul t i ng

wi t h t he par t i es. The j ur y f ound Mr . Mel endez gui l t y of

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne, but

not gui l t y of possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng cr i me. The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Mr . Mel endez t o

144 mont hs i mpr i sonment , a sent ence bel ow t hat suggest ed by t he

Uni t ed St ates Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. Mr . Mel endez now appeal s;

he cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s r esponses t o t he j ur y s

quest i ons, as wel l as i t s det er mi nat i ons dur i ng sent enci ng, wer e

er r oneous. For t he r easons set f or t h i n t hi s opi ni on, we now

af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .

I .

BACKGROUND

Mr . Mel endez s arr est f ol l owed a r ever se st i ng

operat i on conduct ed by t he Dr ug Enf orcement Admi ni st r at i on

( DEA) . Agent s posed as member s of a Col ombi an drug-


4/25


5/25

5

f r om t he deal , he asked t he under cover agent not t o t el l

Mr . Mel endez t he act ual pr i ce of t he cocai ne.1

The undercover agent and Guzman t hen enter ed Guzman s

car , where Mr . Mel endez al r eady was seat ed. The agent conf i r med

t hat he woul d del i ver f i ve f or t he t hr ee. You owe me t wo. 2

Mr . Mel endez asked t o check [ t he cocai ne] out and i nqui r ed of

t he under cover agent whet her he and hi s drug- t r af f i cki ng

or gani zat i on t ypi cal l y conduct ed t hei r dr ug deal s i n publ i c

par ki ng l ot s. 3 The agent , pr etendi ng t o cal l t he man who woul d

del i ver t he cocai ne, si gnal ed near by l aw enf or cement agent s t o

ar r est t he men. Those agent s conver ged on t he vehi cl e and

ar r est ed Guzman and Mr . Mel endez. The agent s sei zed t wo

f i r ear ms f r om t he cent er f r ont consol e of t he vehi cl e and

appr oxi matel y $92, 000 i n cash, wr apped i n rubber bands, f r om a

l apt op bag.

The Government subsequent l y char ged Mr . Mel endez wi t h

conspi r i ng t o di st r i but e over f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and wi t h

1 I n or der t o pr of i t f r om t he t r ansact i on, Guzman hadt ol d Mr . Mel endez t hat t he pr i ce per ki l ogr am of cocai ne was$31, 000, even t hough the pl anned purchase pr i ce was $28, 000 perki l ogr am.

2 R. 176 at 83.

3 I d. at 83- 84.


6/25

6

possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug of f ense. The

j ury r et urned a ver di ct of gui l t y on t he drug of f ense and of not

gui l t y of t he f i r ear m of f ense. Af t er sent enci ng, Mr . Mel endez

t i mel y f i l ed a not i ce of appeal . 4

I I .

DI SCUSSI ON

Mr . Mel endez cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued

f aul t y j ur y i nstr uct i ons, f ocusi ng on t he di str i ct cour t s

r esponse t o two quest i ons posed by t he j ur y dur i ng i t s

del i ber at i ons. He al so submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t err ed by

sent enci ng hi m wi t hout maki ng an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng of t he

dr ug wei ght at t r i but abl e t o hi m. Fi nal l y, hecont ends t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by r ef usi ng t o gr ant hi m a

t wo- l evel r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y.

A.

We f i r st exami ne whet her t he di st r i ct cour t s

i nst r uct i ons, i ncl udi ng t hose pr ovi ded i n r esponse t o the j ur y s

quest i ons dur i ng i t s del i ber at i ons, wer e er r oneous. About t wo

hour s i nt o i t s del i ber at i ons, t he j ur y sent t he cour t a not e

4 The di st r i ct cour t had j ur i sdi ct i on under 18 U. S. C. 3231. We have j ur i sdi ct i on under 18 U. S. C. 3742( a) and 28U. S. C. 1291.


7/25

7

aski ng, I f a conspi r acy exi st s, i f onl y one conspi r at or knew of

t he ent i r e amount of t he deal , ar e bot h par t i es r esponsi bl e f or

t he ent i r e amount as, f r om ver di ct sheet , 1B st at es di st r i but ed

by t he conspi r at or s ( pl ur al ) . 5 Af t er some di scussi on, counsel

f or Mr . Mel endez suggest ed as a r esponse:

No. Bot h conspi r at ors must be i n agr eementt o di st r i but e t he f i ve t oget her . I f t her ewas a separ at e agr eement or scheme t odi st r i but e t o other uni ndi ct ed known andunknown coconspi r ators, t hen t he def endanti s onl y responsi bl e f or t hat amount f orwhi ch he was goi ng t o di st r i but e separ at el yas wel l as Mr . Guzman. [ 6]

