United States v. Monserrate-Valentin, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Monserrate-Valentin, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/64

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 10- 1526,10- 2164

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

LUI S ORLANDO MONSERRATE- VALENT N,

J AVI ER FI GUEROA- VEGA,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. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Li nda Backi el , f or appel l ant Monser r at e.J or ge L. Ar menter os- Chervoni , f or appel l ant Fi guer oa.Ver non B. Mi l es, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel son Pr ez-Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on,and Luke Cass, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t orney, wer e on br i ef f orappel l ee.

Sept ember 6, 2013


2/64

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a f our t een- day j ur y

t r i al i n t he U. S. Di str i ct Cour t f or t he Di str i ct of Puer t o Ri co,

Def endant s- Appel l ant s Lui s Monser r at e- Val ent n ( "Monser r at e" ) and

J avi er Fi guer oa- Vega ( "Fi guer oa") wer e convi ct ed of par t i ci pat i ng

i n a conspi r acy t o commi t ar med r obber y on a number of ar mor ed

t r ucks i n Puer t o Ri co, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1951( a) .

Fi gueroa and Monser r at e were subsequent l y sentenced t o 72 and 54

mont hs' i mpr i sonment , r espect i vel y. They bot h appeal t hei r

convi ct i ons, argui ng t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed by t he gover nment

at t r i al f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t hey j oi ned t he conspi r acy char ged i n

t he i ndi ct ment and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n al l owi ng t he

pl ayback of cer t ai n audi o r ecor di ngs t o t he j ur y out si de of

appel l ant s' pr esence. Addi t i onal l y, Monser r at e ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t st umbl ed i n admi t t i ng cer t ai n hear say st at ement s and

t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons i t i mpar t ed wer e def ect i ve.

Al t hough we det ect t hat a var i ance occur r ed at t r i al , we

concl ude t hat i t di d not subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ce appel l ant s. We

al so r ej ect appel l ant s' r emai ni ng ar gument s and t hus af f i r m t hei r

convi ct i ons.

I. Background

The f ol l owi ng f act s ar e dr awn f r omt he r ecor d cr eat ed at

t r i al and ar e pr esent ed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he gui l t y

ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Roger s, 714 F. 3d 82, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

-2-


3/64

A. The Appellants' Planning Activities

Appel l ant s were t r uck operat or s at Loomi s Ar mored US,

I nc. ( "Loomi s") . 1 Loomi s i s an ar mor ed car company t hat provi des

cash handl i ng servi ces t o busi nesses, i ncl udi ng secur ed, ar mor ed

t r anspor t at i on of cash. Fr ust r at ed over " t he way t hat t he company

t r eat ed [ t he t r uck] oper at or s, " appel l ant s appr oached anot her

Loomi s empl oyee, Fel i ci ano Sant i ago- Vzquez ( "Sant i ago") , and asked

hi m whet her he knew anyone who coul d "hi t , " or r ob, t hei r r out e. 2

Thi s meet i ng t ook pl ace ar ound August 2003 at t he company' s parki ng

l ot . Sant i ago r epl i ed t hat he was goi ng t o see i f he "coul d f i nd

someone who woul d be wi l l i ng t o do t he hi t , t o do t he r obber y. " He

t hen spoke wi t h a man named I vn Br avo ( "Br avo") ; Sant i ago had

known Br avo " f or a f ew years" and descr i bed hi m as " a young man

f r omToa Baj a who' s a gangst er " and "a magnate . . . a bi g gangst er

who had money. " Br avo t ol d Sant i ago t hat he was i nt erest ed i n t he

vent ur e and t hat t hey shoul d begi n pl anni ng and "get [ t i ng] t hi ngs

set . " Sant i ago t hen r et ur ned t o meet wi t h appel l ant s and t ol d t hem

t hat Br avo was on boar d.

1 The company was f or mer l y known as "Loomi s Ar mor ed, I nc. " I n1997, Loomi s Ar mored I nc. , acqui r ed Wel l s Far go Ar mored t o cr eate"Loomi s, Far go & Co. " I n 2007, af t er consol i dat i ng wi t h an

i nt er nat i onal cash- handl i ng company, t he company r enamed i t sel fsi mpl y as "Loomi s AB. " I t s Amer i can af f i l i at e i s known as "Loomi sAr mored US, I nc. "

2 Monser r ate and Fi guer oa usual l y t r avel ed t oget her on t he samet r uck and r out e. Thei r r out e i ncl uded par t s of Nar anj i t o andBayamn, Puer t o Ri co.

-3-


4/64

Ther eaf t er , several meet i ngs ensued bet ween Sant i ago,

Fi gueroa and Monser r at e. Al t hough Sant i ago al so met wi t h Br avo a

coupl e of t i mes, t here was onl y one meet i ng where bot h Sant i ago and

Monser r at e met wi t h Br avo. That was the onl y t i me Monser r at e ever

met wi t h Br avo. Fi gueroa never met wi t h Br avo.

At one of t he meet i ngs bet ween Sant i ago and appel l ant s,

appel l ant s pr oposed robbi ng t hei r r out e behi nd t he K- Mar t and Home

Depot st ores l ocat ed at t he Rexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er i n Bayamn,

Puer t o Ri co. Subsequent l y, Sant i ago and Monser r ate met wi t h Br avo

and pr ovi ded hi m wi t h t he f our di gi t number t hat was af f i xed t o

bot h t he f r ont bumper and r ear por t i on of t hei r t r uck, so t hat

Br avo coul d i dent i f y t he t r uck and conduct sur vei l l ance on i t .

Dur i ng t hi s meet i ng, Sant i ago and Monser r at e t ol d Br avo t hat i t

woul d be bet t er t o conduct t he hei st f ol l owi ng a l ong weekend or a

hol i day "because t hose wer e t he days when money moved t he most i n

banks. " They al so deci ded t hat , on t he day of t he r obber y, Sant i ago

and Br avo woul d si t i n a vehi cl e at a near by par ki ng l ot t o wat ch

f or pol i ce whi l e another gr oup of men " f r om t he I vn Br avo gang"

woul d ar r i ve i n anot her vehi cl e t o r ob t he ar mor ed t r uck. I n

addi t i on, t he par t i es pl anned t hat Fi guer oa woul d act as t he

messenger of t he Loomi s t r uck on t hat day. 3

3 Sant i ago t est i f i ed t hat t he messenger i s t he empl oyee who si t sat t he back of t he t r uck and "who pi cks up t he money, t he one whodel i ver s t he money and pi cks i t up. "

-4-


5/64

Lat er i n t he pl anni ng pr ocess, Br avo i nt r oduced Sant i ago

t o t he men who woul d par t i ci pate i n t he robber y, but Fi guer oa and

Monser r at e wer e not pr esent at t hat meet i ng. Br avo t hen t ol d

Sant i ago t hat "everyt hi ng was r eady and t hat t he weapons woul d be

r eady. " Br avo al so not ed t hat i t "was not goi ng t o be a f or ced

r obber y. " At t r i al , Sant i ago was shown a phot ogr aph of co-

def endant Edgardo Sal as- Fer nndez ( "Sal as- Fer nndez" ) , one of

appel l ant s' al l eged co- conspi r at or s, and Sant i ago t est i f i ed t hat he

"l ook[ed] l i ke one of t he i ndi vi dual s at I vn Br avo' s house dur i ng

t he pl anni ng of t he r obber y. "

Sant i ago al so test i f i ed t hat t he pl anni ng pr ocess went on

f or "a mont h and a hal f or t wo, " and t hat af t er war ds, Br avo

pr omi sed he woul d not i f y Sant i ago and t he appel l ant s when t he

r obber y woul d t ake pl ace. However , Sant i ago t hen t est i f i ed t hat ,

" [ a] f t er some t i me went by and not hi ng happened, i t came t o my mi nd

t hat I j ust di dn' t want t o go on wi t h t hi s, and t her e was no

communi cat i on [ wi t h Br avo] . And so I l et i t go, I l et i t st op

t her e. " Al t hough Sant i ago t hought t hat t he pl an t o r ob t he Loomi s

t r uck behi nd t he Home Depot and K- Mar t st or es had been abandoned,

a f ew mont hs l ater , Fi guer oa' s t r uck was r obbed at gunpoi nt by

sever al masked i ndi vi dual s dur i ng a st op at a Texaco gas st at i on i n

Bayamn. The det ai l s of t hi s robber y ar e as f ol l ows.