The cour t r ej ect ed t hi s appr oach as wel l as t he

Government s f ormul at i on. 7 I nst ead, i t deci ded on t he f ol l owi ng

r esponse: The conspi r at or s must agr ee as t o t he obj ect of t he

conspi r acy. I n Quest i on 1B t hi s means t hat t he conspi r at or s

must agr ee upon t he amount of t he dr ugs t hat wi l l be di st r i but ed

5 R. 178 at 70.

6 I d. at 73- 74.

7 The Gover nment suggest ed t hat t he cour t i nst r uct t he

j ury: I f t he j ury wer e t o f i nd t he def endant gui l t y ofconspi r i ng t o di st r i but e cocai ne, t he j ur y must unani mousl yagr ee on t he wei ght of t he cocai ne t hat was t he subj ect of t heconspi r acy i nvol vi ng t he def endant , or , as an al t er nat i ve, i ft he conspi r acy exi st s, t he j ur y must unani mousl y agr ee on t hewei ght of cocai ne t hat t he conspi r at or s i nt ended t o di st r i but e. I d. at 73.


8/25

8

by member s of t he conspi r acy. 8 The cour t deni ed Mr . Mel endez s

r equest t hat t he i nst r uct i on r ef er ence bot h uni ndi ct ed and

unknown coconspi r at or s. The i nst r uct i on was t hen del i ver ed t o

t he j ur y.

Appr oxi mat el y f our hour s l at er , t he cour t convened t he

par t i es t o di scuss a second quest i on f r om t he j ur y. The j ur y

asked, Must we be unani mous on al l t hr ee count deci si ons?9 The

di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hat t he answer , of cour se, i s yes,

but i t has a nuance t o i t , and t he nuance i s whet her or not I

gi ve t hem t he [ Al l en v. Uni t ed St at es, 164 U. S. 492 ( 1896) ]

charge of some sor t . 10 The Gover nment s t ated t hat i t di d not

bel i eve an Al l en char ge was necessar y at t hat poi nt .

Mr . Mel endez was i n agreement t hat an Al l en char ge was

i nappr opr i ate because ther e had onl y been a hal f - day of

del i ber at i ons. The cour t st at ed t hat i t woul d r espond, You

shoul d make every ef f or t t o be unani mous, t o reach a unani mous

ver di ct on al l count s. 11 I n addi t i on, af t er a di scussi on wi t h

t he par t i es, i t was agr eed t hat t he cour t woul d ask t he j ur or s

8 I d. at 74.

9 I d. at 75.

10 I d. at 75- 76.

11 I d. at 76.


9/25

9

i f t hey woul d l i ke di nner order ed f or t hem. The cour t t hen

r ei t er at ed i t s r esponse t o t he j ur y s second quest i on, and i t

was t aken t o t he j ur y.

For t y- t wo mi nut es l at er , t he j ur y r et ur ned wi t h a

ver di ct . Af t er t he j ur y r et ur ned t o t he cour t r oom, t he cour t

asked, Mr . For eperson, I under st and t he j ur y has a unani mous

ver di ct ; i s t hat cor r ect ?12 The f oreper son answer ed, Yes. 13

The cour t cl er k r ead t he ver di ct f r om t he j ury s ver di ct sl i p.

The j ury f ound Mr . Mel endez gui l t y of conspi r acy t o di st r i but e

f i ve or mor e ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and not gui l t y of possessi on

of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me.

Mr . Mel endez di d not ask t o pol l t he j ur y. The cour t pr oceeded

t o set a dat e f or sent enci ng.

Mr . Mel endez di d not obj ect t o ei t her suppl ement al

i nst r ucti on at t r i al , and we t her ef or e r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or .

See Uni t ed St ates v. Del gado- Marr er o, 744 F. 3d 167, 184 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . For a def endant t o pr evai l under pl ai n er r or

r evi ew, he must show t hat an er r or occur r ed, t hat t he er r or

was cl ear or obvi ous, t hat i t af f ected hi s subst ant i al r i ght s,

and t hat i t ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness or i nt egr i t y of

12 I d. at 78.

13 I d.


10/25

10

t he pr oceedi ngs. I d. I n eval uat i ng t he i nst r uct i ons gi ven t o

t he j ur y, we must exami ne the j ur y charge as a whol e i n order

t o det er mi ne whet her t he di st r i ct j udge cl ear l y conveyed t he

r el evant l egal pr i nci pl es, mi ndf ul t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

has consi der abl e di scret i on i n how i t f or mul at es, st r uct ur es,

and wor ds i t s j ur y i nst r uct i ons. Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez,

570 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Pr i gmor e, 243 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .

1.

Mr . Mel endez cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o

pr oper l y i nst r uct t he j ur y t hat i t must r each a ver di ct beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . He bases thi s cl ai m pr i mar i l y on t he di st r i ct

cour t s r esponse t o t he j ur y s f i r st quest i on: I f a conspi r acy

exi st s, i f onl y one conspi r at or knew of t he ent i r e amount of t he

deal , ar e bot h par t i es r esponsi bl e f or t he ent i r e amount as,

f r om ver di ct sheet , 1B stat es di st r i but ed by t he

conspi r at or s. 14

Mr . Mel endez f aul t s t he di st r i ct cour t s answer t hat

t he conspi r at ors must agr ee upon t he amount of t he dr ugs t hat

wi l l be di st r i but ed by t he member s of t he conspi r acy f or not

14 I d. at 70.


11/25

11

ment i oni ng t he beyond- a- r easonabl e- doubt st andard. 15 He cont ends

t hat wi t hout cl ear and pr eci se i nst r uct i ons on t he i ssue of dr ug

wei ght , we cannot be conf i dent of t he i nt egr i t y of t he j ur y s

ver di ct .

Any f act t hat t r i gger s a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence i s

an el ement of t he of f ense t hat must be submi t t ed to t he j ur y and

pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . See Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St ates,

133 S. Ct . 2151, 2155, 2160- 61 ( 2013) . Because dr ug wei ght

det er mi nes t he mandatory mi ni mum sent ence, see 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( A) , i t i s an el ement of t he aggr avat ed cr i me that

must be det ermi ned by t he j ury beyond a r easonabl e doubt , see

Del gado- Marr er o, 744 F. 3d at 186.

We cannot accept Mr . Mel endez s cont ent i on t hat t he

i nst r uct i on as gi ven di l ut ed t he beyond- a- r easonabl e- doubt

st andar d. J ur y i nst r uct i ons must be r ead and eval uat ed as a

whol e. See Gonzal ez, 570 F. 3d at 21. Her e, when t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons ar e vi ewed i n t hi s manner , i t i s cl ear t hat t hey

conveyed t o t he j ur y t hat i t must f i nd dr ug wei ght beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . At t he begi nni ng of t r i al , t he cour t

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y that par t of t he case that t he Gover nment

15 I d. at 75.


12/25

12

must prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt i s t he amount of drugs

i nvol ved. 16

Lat er , bef or e t he j ur y began del i ber at i ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he Gover nment had t o

prove t he agr eement and t he obj ect of t he agreement beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . The cour t t hen st at ed t hat t he obj ect of t he

conspi r acy t hat i s al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment i s t o di st r i but e at

l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. 17 The cour t went on t o expl ai n

16 R. 176 at 19. Bef or e t he par t i es openi ng st at ement s,t he cour t al so expl ai ned t hat [ i ] t [ was] t he Gover nment sr esponsi bi l i t y t o show [ t he j ur y] t hat i t al l f i t s t oget her i nt he way i n whi ch t hey say i t f i t s t oget her beyond a r easonabl edoubt . I d. at 7.

17 R. 178 at 53. Af t er cl osi ng ar gument s, t he cour t gavean i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he beyond- a- r easonabl e- doubt st andar dand remi nded t he j ur y t hat t he bur den i s on t he Government t o

pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat a def endant i s gui l t y oft he char ge, and her e t wo char ges, made agai nst hi m and, i naddi t i on, a quest i on of t he amount of t he dr ugs t hat t heconspi r at or s had i n mi nd. I d. at 40. The cour t cl ar i f i edt hat , i n or der f or t he j ur y t o f i nd Mr . Mel endez gui l t y ofconspi r acy, [ t ] he Government has t o pr ove beyond a reasonabl edoubt t wo basi c t hi ngs. I d. at 51. Fi r st , i t must show anagr eement : [ T] he Gover nment has t o prove beyond a r easonabl edoubt . . . t hat t hey shar ed a gener al under st andi ng wi t hr espect to t he cr i me. I d. at 52. The cour t expl ai ned t hatt he obj ect of t he conspi r acy t hat i s al l eged i n t he i ndi ct menti s t o di st r i but e at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. I d. at53. The cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t woul d have t o r esol vewhat t he def endant s had contempl at ed and agr eed t o wi t h r espectt o t he amount of dr ugs t o be di st r i but ed. See i d. at 54. I not her wor ds, t he j ur y woul d have t o f i nd t hat t he conspi r at or shad a shar ed under st andi ng, an agr eement t hat i t [ was] goi ng t obe f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne or t he Government woul d not havesat i sf i ed i t s bur den. I d. Second, t he Gover nment had t o pr ove