-5-


6/64

B. The April 30, 2004 Robbery

On Apr i l 30, 2004, J os Nez- Hernndez ( "Nez") was

wor ki ng as a subst i t ut e t r uck oper at or wi t h Fi guer oa because

Monser r at e was absent f r omwork. 4 Fi guer oa i nst r uct ed Nez to act

as t he dr i ver on t hat day whi l e Fi gueroa woul d act as t he messenger

who woul d handl e the money f r om cl i ent s, as t hey wer e al r eady

f ami l i ar wi t h hi m. When Nez and Fi guer oa ar r i ved at t hei r f i r st

st op of t he day, a Texaco gas st at i on i n Bayamn, t he normal

par ki ng areas wer e f ul l . Consequent l y, Fi guer oa i nst r uct ed Nez

t o par k "out si de t he pumps, " despi t e company pol i cy r equi r i ng them

t o wai t f or a spot t o open acr oss f r om t he cl i ent ' s door . Nez

t est i f i ed t hat he f el t he had t o f ol l ow Fi guer oa' s i nst r ucti ons

because i t was Fi gueroa' s nor mal r out e. 5 At the Texaco gas

st at i on, Fi guer oa spent about t hi r t y mi nut es i nsi de wi t h t he

st at i on' s manager , much more t i me t han t he seven t o f i f t een mi nut es

al l ot t ed f or each st op by company pol i cy.

When Fi gueroa r etur ned t o the t r uck, Nez asked Fi gueroa

i f t he gas st at i on had a bathr oom. Fi gueroa sai d yes and opened

t he back door of t he t r uck. At t hi s t i me, Nez saw peopl e

appr oachi ng t he t r uck wi t h weapons and, af t er Fi guer oa had cl osed

4 Monser r ate was apparent l y engaged i n uni on negot i at i ons wi t hLoomi s' management on t hat day.

5 Nez t est i f i ed t hat , whi l e he was a par t - t i me empl oyee,Fi gueroa was a f ul l - t i me empl oyee who out r anked hi m, and t heref orehe f el t bound t o f ol l ow Fi guer oa' s i nst r uct i ons.

-6-


7/64

t he back door , t he br i gands " put " Fi guer oa on t he gr ound and

demanded t hat Nez open t he t r uck. 6 Nez want ed t o dr i ve away,

but he f eared t hat Fi guer oa' s head was under neath t he t r uck.

Because t he robber s wer e thr eat eni ng to ki l l Fi guer oa, Nez

compl i ed wi t h t hei r demands and opened t he t r uck. The r obbers t ook

t he money and pl aced i t i nt o t he back of a mi ni - van. 7 Then, as t he

r obber s wer e about t o abscond wi t h t he money, one of t hemcame back

t o t he t r uck, hi t Fi guer oa on t he head, and l ef t . Fi guer oa was not

bl eedi ng and appeared cal m; hi s f i r earm was t aken f r omhi m. Nez

i dent i f i ed t he vehi cl e t hat t he r obber s used on t he day of t he

r obber y, whi ch member s of t he Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment

( "PRPD") l at er f ound abandoned.

C. The Indictment

On November 16, 2007, Monser r at e, Fi gueroa, Ri car do

Tor r es- Or t i z ( "Tor r es- Or t i z" ) , Edgardo Sal as- Fer nndez, Xavi er

Her nndez- Al bi no ( "Her nndez" ) , Er i c Fer nndez- Nez ( "Fer nndez" ) ,

Rodol f o Vi l l anueva- Ol i vo ( "Vi l l anueva") and Lui s Mat os- Mont aez

( "Mat os" ) , wer e char ged i n a t en- count , second super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment i ssued by a gr and j ur y i n t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co.

Monser r at e and Fi gueroa were onl y char ged i n Count One of t he

6 There was some cont r oversy as t o whether Fi guer oa was act ual l ypl aced on the gr ound by t he assai l ant s or whet her he hi msel f gotdown on t he gr ound bef or e t hey appr oached hi m.

7 Thi s vehi cl e bel onged t o one of t he co- def endant s i n t hi s case,Ri car do Tor r es- Or t i z, who r epor t ed i t st ol en af t er t he r obber y.

-7-


8/64

i ndi ct ment , whi ch al l eged a gener al conspi r acy t o i nt er f er e wi t h

commer ce by r obber y of armored t r ucks i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1951( a) . Sai d Count al so est abl i shed t he dat es of t he conspi r acy

as "not l ater t han Sept ember of 2003, unt i l on or about March 15,

2007. " The supposed obj ect of t he conspi r acy was t o "obt ai n by

r obber y moni es bei ng moved and t r anspor t ed by Loomi s Far go and

Br i nk' s by means of armored t r ucks, whi ch moni es bel onged t o

di f f er ent commer ci al est abl i shment s engaged i n busi ness i n Puer t o

Ri co. " Fur t her , t he i ndi ct ment cl ai med t hat Fi guer oa had ar r anged

t o be t he messenger of t he Loomi s ar mor ed t r uck t hat was r obbed on

Apr i l 30, 2004, and t hat Monser r ate had "obt ai ned and pr ovi ded t o

hi s co- conspi r at or s t he r out e of [ t he same t r uck] , i ncl udi ng t he

i dent i f yi ng f our di gi t number t hat appear s on t he f r ont bumper and

r ear por t i on of ever y ar mor ed t r uck. "

The i ndi ct ment f ur t her r ecounted t hat bet ween 2003 and

2007, f our armored t r ucks wer e r obbed i n Puer t o Ri co, bel ongi ng t o

bot h Loomi s and Br i nk' s armored t r uck compani es. Def endant s

Tor r es- Or t i z, Sal as- Fer nndez, Her nndez, Vi l l anueva and Mat os pl ed

gui l t y t o t he conspi r acy t o rob ar mor ed t r ucks and/ or par t i ci pat i ng

i n t he r obber i es. Fer nndez pl ed gui l t y t o hel pi ng cover up t he

Apr i l 30, 2004 r obber y. The appel l ant s went on t o t r i al .

D. Trial

Tr i al of t he appel l ant s commenced on Apr i l 8, 2008, and

l ast ed f our t een days. More t han 30 wi t nesses wer e cal l ed. The

-8-


9/64

f ol l owi ng i s a br i ef summar y of t he t est i mony of f er ed by sever al of

t hem.

Sant i ago i dent i f i ed appel l ant s as t he ones who had

pl anned t o r ob t hei r own armored t r uck. Nez, as wel l as sever al

ot her eye wi t nesses, t est i f i ed as t o how t he Apr i l 30, 2004 r obber y

occur r ed. Some of t hese wi t nesses not ed t hat Fi guer oa seemed

"cal m" af t er t he r obber y and t hat he was not bl eedi ng.

The manager of t he Texaco gas st at i on, Edwi n Vzquez-

Sant i ago, t est i f i ed t hat , i n hi s f our year s as a manager , he had

never seen a Loomi s t r uck park wher e i t di d on the day of t he

r obber y. Texaco empl oyee V ct or Vzquez al so t est i f i ed t hat hi s

manager f ound i t st r ange how l ong the Loomi s t r uck r emai ned at t he

st at i on on Apr i l 30, 2004.