13/25

13

t hat t he j ury woul d have t o determi ne how much cocai ne i t

bel i eved was t he obj ect of t he conspi r acy.18

Cont r ar y t o Mr . Mel endez s suggest i on, t he j ur y al so

made an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug- wei ght f i ndi ng beyond a reasonabl e

doubt . Mr . Mel endez was char ged as a member of a t wo- per son

conspi r acy and i s t her ef or e r esponsi bl e f or t he ent i r e amount of

cont r aband. Our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Pal adi n, 748 F. 3d

438 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , squar el y f or ecl oses hi s ar gument . I n

Pal adi n, t he def endant ar gued t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have submi t t ed t o t he j ur y t he quest i on of whet her [ t he

def endant ] was i ndi vi dual l y r esponsi bl e f or t he char ged quant i t y

of cocai ne ( f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e) . I d. at 452. I n r ej ect i ng

t hi s ar gument , we concl uded t hat t he def endant s submi ssi on

t hat Mr . Mel endez wi l l f ul l y j oi ned t he agr eement . See i d. at51.

18 Fol l owi ng t he i nst r uct i ons, t he cour t asked t hepar t i es i f t hey had any obj ect i ons. Mr . Mel endez obj ect ed ongr ounds t hat are not r ai sed on appeal . Fol l owi ng a br i efr ecess, t he cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he ver di ct has t obe unani mous. I d. at 64. I n expl ai ni ng t he del i ber at i onpr ocess, t he cour t not ed t hat t he ver di ct woul d be r et ur ned ont he ver di ct sl i p, whi ch must be si gned by t he f or eper son

i ndi cat i ng t he ver di ct i s unani mous wi t h r espect t o t he sever alquest i ons t hat ar e bei ng asked. I d. at 67. The cour t al soexpl ai ned that t he verdi ct must be one t hat each one of youi ndi vi dual l y i s sat i sf i ed wi t h. I d. At t he concl usi on of i t si nst r uct i ons, t he cour t agai n asked t he par t i es i f t hey hadanyt hi ng f ur t her . I d. at 68. Bot h par t i es r esponded i n t henegat i ve. See i d. at 69.


14/25

14

over l ook[ ed] t he nat ur e of t he char ged conspi r acy. I d.

Because t he char ged f i ve- ki l ogr am wei ght was based sol el y on the

conspi r at or i al deal i ngs of t he t wo men, t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not have t o i nst r uct t he j ur y to make i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ngs

di st i nct f r om t he conspi r acy. See i d. We speci f i cal l y not ed

t hat , i n a conspi r acy i nvol vi ng mor e t han t wo conspi r at or s, t he

i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on t hat Mr . Mel endez her e seeks woul d

be necessar y. See i d. ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s,

354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Her e, t he charged conspi r acy

was based on t he agreement bet ween Mr . Mel endez and Guzman, and

bot h wer e r esponsi bl e f or t he amount t hey agr eed t o di st r i but e.

When t he j ur y f ound t hat t he amount of cocai ne i nt ended t o be

di st r i but ed by t he conspi r at or s was 5 ki l ogr ams or mor e, 19 i t

t her ef or e necessar i l y f ound t hat t he f i ve ki l ogr ams wer e

at t r i but abl e t o Mr . Mel endez. See Pal adi n, 748 F. 3d at 452.

Del gado- Mar r er o, on whi ch Mr . Mel endez r el i es, i s not t o t he

cont r ar y, si nce t he j ur y her e was i nst r uct ed pr oper l y. See 744

F. 3d at 186- 87.

Her e, t he si t uat i on i s subst ant i al l y di f f er ent . The

di st r i ct cour t di d i nst r uct t he j ur y, bot h bef or e and af t er t he

19 I d. at 78.


15/25

15

par t i es pr esent ed t hei r cases, t hat t he dr ug wei ght was an

el ement of t he cr i me charged and t hat i t was t he obj ect of t he

conspi r acy t hat t he Gover nment had t o pr ove. The di st r i ct cour t

cl ear l y t ol d t he j ur y t hat i t had t o f i nd t he dr ug wei ght beyond

a r easonabl e doubt . Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he j ur or s

f ai l ed t o under st and t hat dr ug wei ght was an el ement of t he

of f ense t hat t he Gover nment had to pr ove beyond a reasonabl e

doubt .

2.