F. B. I . Speci al Agent Car l os Tor r es ( "Agent Tor r es")

t est i f i ed t hat , based on t el ephone r ecor ds, Tor r es- Or t i z and

Fernndez had spoken on t he phone sevent een t i mes on Apr i l 30,

2004, wi t h t he cal l s or i gi nat i ng i n t he Lomas Ver des area of

Bayamn. Addi t i onal l y, he t est i f i ed t hat Sal as- Fer nndez cal l ed

Tor r es- Or t i z t wi ce, Her nndez si xt een t i mes, and Mat os once. Agent

Tor r es al so r epor t ed t hat Monser r at e had cal l ed Fi guer oa on t he day

of t he r obber y, even t hough Monser r at e i ni t i al l y deni ed maki ng t hat

cal l and t hen deni ed r emember i ng what was sai d. There was no

evi dence t hat Fi guer oa cal l ed any of t he co- def endant s on Apr i l 30,

2004.

-9-


10/64

Addi t i onal l y, Angel Echevar r a- Sal as t est i f i ed t hat hi s

cousi n, co- def endant Sal as- Fer nndez, t ol d hi m i n May of 2004 t hat

he had r obbed a Loomi s t r uck at a Texaco gas st at i on wi t h Tor r es-

Or t i z, Matos, Fer nndez, and Her nndez. Al t hough Sal as br agged

t hat t hey had pur l oi ned over $900, 000, he bemoaned t hat t hey each

had t o pay $8, 000 f or an " i nsi de payment . " The government al so

cal l ed An bal Lpez- Nar vez ( " I nf or mant Lpez" ) , a f r i end of co-

def endant Tor r es- Or t i z who became a pai d F. B. I . i nf or mant .

I nf or mant Lpez t est i f i ed t hat , bef or e t he Apr i l 30, 2004 r obber y,

he dr ove wi t h Tor r es- Or t i z t o "check out an ar mor ed t r uck rout e" i n

Nar anj i t o, Puer t o Ri co, and t hat Tor r es- Or t i z was supposed t o meet

"a per son [ ] f r om Wel l s Far go" at a near by est abl i shment . Lpez

al so t est i f i ed t hat Tor r es- Or t i z was recei vi ng i nf or mat i on r el at i ng

t o t he pl anned r obber y of t he Loomi s t r uck f r om Br avo.

Fur t her mor e, conf i dent i al i nf or mant Al ex I r ene- Oj eda

( " I nf or mant I r ene") r ecor ded conver sat i ons wi t h Matos about how

Mat os' s "cr ew" had r obbed sever al armored t r ucks. I n a May 2, 2007

r ecor di ng, Mat os sai d, "[ t ] hey di dn' t cat ch anyone. Of t he

connect i on t hey di dn' t catch anyone. " I nf ormant I r ene asked Matos,

r ef er r i ng t o t he t r uck r obber y at t he Texaco st at i on, "t her e t he

guar ds had somet hi ng t o do wi t h i t , r i ght ?" Mat os r epl i ed, "Man,

ever ybody t her e had somet hi ng t o do wi t h i t . Ever yone t her e t ook

money. But , r egr et f ul l y f r om t hi s si de t hey don' t know anyone. "

-10-


11/64

Fi nal l y, t est i mony was al so pr esent ed concer ni ng sever al

ot her ar mor ed t r uck robber i es, i ncl udi ng t he r obber y of $103, 500

f r om a Br i nk' s ar mored t r uck on Oct ober 25, 2003, and t he r obber y

of anot her Br i nk' s ar mored t r uck on November 7, 2005, at a post

of f i ce i n Ar eci bo, Puer t o Ri co, wher e $984, 580 was st ol en.

Evi dence was al so admi t t ed concerni ng t he r obbery of $1, 275, 000

f r om a Loomi s t r uck on Mar ch 15, 2007. I nf or mant I r ene r ecor ded

Matos di scussi ng t hese ot her armored t r uck r obber i es and Tor r es-

Or t i z' s i nvol vement i n some of t hem. He al so t est i f i ed t hat Mat os

st at ed t hat "when he di dn' t have anyone on t he t r ucks, he woul d ask

and f i nd out t he amount s t he t r ucks car r i ed. "

Af t er t he government r est ed, bot h appel l ant s moved f or

acqui t t al pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 29. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i ons and appel l ant s went on t o pr esent

sever al wi t nesses whose t est i mony we need not r ecount here.

Fol l owi ng t he pr esent at i on of appel l ant s' def ense, t hey agai n moved

f or j udgment s of acqui t t al under Rul e 29, whi ch wer e agai n deni ed.

The j ur y f ound appel l ant s gui l t y on Count One of t he

i ndi ct ment on Apr i l 29, 2008. Monser r at e was sent enced on

March 18, 2010, t o 54 mont hs' i mpr i sonment , f ol l owed by a

super vi sed r el ease t er mof t hr ee year s. Fi guer oa was sent enced on

J ul y 28, 2010, t o ser ve 72 mont hs i n pr i son, f ol l owed by a

super vi sed r el ease t er m of t hr ee year s. Bot h appel l ant s appeal ed.

-11-


12/64

II. Discussion

Appel l ant s' appeal s pr esent f our i ssues. Fi r st , we must

determi ne whether t he evi dence marshal ed at t r i al by t he government

was suf f i ci ent t o pr ove that appel l ant s j oi ned t he conspi r acy as

char ged i n Count One of t he i ndi ct ment . Second, we must deci de

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n admi t t i ng cer t ai n hear say

st at ement s t hat al l egedl y pr ej udi ced t he appel l ant s. Thi r d,

appel l ant s ask us t o det er mi ne whet her t he di st r i ct cour t st umbl ed

i n al l owi ng t he pl ayback of cer t ai n audi o r ecor di ngs t o t he j ur y

out si de of appel l ant s' pr esence. Last l y, Monser r at e al one ar gues

t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons i mpar t ed by t he di st r i ct cour t wer e

def ect i ve. We addr ess each ar gument i n t ur n.

A. Insufficiency of the Evidence/Variance

1. Background

Fi guer oa and Monser r ate bot h asser t t hat t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hei r convi ct i ons

under Count One of t he i ndi ct ment and chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of t hei r mot i ons f or j udgment of acqui t t al . I n

shor t , appel l ant s argue t hat , whi l e t he i ndi ct ment char ged t hem

wi t h par t i ci pat i ng i n a f our - year - l ong conspi r acy t o

i ndi scr i mi nat el y r ob bot h Loomi s and Br i nk' s ar mor ed t r ucks, t he

evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al onl y showed, at most , t hat t hey

conspi r ed wi t h Sant i ago and Br avo t o r ob t hei r own ar mored t r uck.

Because appel l ant s' chal l enges t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

-12-


13/64

and t o t he deni al of t hei r mot i ons f or j udgment of acqui t t al r ai se

a si ngl e i ssue, we "appl y t he t r adi t i onal suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence st andar d t o t hese cl ai ms. " Uni t ed St at es v. Del l osant os,

649 F. 3d 109, 115 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

I n t hi s case, both appel l ant s moved f or a j udgment of

acqui t t al at t he cl ose of evi dence, so we must r evi ew t hei r

suf f i ci ency cl ai ms de novo. I d. The f ol l owi ng i s a br i ef over vi ew

of t he l aw of conspi r acy.