Mr . Mel endez al so submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

err oneousl y suggest ed t hat t he ver di ct need not be unani mous

when i t r esponded t o t he j ur y s second quest i on: Must we be

unani mous on al l t hr ee count deci si ons?20 The di st r i ct cour t

answer ed t hat t he j ur y shoul d make ever y ef f or t t o reach a

unani mous deci si on r egardi ng each of t he quest i ons put t o you on

t he ver di ct s l i p. 21 I n Mr . Mel endez s vi ew, t hi s i nst r uct i on

cont ai ns t he obvi ous i mpl i cat i on t hat unani mi t y i s aspi r at i onal ,

but not essent i al . We cannot accept t hi s cont ent i on. The

suppl ement al i nst r uct i on was nei t her i ncor r ect nor mi sl eadi ng.

20 I d. at 75.

21 I d. at 77.


16/25

16

As a gener al pr i nci pl e, a j ur y i n a f eder al cri mi nal

case cannot convi ct unl ess i t unani mousl y f i nds t hat t he

Gover nment has proved each el ement . Ri char dson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 526 U. S. 813, 817 ( 1999) . I n one l i mi t ed sense, of

cour se, a unani mous ver di ct i s aspi r at i onal i n ever y t r i al pr i or

t o ver di ct . Unani mi t y, whi l e possi bl e and cer t ai nl y desi r abl e,

i s not t he i nevi t abl e consequence of conveni ng a j ur y. See Fed.

R. Cr i m. P. 31( b) ( 3) ( al l owi ng f or mi st r i al s and r et r i al s) . The

di st r i ct cour t s use of t he wor d shoul d, t her ef or e, does not

make t he cour t s suppl ement al i nst r uct i on i ncor r ect . Ther e was,

moreover , no i ndi cat i on her e t hat a j ur y was deadl ocked. Under

t hese ci r cumst ances, i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y t hat i t shoul d

cont i nue del i ber at i ng does not war r ant r ever sal . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Fi guer oa- Encar naci n, 343 F. 3d 23, 31- 32 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) ( not i ng t hat an i nst r uct i on t o cont i nue del i ber at i ng di d

not cont ai n t he coer ci ve el ement s of a gar den- var i et y Al l en

char ge, but was mer el y i nt ended t o pr od t he j ur y i nt o cont i nui ng

t he ef f or t t o r each some unani mous r esol ut i on ( f oot not e

omi t t ed) ) . 22

22 Even i f t he j ur y wer e deadl ocked, t he di st r i ct cour t si nst r ucti on woul d not be i n er r or . I nst r ucti ng t he j ur y t hat i twas not r equi r ed t o reach a unani mous ver di ct i s a cor ner st oneof an Al l en char ge. I t al l evi at es t he coer ci ve ef f ect of an


17/25

17

We al r eady have not ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t , on

mul t i pl e occasi ons, i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t s ver di ct must be

unani mous. 23 Cer t ai nl y, t her e i s no evi dence t hat t he ver di ct

was anyt hi ng ot her t han unani mous. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Lemmer er , 277 F. 3d 579, 592 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( f i ndi ng no er r or

f or t he di st r i ct cour t s f ai l ur e t o excuse a recal ci t r ant

j uror i n t he absence of evi dence t hat t he j ury s ver di ct was

not unani mous) . Upon r et ur ni ng t o t he cour t r oom t o del i ver i t s

ver di ct , t he cour t asked t he j ur y f or eper son, I under st and t he

i nst r uct i on t hat encour ages t he j ur y to br eak a deadl ock byr econsi der i ng t hei r posi t i ons and cont i nui ng t o del i ber at e. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Manni ng, 79 F. 3d 212, 223 ( 1st Ci r . 1996)( hol di ng t hat t he r esponse of t he di st r i ct cour t not onl yf ai l ed t o di scour age t he not i on t hat t he j ur y was bound t ocont i nue t o del i ber at e i ndef i ni t el y, i t suggest ed t he opposi t e,

i . e. , t hat t he j ur y i s requi r ed t o do so) .23 See supr a note 18. Cour t s have uphel d si mi l ar

i nst r uct i ons encour agi ng a j ur y t o cont i nue t o del i ber at e t or each a unani mous ver di ct . SeeUni t ed St at es v. McDonal d, 759F. 3d 220, 223- 25 ( 2d Ci r . 2014) ( uphol di ng suppl ement ali nst r uct i on t hat j ur y was t o cont i nue t o del i ber at e t o seewhet her you can r each a unani mous ver di ct , i n l i ght of al l t hei nst r uct i ons t hat I have gi ven you) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s,154 F. 3d 772, 783 ( 8t h Ci r . 1998) ( However , [ t ] he mere f act. . . t hat an i nst r uct i on coul d concei vabl y per mi t a j ur y t or each a non- unani mous ver di ct i s not suf f i ci ent t o r equi r e

r ever sal when t he j ur y has been i nst r uct ed t hat i t must r each aunani mous ver di ct. ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nalquotat i on marks omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Sol omon, 565 F. 2d364, 365- 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 1978) ( per cur i am) ( uphol di ng i nst r uct i on,Pl ease t r y to r each a unani mous ver di ct as t o al l count s.Pl ease cont i nue your del i ber at i ons f or a whi l e l onger t o see i fyou can r each a unani mous ver di ct as t o al l count s) .