2. Conspiracy Law

A cr i mi nal conspi r acy exi st s when t wo or more persons

agr ee t o commi t a cr i me. I d. I n or der t o convi ct a def endant of

par t i ci pat i ng i n a conspi r acy, t he gover nment must show " t he

exi st ence of a conspi r acy, t he def endant ' s knowl edge of t he

conspi r acy, and t he def endant ' s vol unt ar y par t i ci pat i on i n t he

conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v. Br i st ol - Mar t i r , 570 F. 3d 29, 39 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The def endant ' s

agr eement t o j oi n t he conspi r acy "i s t he si ne qua non of a

conspi r acy" and i t i s " not suppl i ed by mer e knowl edge of an i l l egal

act i vi t y, l et al one by mer e associ at i on wi t h ot her conspi r at or s or

mer e pr esence at t he scene of t he conspi r ator i al deeds. "

Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d at 115 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Zaf i r o, 945

F. 2d 881, 888 ( 7t h Ci r . 1991) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k and el l i psi s

omi t t ed) . We have t her ef or e emphasi zed t he i mpor t ance of

det er mi ni ng what ki nd of agr eement or under st andi ng exi st ed as t o

-13-


14/64

each def endant , al t hough t he agr eement need not be expr ess; a taci t

under st andi ng may suf f i ce. I d.

3. The Appellants' Challenge to the Sufficiency of the

Evidence

Appel l ant s argue t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al

merel y showed t hat t hey engaged i n di scussi ons wi t h Sant i ago and

Br avo t o rob t hei r own ar mor ed t r uck at t he Rexvi l l e shoppi ng

cent er of Bayamn. Accor di ng t o t hem, t he evi dence t hen showed

t hat anot her gr oup of mal f easant s, l ed by Mat os, deci ded t o "st eal

t he hi t " f r om Sant i ago and Br avo and car r i ed out t he r obber y on

t hei r own at anot her l ocat i on i n Bayamn: t he Texaco gas s t at i on.

Appel l ant s cl ai m t hat when Mat os deci ded t o "st eal t he hi t , " a new

conspi r acy was born, one whi ch had not hi ng t o do wi t h thei r own

di scussi ons wi t h Sant i ago and Br avo t o r ob t hei r ar mor ed t r uck.

They sust ai n t hi s mul t i pl e conspi r aci es t heor y by cal l i ng our

at t ent i on t o sever al f act s, namel y ( 1) t hat t he Apr i l 30, 2004,r obber y was commi t t ed by a compl et el y di f f erent cast of character s,

none of whom had any cont act wi t h t he appel l ant s pr i or t o t he

r obber y; ( 2) t hat sai d r obber y di d not t ake pl ace behi nd t he

Rexvi l l e shoppi ng cent er as t hey had pl anned, but r at her t ook pl ace

at anot her l ocat i on, t he Texaco gas st at i on; ( 3) t hat appel l ant s'

pl an t o have t hei r own armored t r uck r obbed st emmed f r om t hei rdesi r e to seek r evenge agai nst Loomi s f or i t s mi st r eat ment of

wor ker s, whi l e t he Mat os- l ed conspi r acy had t he obj ect i ve of

r obbi ng bot h Loomi s and Br i nk' s ar mor ed t r ucks i ndi scr i mi nat el y f or

-14-


15/64

t hei r own pecuni ar y pur poses; and ( 4) t hat t he onl y conspi r at or s

t hat appel l ant s di d have any cont act wi t h, Sant i ago and Br avo, wer e

never charged i n t he i ndi ct ment .

Appel l ant s t hus ar gue t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at

t r i al f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t hey j oi ned t he conspi r acy descri bed i n

t he i ndi ct ment ; r at her , t he evi dence mer el y "proved a conspi r acy

never br ought t o f r ui t i on i nvol vi ng Monser r at e, Fi guer oa, Sant i ago

and Br avo. " Accor di ng t o t hem, a pr ej udi ci al var i ance occur r ed

because t he evi dence "per mi t t ed [ appel l ant s' ] convi ct i on[ s] based

upon [ t hei r ] al l eged associ at i on wi t h a cr ew of pr of essi onal

r obbers whose mi sdeeds i nvol vi ng l ong weapons, masks, assaul t s and

ot her s wer e spr ead bef or e the j ur y when t hey i n f act per t ai ned t o

a separ at e conspi r acy i n whi ch [ appel l ant s] wer e not i nvol ved. "

Appel l ant s cl ai mt hat , had t he di st r i ct cour t i nqui r ed i nt o whet her

an agr eement exi st ed between appel l ant s and t he ot her co- def endant s

named i n t he i ndi ct ment , i t woul d have f ound none and t hus woul d

have been f orced t o gr ant t hei r Rul e 29 mot i ons. Because

appel l ant s ar e maki ng a var i ance ar gument , we pr oceed t o di scuss

t he cent r al t enet s of var i ance l aw bel ow.

4. Variance Law

"A var i ance occurs when t he cr i me char ged r emai ns

unal t er ed, but t he evi dence adduced at t r i al pr oves di f f er ent f act s

t han t hose al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment . " Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d at

116 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Mangual - Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 421

-15-


16/64

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The quest i on

of whet her t he evi dence adduced at t r i al demonst r ated t he exi st ence

of one or mul t i pl e conspi r aci es "i s a quest i on of f act f or t he j ur y

and i s revi ewed onl y f or suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ni emi , 579 F. 3d 123, 127 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . I n conduct i ng

our i nqui r y, we must l ook at t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al , as

wel l as al l r easonabl e i nf er ences der i ved t her ef r om, i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . See Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d at 116.

We must t hen determi ne whether a r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d

concl ude, beyond a r easonabl e doubt , t hat appel l ant s commi t t ed t he

cr i me charged i n t he i ndi ct ment . I d.

The t ask at hand r equi r es us t o consi der t he t ot al i t y of

t he ci r cumst ances, "payi ng par t i cul ar heed t o f act or s such as t he

exi st ence of a common goal , evi dence of i nterdependence among t he

par t i ci pant s, and t he degr ee t o whi ch t hei r r ol es over l ap. " Ni emi ,

579 F. 3d at 127 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Fent on, 367 F. 3d 14, 19

( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . However , no

si ngl e f actor , by i t sel f , i s necessar i l y det er mi nat i ve, Uni t ed

St at es v. D az- Ar i as, 717 F. 3d 1, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , and cour t s

shoul d not over l y rel y on t hese f act or s wi t hout anal yzi ng what ki nd

of agr eement exi st ed bet ween t he def endant and t he ot her co-

conspi r at or s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Tor r es, 280 F. 3d 1, 4

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "No one can j oi n a conspi r acy wi t hout knowl edge of

-16-


17/64

i t s exi st ence - - t he gr avamen i s an agr eement t o commi t an

of f ense. ") .