18/25

18

j ury has a unani mous ver di ct ; i s t hat cor r ect ?24 The f oreper son

r epl i ed, Yes. 25

Af t er t he ver di ct was r ead, t he cl er k asked,

So say you Mr . Foreperson, and so say you al l , members of t he

j ury?26 The j ur y r esponded af f i r mat i vel y.

I n sum, we bel i eve t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons,

assessed i n t hei r t ot al i t y, cor r ectl y gui ded t he j ur y i n i t s

det er mi nat i on.

B.

24 R. 178 at 78.

25 I d.

26 I d. We not e t hat , i n addi t i on t o f ai l i ng t o obj ect t ot he j ur y i nst r uct i on, Mr . Mel endez di d not ask t hat t he j ur y be

pol l ed af t er i t r et ur ned i t s ver di ct . I f Mr . Mel endez bel i evedt hat t he j ur y ver di ct was not unani mous, he shoul d haveexer ci sed hi s r i ght t o pol l t he j ur y i ndi vi dual l y bef or e t hever di ct was r ecorded, so t hat any doubt s whatever about t hest ate of t he j ur ors mi nds coul d have been cl eared up andappr opr i at e act i on t aken bef or e t he j ur y was di smi ssed. Uni t ed St ates v. Lemmer er , 277 F. 3d 579, 593 ( 1st Ci r . 2002)( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Luci ano, 734 F. 2d 68, 70 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r .1984) ) . The r ul e exi st s so t he cour t and t he par t i es [ can]ascer t ai n wi t h cer t ai nt y t hat a unani mous ver di ct has i n f actbeen reached and t hat no j ur or has been coer ced or i nduced t o

agr ee t o a ver di ct t o whi ch he has not f ul l y assent ed. I d.( quot i ng Mi r anda v. Uni t ed St at es, 255 F. 2d 9, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1958) ) . Havi ng f ai l ed t o r equest t hat t he cour t pol l t he j ur y,Mr . Mel endez cannot use the suppl ement al i nst r uct i on t o quest i ont he unani mi t y of t he ver di ct . The di st r i ct cour t di d notpl ai nl y er r by encour agi ng, but not r equi r i ng, t hat t he j ur ydel i ber at e unt i l i t r eached a unani mous ver di ct .


19/25

19

We t ur n now t o Mr . Mel endez s content i ons about hi s

sent ence. Af t er t he Present ence Repor t ( PSR) was submi t t ed t o

t he cour t , Mr . Mel endez f i l ed an obj ect i on seeki ng a t wo- l evel

r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y and t he el i mi nat i on

of t he t wo- l evel enhancement f or possessi on of a f i r ear m dur i ng

t he commi ssi on of t he of f ense. Mr . Mel endez al so r equest ed t hat

t he cour t i mpose a bel ow- gui del i nes sent ence due t o mi t i gat i ng

ci r cumst ances.

At t he out set of t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour t

asked t he par t i es i f t hey thought t her e was an Al l eyne

i ssue. 27

Mr . Mel endez s counsel r esponded t hat Al l eyne was not a pr obl em

because [ t ] he f act ual i ssue of wei ght was br ought f or t he j ur y

t o det er mi ne, and the j ur y hear d the evi dence concer ni ng that . 28

The cour t r ej ect ed Mr . Mel endez s obj ect i ons t o t he PSR, f i ndi ng

t hat Mr . Mel endez di d not accept r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he cr i me

because [ h] e chose t o cont est i t , and he was cont est i ng t he

27 As not ed ear l i er , Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .2151 ( 2013) , pr ovi des t hat any f act t hat t r i gger s a mandat or ymi ni mum sent ence i s an el ement of t he of f ense t hat must besubmi t t ed t o t he j ur y and pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Seei d. at 2155.