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Mor r ow, 39 F. 3d 1228 ( 1st Ci r . 1994)

and Uni t ed St at es v. Fr anco- Sant i ago, 681 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ,

we di scussed t he pr obl ems t hat may ar i se when cour t s mi st akenl y

deal wi t h t he cr i me of conspi r acy "as t hough i t wer e a gr oup r at her

t han an act [ i . e. , of agr eement ] . " Mor r ow, 39 F. 3d at 1234

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Gl enn, 828

F. 2d 855, 857 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( " [ C] onspi r acy l aw, l i ke most cr i mi nal

l aw, f ocuses upon t he act i vi t i es of an i ndi vi dual def endant . I t i s

t her ef or e danger ous t o t hi nk of a conspi r acy as a ki nd of ' cl ub'

t hat one j oi ns or a ' busi ness' i n whi ch one wor ks. ") . I n or der t o

convi ct a conspi r at or , t hen, of par t i ci pat i ng i n a mul t i pl e- cri me

conspi r acy, t he government must pr ove, "at a mi ni mum, " t hat such

conspi r at or had "knowl edge or f or esi ght of t he conspi r acy' s

mul t i pl i ci t y of obj ect i ves. " Mor r ow, 39 F. 3d 1234; see al so

Fr anco- Sant i ago, 681 F. 3d at 9 ( " [ K] nowl edge of t he br oader

conspi r acy' s exi st ence i s cr i t i cal " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . I f t he gover nment f ai l s t o adduce suf f i ci ent proof as

t o t he knowl edge el ement , t he def endant wi l l not be "aut omat i cal l y"

hel d l i abl e f or t he act s of t he cr i mi nal conspi r acy whi ch he coul d

not f or esee. Gl enn, 828 F. 2d at 857. Hence, " t he gi st of t he

conspi r acy of f ense r emai ns t he agr eement , and i t i s t her ef or e

essent i al t o exami ne what ki nd of agr eement or underst andi ng

-17-


18/64

exi st ed as t o each def endant . " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Bor el l i , 336 F. 2d 376, 384 ( 2d Ci r . 1964) ) ( i nt er nal br acket s and

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

5. A Variance Occurred

Monser r at e and Fi guer oa ar e bot h cor r ect i n ar gui ng that

t he evi dence pr of f er ed at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh an

agr eement bet ween them and the ot her co- conspi r ators t o r ob both

Loomi s and Br i nk' s ar mor ed t r ucks i ndi scr i mi nat el y. Whi l e Count

One of t he i ndi ct ment descr i bed t he obj ect of t he conspi r acy to be

t he " r obber y [ of ] moni es bei ng moved and t r anspor t ed by Loomi s

Far go and Br i nk' s by means of armored t r ucks" ( our emphasi s) , t he

evi dence adduced at t r i al , when vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e

t o t he ver di ct , was onl y abl e t o show t hat Monser r ate and Fi guer oa

par t i ci pated i n a nar r ower conspi r acy t o r ob t hei r own armor ed

t r uck. Fi guer oa and Monser r ate met a handf ul of t i mes wi t h

Sant i ago t o pl an t he robber y of t hei r own ar mored t r uck because of

t hei r desi r e t o get back at Loomi s f or i t s mi st r eat ment of wor ker s.

Monser r at e onl y met wi t h Br avo once, whi l e Fi gueroa never met wi t h

hi m. Nei t her of t hem had any cont act wi t h Mat os or any of t he

other conspi r ators whose names appear i n t he i ndi ct ment . And t he

r est of t he evi dence pr esent ed by t he gover nment , whet her di r ect or

ci r cumst ant i al , was cl ear l y i nsuf f i ci ent f or a r at i onal f actf i nder

t o i mput e appel l ant s wi t h any knowl edge as t o t he Mat os

conspi r acy' s br oader goal t o r ob mul t i pl e ar mor ed t r ucks. I n

-18-


19/64

shor t , t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat appel l ant s ei t her agr eed

t o j oi n t he over ar chi ng conspi r acy al l eged i n Count One of t he

i ndi ct ment or had any knowl edge or f or esi ght of i t s mul t i pl i ci t y of

obj ect i ves; i nst ead, t he evi dence showed t hat t hey j oi ned a

nar r ower conspi r acy t o rob t hei r own armored t r uck, whi ch suggest s

t hat a var i ance r esul t ed at t r i al .

The gover nment di sagrees wi t h t hi s assessment and i nst ead

cl ai ms t hat t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o pr ove bot h t he exi st ence

of a si ngl e conspi r acy t o r ob ar mor ed t r ucks and appel l ant s'

member shi p i n i t . I t cl ai ms t hat t he conspi r aci es i n quest i on met

our of t - r el i ed- upon f act or s f or det er mi ni ng t he exi st ence of a

si ngl e conspi r acy: common goal , i nt erdependence and over l ap among

par t i ci pant s. See Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d at 117. We ar e not

convi nced.

Regardi ng t he "common goal " r equi r ement , al t hough t he

evi dence showed t hat Mat os and some of t he ot her co- def endants

named i n t he i ndi ct ment had t he common goal of commi t t i ng a ser i es

of r obber i es on armored t r ucks, t her e was no such evi dence as t o

ei t her Monser r at e or Fi guer oa. See Fr anco- Sant i ago, 681 F. 3d at

10. We al so do not over l ook the f act t hat appel l ant s' mai n pur pose

i n pl anni ng t he r obber y of t hei r own armored t r uck was t o seek

r evenge agai nst Loomi s f or i t s mi st r eat ment of worker s, whi l e t he

Matos conspi r acy' s obj ect i ve seems t o have been pur el y pecuni ary.

-19-


20/64

"The second f actor , i nt er dependence, concer ns whet her

t he act i vi t i es of one aspect of t he scheme ar e necessar y or

advant ageous t o the success of anot her aspect of t he scheme. "

Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d at 117 ( ci t i ng Mangual - Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d at

422) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s means t hat " [ e] ach

i ndi vi dual must t hi nk t he aspect s of t he vent ur e i nt er dependent ,

and each def endant ' s st at e of mi nd, and not hi s mer e par t i ci pat i on

i n some br anch of t he vent ur e, i s key. " I d. ( ci t i ng Mangual -

Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d at 422) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The

gover nment l i kens t he conspi r acy i n t hi s case t o a "chai n

conspi r acy" wher e appel l ant s' act i ons i n pr ovi di ng Sant i ago and

Br avo i nf or mat i on about t hei r t r uck and havi ng Fi guer oa act as t he

messenger const i t ut ed t he "l i nks i n a chai n" t hat ul t i mat el y l ed t o

t he r obber y of t hei r t r uck on Apr i l 30, 2004. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Gi r y, 818 F. 2d 120, 127 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . I t ar gues t hat , because

appel l ant s knew t hat t hei r pl anni ng act i vi t i es wer e i nt er dependent

wi t h t hose of t he ot her i ndi vi dual s who woul d event ual l y assaul t

t he t r uck, t hi s " known i nt er dependence" makes i t r easonabl e f or us

t o speak of a taci t under st andi ng bet ween appel l ant s and t he other

member s of t he Matos conspi r acy. See Uni t ed St ates v. Por t el a, 167

F. 3d 687, 695 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( " [ E] vi dence of an i ndi vi dual

par t i ci pant ' s under st andi ng of t he i nt er dependence of t he co-

conspi r at or s' act i vi t i es i s evi dence - - of t en t he best evi dence - -

-20-


21/64

of t aci t agr eement bet ween t he i ndi vi dual and hi s co- conspi r at or s. " ) .

The gover nment ' s i nt er dependency ar gument does not hol d

wat er . Al t hough i t i s t r ue t hat appel l ant s knew t hat t hei r

pl anni ng act i vi t i es wer e i nt er dependent wi t h t he act i vi t i es of t he

ot her par t i ci pant s i n t he scheme, t hi s i nt er dependency does not go

much f ur t her t han pr ovi ng appel l ant s' wi l l i ngness t o ent er i nt o an

agr eement t o r ob t hei r own armored t r uck. I n other words, t her e

was si mpl y no i ndi cat i on t hat appel l ant s t hought t hat t hei r

par t i ci pat i on i n t he scheme t o rob t hei r own armored t r uck was

"necessary or advant ageous t o t he success" of t he other r obber i es

car r i ed out by t he Mat os conspi r acy. See Fr anco- Sant i ago, 681 F. 3d

at 11.