28 R. 179 at 5.


20/25

20

cor e of t he case, a si gni f i cant amount of dr ugs bei ng

t raf f i cked. 29

The cour t deter mi ned Mr . Mel endez s of f ense l evel t o

be t hi r t y- f our , whi ch yi el ded a gui del i nes r ange of 151 t o 188

mont hs i mpr i sonment . The di st r i ct cour t never t hel ess sent enced

Mr . Mel endez t o 144 mont hs i mpr i sonment , f ol l owed by f i ve years

of super vi sed r el ease. Among t he mi t i gat i ng f act or s not ed by

t he cour t was Mr . Mel endez s parsi ng of t he dr ug wei ght

i nvol ved. 30 The cour t not ed t hat Mr . Mel endez s wi l l i ngness t o

admi t t o t he t hr ee- ki l ogr am char ge i s a r ef l ect i on of t he

di scount f r om t he Gui del i nes t hat I am i mposi ng her e, a modest

one, but one never t hel ess. 31

1.

Mr . Mel endez f i r st submi t s t hat t he j ur y shoul d have

made an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug det er mi nat i on wi t h respect t o hi m.

We r evi ew de novo t hi s i ssue. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r n-

Echaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Mr . Mel endez submi t s t hat because t he j ury made a

det er mi nat i on as t o t he whol e conspi r acy r at her t han as t o hi m

29 I d. at 7.

30 I d. at 25.

31 I d. at 26.


21/25

21

i ndi vi dual l y, t he di st r i ct cour t was unabl e, under t he Supr eme

Cour t s hol di ng i n Al l eyne, t o make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as

t o whet her he was r esponsi bl e f or suf f i ci ent dr ugs t o j ust i f y a

mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence. 32 Mr . Mel endez al so submi t s t hat t he

cour t shoul d have di r ect ed t he j ur y t o make a f i ndi ng as t o the

dr ug wei ght speci f i cal l y at t r i but abl e t o hi m.

To t he degr ee t hat Mr . Mel endez r el i es on Al l eyne,

t hi s ar gument i s wai ved. Mr . Mel endez expr essl y di scl ai med any

Al l eyne er r or at sent enci ng. I n any event , t he ar gument i s

wi t hout mer i t . As we have expl ai ned, because Mr . Mel endez

par t i ci pat ed i n a t wo- per son conspi r acy, t he j ur y necessar i l y

made an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug- wei ght det er mi nat i on. That i s

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t s sent enci ng deci si on.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d 179, 192 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) .

2.

Mr . Mel endez submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

not gr ant i ng hi m a t wo- l evel r educt i on f or accept ance of

r esponsi bi l i t y. We uphol d a di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o deny

t hi s r educt i on unl ess t he deci si on i s cl ear l y er r oneous. See

32 Mr . Mel endez was subj ect t o a t en- year mandat orymi ni mum sent ence under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) .


22/25

22

Uni t ed St at es v. Gar r ast eguy, 559 F. 3d 34, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Bal t as, 236 F. 3d 27, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

Sect i on 3E1. 1( a) of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes pr ovi des

t hat a di st r i ct cour t may reduce a def endant s of f ense l evel by

t wo l evel s i f t he def endant cl ear l y demonst r at es accept ance of

r esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s of f ense. To pr ove accept ance of

r esponsi bi l i t y, a def endant must t r ut hf ul l y admi t or not f al sel y

deny the conduct compr i si ng t he convi ct i on, as wel l as any

addi t i onal r el evant conduct f or whi ch he i s account abl e.

Garr ast eguy, 559 F. 3d at 38. The bur den i s on t he def endant t o

establ i sh hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or a decr ease i n t he of f ense l evel .

See i d. I f a def endant pr oceeds to t r i al , he gr eat l y di mi ni shes

hi s chances of r ecei vi ng a r educt i on; pr oceedi ng t o t r i al

creat es a rebut t abl e pr esumpt i on t hat no credi t i s avai l abl e.

See i d. at 38- 39.

I n suppor t of hi s cont ent i on that he shoul d have been

awar ded a r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y,

Mr . Mel endez submi t s t hat he acknowl edged hi s gui l t i n hi s

mot i on t o di smi ss t he or i gi nal i ndi ct ment , i n hi s t r i al

memorandum, and i n hi s r epeated assert i on of t hat posi t i on at


23/25

23

ever y tur n dur i ng t he t r i al . 33 He acknowl edges t hat he di sput ed

t he dr ug wei ght , but cont ends t hat t he wei ght of t he subst ance

was not a cor e el ement of t he cr i me of conspi r acy but onl y an

aggr avat i ng el ement .