The gover nment al so ar gues t hat "over l ap" was pr esent i n

t he conspi r acy because i t f eat ur ed the per vasi ve i nvol vement of

Mat os as the "cor e conspi r at or " or "hub char act er , " as he

par t i ci pat ed i n al l of t he r obber i es. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Snchez- Badi l l o, 540 F. 3d 24, 30- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Al t hough t he

gover nment i s cor r ect t o char act er i ze Mat os as a "hub char act er , "

" t he mer e f act t hat a cent r al per son ( t he ' hub' of a wheel ) i s

i nvol ved i n mul t i pl e conspi r aci es ( t he wheel ' s ' spokes' ) does not

mean t hat a def endant , " such as Monser r at e or Fi gueroa, "who

par t i ci pated i n a spoke conspi r acy[ , ] may be convi ct ed of

par t i ci pat i ng i n an over ar chi ng conspi r acy encompassi ng the ent i r e

wheel . " Fr anco- Sant i ago, 681 F. 3d at 11. The government must al so

-21-


22/64

pr oduce "evi dence f r omwhi ch a j ur y coul d reasonabl y i nf er t hat t he

spoke def endant knew about and agr eed t o j oi n any l arger

over ar chi ng conspi r acy. " I d. As we have pr evi ousl y st at ed, such

evi dence was not pr esent here. 8

I n a f i nal at t empt t o ar gue t hat appel l ant s agr eed t o

j oi n t he over ar chi ng conspi r acy char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment , t he

gover nment r emar ks t hat t hi s case must be compar ed t o Uni t ed Stat es

v. Li Causi , 167 F. 3d 36 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) , Uni t ed St at es v. J ames,

432 F. 2d 303 ( 5t h Ci r . 1970) , and Uni t ed St ates v. Smi t h, 320 F. 3d

647 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) , wher e t he cour t s f ound suf f i ci ent evi dence

f r om whi ch a j ur y coul d r easonabl y i nf er t hat t he def endant s i n

t hose cases knowi ngl y par t i ci pat ed i n a si ngl e over ar chi ng

conspi r acy. Havi ng r ead t hr ough t hose cases, we f i nd t hat t he

8 On a si de not e, t he gover nment al so seems t o ar gue t hat we mayi nf er t he exi st ence of a si ngl e conspi r acy due t o t he si mi l ar i t y oft he f our r obber i es. I t not es that , i n each r obber y, "t he r obber swer e masked, gl oved, dr essed i n bl ack, and took t he guar d' s pi st oleach t i me. " See Fent on, 367 F. 3d at 19 ( " [ P] at t er n and pr act i cebespeaks a si ngl e, cont i nui ng oper at i on. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Shea,211 F. 3d 658, 665 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( not i ng t hat conspi r acy may bepr oven by evi dence of " a common and cont i nui ng ai m, si mi l armet hods of oper at i on, cont i nui t y i n per sonnel , andi nt er dependence") . Al t hough i t i s t r ue t hat t he r obber i es wer eper pet r at ed usi ng si mi l ar t echni ques, t he gover nment never t hel ess

f ai l ed t o pr esent any evi dence that appel l ant s had any knowl edge orf or esi ght as t o t he ot her r obber i es. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.Hughes, 505 F. 3d 578, 588 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) ( " [ T]he essence of aconspi r acy i s t he agr eement t o commi t t he of f ense and not t hecommi ssi on of t he subst ant i ve of f ense. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mer cer ,165 F. 3d 1331, 1335 ( 11t h Ci r . 1999) ( same) ; Uni t ed St ates v.Tej ada, 956 F. 2d 1256, 1264 ( 2d Ci r . 1992) ( same) .

-22-


23/64

ci r cumst ances depi ct ed i n t hem ar e di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he ones

pr esent her e.

I n Li Causi , we had no t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat t he

def endant s wer e awar e of t he conspi r acy' s cont i nui ng ai m t o rob

var i ous super mar ket s, gi ven t he f act t hat t hey par t i ci pat ed i n

var i ous meet i ngs where t hey di scussed "commi t t i ng ar med r obber i es

of super market s, " Li Causi , 167 F. 3d at 41 ( our emphasi s) , and wher e

t hey each par t i ci pat ed i n r obbi ng, or at t empt i ng t o rob, mul t i pl e

super mar ket s or ot her est abl i shment s i ndi scr i mi nat el y. I d. at 41-

43. The cour t s i n J ames and Smi t h hel d t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent

evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat t he def endant s j oi ned t he over ar chi ng

conspi r acy al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment , because al t hough t hey onl y

par t i ci pated i n one of t he conspi r acy' s cr i mes, t hey had enough

cont act wi t h t he conspi r acy' s ot her member s t hat a j ur y coul d

r easonabl y i nf er t hat t hose member s had di scl osed t o t he def endant s

t he conspi r acy' s cont i nui ng ai mt o commi t mul t i pl e of f enses. Her e,

however , t her e was no i ndi cat i on t hat ei t her Sant i ago or Br avo had

par t i ci pat ed i n any pr i or r obber i es of ar mor ed t r ucks, or t hat

appel l ant s had any cont act wi t h t he ot her members of t he Mat os

conspi r acy who had commi t t ed pr i or r obber i es on armored t r ucks.

Ther ef or e, t he case- l aw ci t ed by t he gover nment f ai l s suppor t i t s

ar gument .

Consequent l y, we f i nd t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent

t o pr ove t hat appel l ant s j oi ned t he over ar chi ng conspi r acy al l eged

-23-


24/64

i n t he i ndi ct ment . See Mor r ow, 39 F. 3d at 1234 ( " [ I ] f a def endant

agr ees wi t h ot her s si mpl y t o commi t a si ngl e cr i me (e. g. , t o rob

one bank) and has no knowl edge or f oresi ght of t he conspi r acy' s

br oader scope, t hat def endant i s a member onl y of t he nar r ower ,

one- cr i me conspi r acy. " ) . Bel ow, we pr oceed t o di scuss t he

r ami f i cat i ons of our f i ndi ng.

6. Consequences of the Insufficiency Finding

Havi ng det er mi ned t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o

pr ove appel l ant s' knowi ng par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy al l eged

i n t he i ndi ct ment , we must now l ook t o "whether t he evi dence was

suf f i ci ent t o per mi t a j ur y, under a pr oper set of i nst r uct i ons, t o

convi ct t he def endant of a r el at ed, si mi l ar conspi r acy. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar yea, 704 F. 3d 55, 73- 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

I n t hi s case, appel l ant s wer e char ged wi t h par t i ci pat i ng

i n a conspi r acy t o r ob ar mor ed t r ucks, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1951( a) . Thi s pr ovi si on, known as the Hobbs Act , st at es that ,

Whoever i n any way or degree obst r uct s,del ays, or af f ect s commerce or t he movement ofany ar t i cl e or commodi t y i n commerce, byr obber y or ext or t i on or at t empt s or conspi r esso t o do, or commi t s or t hr eatens physi calvi ol ence t o any per son or pr oper t y i nf ur t her ance of a pl an or pur pose t o doanyt hi ng i n vi ol at i on of t hi s secti on shal l bef i ned under t hi s t i t l e or i mpr i soned not mor e

t han t went y years, or both.Evi dence of an over t act i s not r equi r ed t o est abl i sh a Hobbs Act

conspi r acy. Uni t ed St at es v. Pal mer , 203 F. 3d 55, 63 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) . Havi ng r evi ewed t he r ecord, we concl ude t hat t he gover nment

-24-


25/64

pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence f r om whi ch a j ur y coul d r easonabl y

concl ude t hat appel l ant s par t i ci pat ed i n a conspi r acy "si mi l ar " and