We cannot accept t hi s cont ent i on. Fi r st , t he r ecor d

cl ear l y reveal s t hat Mr . Mel endez di d not admi t hi s

par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy unt i l t r i al commenced. I n hi s

pr et r i al memorandum, submi t t ed t o t he cour t t hi r t y days bef ore

t r i al , Mr . Mel endez cont i nued t o cont est hi s gui l t and t o ar gue

t hat he di d not conspi r e t o di st r i but e cocai ne but , i nst ead,

si mpl y ent ered i nt o a buyer - sel l er ar r angement wi t h Guzman. 34

Mr . Mel endez s prot est at i on t hat he di d not

par t i ci pat e i n a conspi r acy, on i t s own, woul d be suf f i ci ent t o

uphol d t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o deny t he r educt i on. We

not e, however , t hat Mr . Mel endez s di sput e of t he dr ug wei ght

woul d be an adequat e and i ndependent basi s f or r ef usi ng t he

r educt i on. I n Gar r ast eguy, we uphel d a di st r i ct cour t s r ef usal

33 Appel l ant s Br . 25.

34 See R. 92 at 2 ( The def endant posi t s t hat he i s notgui l t y of t he cr i mes char ged as t her e i s no evi dence t o pr ovet hat a conspi r acy exi st ed t o di st r i but e cocai ne bet weenMr . Mel endez and Mr . Guzman i n sai d amount s nor was t her e aconspi r acy wi t h any ot her s t o di st r i but e cocai ne byMr . Mel endez. ) .


24/25

24

t o gr ant a r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y af t er a

def endant admi t t ed hi s gui l t t o a dr ug- conspi r acy char ge but

di sput ed t he dr ug wei ght at t r i al . See559 F. 3d at 39- 40. We

not ed t hat r equest i ng a t r i al about dr ug wei ght i s not

consi st ent wi t h t he accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. See i d. at

39. We f ur t her noted t hat , because t he sent enci ng cour t

bal anced t he def endant s admi ssi on of gui l t wi t h t he f act t hat

he di sput ed t he dr ug wei ght at t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

cl ear l y er r . See i d. at 39- 40. 35

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat af t er Mr . Mel endez

t r i ed unsuccessf ul l y t o t ai l or t he amount of dr ugs i nvol ved

dur i ng pl ea negot i at i ons, he r ef used t o pl ead gui l t y and

pr oceeded t o t r i al . 36 The cour t was cogni zant t hat [ a]

def endant i s cer t ai nl y ent i t l ed t o t est aspect s of t he

Gover nment s case wi t hout necessar i l y gi vi ng up t he r i ght t o

35 Our deci si on i n Uni t ed St ates v. Gar r ast eguy, 559 F. 3d34 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , i s compat i bl e wi t h t he deci si ons of ot hercour t s of appeal s. Cour t s have uphel d r egul ar l y a di st r i ctcour t s deci si on t o deny an accept ance- of - r esponsi bi l i t yr educt i on f or cont est i ng f act s under l yi ng a cr i mi nal char ge,such as dr ug wei ght . See Uni t ed St ates v. Acost a, 534 F. 3d 574,580- 81 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ( af f i r mi ng t he deni al of t he accept ance-of - r esponsi bi l i t y r educt i on af t er t he def endant cont est ed t hedr ug wei ght l i st ed i n t he PSR) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Anni s, 446 F. 3d852, 857- 58 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ( af f i r mi ng deni al when t he def endantcont est ed t he quant i t y of dr ugs) .

36 R. 179 at 7.


25/25

25

asser t t hat t her e has been accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. 37 But

t he cour t r easonabl y concl uded t hat Mr . Mel endez di d not accept

r esponsi bi l i t y because he chose t o cont est t he dr ug wei ght ,

whi ch was t he cor e of t he case. 38

Concl usi on

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

AFFI RMED

37 I d.

38 I d. Mr . Mel endez at t empt s t o di st i ngui sh Garr ast eguybecause, af t er he had r ej ect ed a pl ea agr eement f or t he f i ve-ki l ogr am charge, t he Gover nment added t he f i r earms charge. Butt he i ssuance of a super sedi ng i ndi ct ment wi t h an addi t i onalchar ge has no bear i ng on the accept ance- of - r esponsi bi l i t ydet ermi nat i on. The Gover nment may charge a def endant wi t h anaddi t i onal of f ense i f t he def endant r ef uses t o pl ead gui l t y t o al esser of f ense. See Bor denki r cher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, 364( 1978) ( hol di ng so l ong as t he pr osecut or has probabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat t he accused commi t t ed an of f ense def i ned byst at ut e, t he deci si on whet her or not t o pr osecut e, and whatchar ge t o f i l e or br i ng bef or e a gr and j ur y, gener al l y r est sent i r el y i n hi s di scr et i on); Uni t ed St at es v. J enki ns, 537 F. 3d1, 4- 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hat , absent a showi ng of act ualvi ndi cti veness, we wi l l not di st ur b t he di st r i ct cour t sj udgment ) .

United States v. Melendez, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Melendez, 1st Cir. (2014)