"r el at ed" t o t he one al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment , namel y, a

conspi r acy t o commi t t he Apr i l 30, 2004, r obber y. 9

The gover nment ' s f i r st wi t ness, Sant i ago, t est i f i ed as t o

how both appel l ant s appr oached hi mi n t he parki ng l ot of Loomi s and

asked hi mwhether he knew anyone who "coul d hi t t he r out e. " Dur i ng

t hei r di scussi ons wi t h Sant i ago, appel l ant s pr oposed r obbi ng t hei r

t r uck behi nd the Rexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er i n Bayamn, and i n a

l ater meet i ng bet ween Sant i ago, Monser r ate, and Br avo, Monser r ate

pr ovi ded t he f our di gi t number t hat was af f i xed t o bot h t he f r ont

bumper and r ear por t i on of t hei r t r uck, i n or der t o f aci l i t at e

Br avo' s sur vei l l ance of i t . Monser r at e al so t ol d Br avo t hat i t

woul d be bet t er t o conduct t he hei st f ol l owi ng a l ong weekend or a

hol i day "because t hose wer e t he days when money moved t he most i n

banks. " I t was al so cl ear t hat Fi guer oa was supposed t o act as t he

messenger on t he day of t he r obber y, si nce Br avo comment ed t o

Sant i ago t hat i t "was not goi ng t o be a f or ced r obber y. " Sant i ago

9 I n t hi s cont ext , "a conspi r acy t o commi t t he Apr i l 30, 2004,

r obber y" does not r ef er t o t he never - hatched conspi r acy bet weenMonser r at e, Fi guer oa, Sant i ago, and Br avo t hat appel l ant s ar gue wast he ext ent of t hei r i l l egal i nvol vement . Rat her , i t r ef er s to t hequest i on of whet her t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o show t hatappel l ant s engaged i n a si ngl e act of conspi r acy, br ought t of r ui t i on, t o r ob onl y t hei r own t r uck at t he gas st at i on par ki ngl ot on Apr i l 30, 2004.

-25-


26/64

t est i f i ed t hat t hi s pl anni ng pr ocess went on f or "a mont h and a

hal f or t wo. "

Addi t i onal l y, Cr i st i an Ben t ez, a f or mer manager of t he

Texaco gas st at i on, t est i f i ed t hat , a year bef or e t he Apr i l 30,

2004 r obber y, Monser r ate t ol d hi m t hat a "good pl ace" t o r ob t he

t r uck was behi nd t he Rexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er because t here were no

cameras t her e. There was al so ampl e evi dence showi ng t hat

appel l ant s harbored r esent ment t owards t he company because of i t s

al l eged i l l - t r eat ment of wor ker s.

The gover nment al so pr esent ed evi dence t yi ng appel l ant s

t o t he co- def endant s who robbed t hei r t r uck on Apr i l 30, 2004.

Sant i ago t est i f i ed t hat he bel i eved t hat one of t hese co-

def endant s, Sal as- Fer nndez, was pr esent at a meet i ng he had wi t h

Br avo i n hi s house. I nf or mant Lpez test i f i ed t hat co- def endant

Tor r es- Or t i z, who conduct ed sur vei l l ance on appel l ant s' t r uck,

ment i oned t o hi m t hat t he i nf ormat i on f or t he r obber y was comi ng

f r om Br avo, who i n t ur n obt ai ned some of hi s i nf or mat i on f r om

appel l ant s.

And al t hough i t i s a cl ose quest i on, we bel i eve t he j ur y

may have r easonabl y i nf er r ed t hat appel l ant s wer e i n on t he

Apr i l 30, 2004 r obber y, gi ven Fi guer oa' s act i ons on t hat day.

Fi guer oa i nst r uct ed t he dr i ver on t hat day, Nez, t o par k "out si de

t he pumps, " t her eby posi t i oni ng t he t r uck i n a l ess secur e

l ocat i on. Al t hough t he evi dence r ef l ect ed t hat t he gas st at i on was

-26-


27/64

f ul l at t he t i me, company pol i cy di ct at ed t hat oper at or s wai t unt i l

a spot opens up across f r om t he cl i ent ' s door . I n addi t i on, t he

st at i on manager at t he t i me t est i f i ed t hat , i n hi s "t hr ee t o f our

year s" wor ki ng as a manager , he had never seen a Loomi s t r uck par k

wher e i t di d on t he day of t he r obber y. The j ur y coul d have easi l y

i nf er r ed t hat t hi s was a si gni f i cant and unusual devi at i on f r om

st andar d pr ocedur e, and t hat i t was done t o f aci l i t at e t he r obber y

of t he t r uck on t hat day. 10

The gover nment al so not es t hat Fi guer oa spent hal f an

hour i nsi de the st at i on col l ect i ng t he money, despi t e company

pol i cy st at i ng t hat such vi si t s shoul d onl y l ast bet ween seven and

f i f t een mi nut es. Appel l ant s, however , ascr i be t hi s del ay t o t he

st at i on manager , who t est i f i ed t hat he had t o count t he money t wi ce

t hat day, and t hat t hi s was the cause of t he del ay. We see no

r eason f or not cr edi t i ng appel l ant s' t heor y t hat t he del ay i n

l eavi ng the gas s t at i on was due t o ci r cumst ances ent i r el y beyond

Fi guer oa' s cont r ol . The gover nment pr esent ed no evi dence t o t he

cont r ar y. I t mer el y ci t es t he t est i mony of V ct or Vzquez, who was

an empl oyee at t he gas st at i on, and who st at ed t hat t he st at i on

manager f ound i t odd how l ong t he Loomi s t r uck r emai ned par ked at

t he st at i on t hat day. But , because i t was the manager who caused

10 On appeal , Fi gueroa argues t hat he and Nez shared j oi ntr esponsi bi l i t y f or wher e t he t r uck par ked. However , Nez' st est i mony r ef l ect s t hat he f el t compel l ed t o f ol l ow Fi guer oa' si nst r uct i on t o par k t he car "out si de of t he pumps" because Fi guer oawas a f ul l - t i me oper ator who out r anked hi m.

-27-


28/64

t he t r uck' s i ni t i al del ay by count i ng money t wi ce, hi s st at ement of

sur pr i se coul d onl y ref er t o t he t i me t he t r uck remai ned at t he

st at i on af t er i t was r obbed, and one woul d have r easonabl y expect ed

t he t r uck t o r emai n t her e unt i l t he aut hor i t i es ar r i ved. Hence,

t he pur por t ed f i f t een- mi nut e del ay shoul d not be hel d agai nst

appel l ant s i n t hi s case.

Unf or t unat el y f or appel l ant s, however , t he gover nment ' s

r emai ni ng poi nt s bear more wei ght . When Fi gueroa r etur ned t o t he

t r uck wi t h t he money he had col l ect ed f r om t he st at i on manager ,

Nez asked hi m whet her t hey shoul d charge Texaco f or t he ext r a

t i me t hey had t o wai t . Fi guer oa r esponded af f i r mat i vel y, at whi ch

poi nt Nez announced t hat he had t o go t o t he bat hroom. The

f ol l owi ng i s Nez' s t est i mony, descr i bi ng what happened next :

A: So I ' m wai t i ng f or [ Fi guer oa] t o come upf r ont so I coul d get of f . When I ' m j ot t i ngdown t hat , he opened t he back door , and I l ookt hr ough t he r ear vi ew mi r r or s i n t he t r uck,t her e were some persons approachi ng wi t hweapons.

I was goi ng t o l et hi m know, but he hadal r eady - - he was al r eady on the gr ound.

Q: What di d he do bef ore he hi t t he gr ound?

A: Got down and cl osed t he door .

Al t hough Fi guer oa cl osed t he door bef ore bei ng pl aced on

t he gr ound, t he j ur y coul d have quest i oned why Fi guer oa exi t ed t he

vehi cl e i n t he f i r st pl ace when Nez' s t est i mony ref l ect s t hat , as

Fi guer oa was exi t i ng the vehi cl e, t her e wer e per sons appr oachi ng

-28-


29/64

t he r ear of t he vehi cl e wi t h weapons. Taki ng t he evi dence i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e to t he ver di ct , as we must , we concl ude that

t he j ur y coul d have i nf er r ed t hat Fi guer oa chose t o exi t t he

vehi cl e knowi ng t hat i t was about t o be r obbed, t her eby

f aci l i t at i ng t he r obber y. Thi s was i n vi ol at i on of Loomi s pol i cy

r equi r i ng oper at or s t o make sur e t he ar ea i s secur e bef or e exi t i ng

the truck. 11

The gover nment al so cal l s our at t ent i on t o somet hi ng

unusual t hat happened dur i ng t he r obber y. Af t er t he r obber s

f i ni shed t aki ng t he money f r om t he vaul t of t he t r uck and wer e

i nsi de t hei r vehi cl e r eady t o l eave, one of t hem exi t ed t he

vehi cl e, went over t o Fi guer oa, and hi t hi mover t he head. Sever al

wi t nesses who saw Fi guer oa i mmedi atel y af t er t he r obber s had l ef t

t est i f i ed t hat he seemed cal mand was not bl eedi ng. Thi s evi dence,

when vi ewed al ongsi de Fi guer oa' s deci si on t o par k away f r om t he

pumps and exi t t he t r uck when he di d, coul d have l ed t he j ur y t o

bel i eve t hat t he r obber s hi t Fi guer oa i n or der t o make sur e t hat

ever yone bel i eved i t was a "f or ced r obber y. "

Appel l ant s at t empt t o anest hesi ze t he pot ency of t hi s

evi dence i n var i ous ways. Fi guer oa i n par t i cul ar st at es t hat t he

evi dence mer el y showed t hat he and Monser r at e engaged i n

11 The government , dur i ng i t s cl osi ng argument , al so argued t hatFi guer oa coul d have mer el y st epped back i n t o the vaul t of t het r uck i nst ead of cl osi ng t he door and wai t i ng f or t he br i gands t oappr oach hi m.

-29-


30/64

di scussi ons wi t h Sant i ago and Br avo t o rob t hei r own t r uck behi nd

t he Rexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er of Bayamn. He cl ai ms t hat t hi s

r obber y "never t ook pl ace and [ i t ] i s debat abl e how ser i ous wer e

t he conver sat i ons t o pur sue i t , as t he evi dence ar e spar ce [ si c]

comment s, wi t hout mor e, made by t he appeal i ng def endants. " Bot h

appel l ant s cl ai mt hat , once Tor r es- Or t i z "st ol e t he hi t " f r omI vn

Br avo, "a new conspi r acy . . . was f ormed" whose pur pose was " t o

r ob ot her pl aces, t he dr i ve i n, t he gas st at i on, t he West er n Bank

and t he Ar eci bo Post Of f i ce, " t hus l eavi ng "no l i nk" bet ween

appel l ant s' desi r e t o get back at Loomi s f or i t s i l l t r eat ment of

worker s and the "pr of essi onal gang recr ui t ed by Matos, " whose mai n

pur pose was t o i ndi scr i mi nat el y r ob bot h Loomi s' and Br i nk' s

armored t r ucks.

Al t hough appel l ant s make good ar gument s, at t he end of

t he day t hey ar e def eat ed by t he evi dence ci t ed above. The

quest i on of whet her t he Fi guer oa- Monser r ate- Sant i ago- Br avo

conspi r acy and t he Mat os- l ed conspi r acy const i t ut ed a si ngl e

conspi r acy f or t he nar r ower pur pose of r obbi ng the Loomi s t r uck on

Apr i l 30, 2013, was one of f act f or t he j ur y t o deci de. See

Por t el a, 167 F. 3d at 696. As we have j ust r ecount ed, t he evi dence

was suf f i ci ent f or t he j ur y t o have i nf er r ed t hat appel l ant s agr eed

t o j oi n t he Matos- l ed conspi r acy to commi t t he Apr i l 30, 2004,

r obber y, par t i cul ar l y gi ven Fi guer oa' s act i ons on t hat day and t he

f act t hat Monser r at e pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on t o Br avo whi ch event ual l y

-30-


31/64

r eached Tor r es- Or t i z. Fi guer oa' s ar gument t hat t he Apr i l 30, 2004,

r obbery was per pet r at ed by "a whol e new set of char act ers" who

never had any cont act wi t h hi m i s unper suasi ve. The evi dence

showed t hat Br avo and Sant i ago act ual l y met wi t h co- def endant

Sal as- Fer nndez at Br avo' s house. Thi s co- def endant l at er admi t t ed

t o hi s cousi n t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he Apr i l 30, 2004, r obber y

at t he Texaco gas st at i on.

Addi t i onal l y, t he f act t hat ot her co- conspi r at or s may

have "st ol en" t he i dea of r obbi ng appel l ant s' t r uck f r omBr avo does

not necessar i l y pr ecl ude a f i ndi ng by t he j ur y of a si ngl e

conspi r acy t o r ob t hei r own armored t r uck, f or we have r epeatedl y

hel d t hat " [ c] hanges i n t he cast of char act er s do not pr ecl ude a

f i ndi ng of a si ngl e over ar chi ng conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Sot o- Ben quez, 356 F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Shea, 211 F. 3d 658, 665 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . "What [ i s] essent i al

i s t hat t he cri mi nal ' goal or over al l pl an' have per si st ed wi t hout

f undament al al t er at i on, not wi t hst andi ng var i at i ons i n per sonnel and

t hei r r ol es. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bel l o- Pr ez, 977 F. 2d 664, 668 ( 1st

Ci r . 1992) . As such, so l ong as t he evi dence r easonabl y shows t hat

appel l ant s r emai ned i nvol ved i n t hi s " st ol e[ n] " conspi r acy i n some

capaci t y, t he mer e f act of al t er ed pl ans and addi t i onal per sonnel

does not change our anal ysi s.

Fi guer oa al so assai l s t he evi dence pr esent ed by the

gover nment goi ng t o hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he Apr i l 30, 2004,

-31-


32/64

r obber y. He cl ai ms that t he deci si on t o par k t he t r uck "out si de

t he pumps" was pr ompt ed by t he gas st at i on bei ng f ul l t hat day,

t hat t he del ay was due t o t he st at i on manager havi ng t o count t he

money t wi ce, and t hat wer e i t not f or Nez' s desi r e t o go to the

bat hroom, t he r obber y never woul d have happened. He al so not es

t hat i t was Nez' s act i ons t hat pr eci pi t at ed t he r obber y, because

Nez opened t he t r uck t o t he r obber s when company pol i cy mandat ed

t hat he dr i ve away, and because he di d not move t he t r uck cl oser t o

t he st at i on when a spot opened up. Al t hough Fi guer oa' s t heory as

t o how t he Apr i l 30, 2004, r obber y occur r ed i s pl ausi bl e, we have

t o r ecogni ze t hat t he gover nment ' s t heor y was equal l y pl ausi bl e.

Fi guer oa was abl e t o pr esent hi s si de of t he st or y t o t he j ur y, and

we have t o assume t hat t he j ur y r ej ect ed i t . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Ayewoh, 627 F. 3d 914, 919 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( " [ T]he Cour t must vi ew

t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he Gover nment , def er r i ng

t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct i f t he evi dence can suppor t var yi ng

i nt er pr et at i ons, at l east one of whi ch i s consi st ent wi t h t he

def endant ' s gui l t . " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Neal , 36 F. 3d 1190,

1203 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Her nndez, 218 F. 3d at 58, 66 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( " I t i s

not our r ol e t o assess the credi bi l i t y of t r i al wi t nesses or t o

r esol ve conf l i ct s i n t he evi dence, i nst ead we must r esol ve al l such

i ssues i n f avor of t he ver di ct. ") . I n f act, t he j ur y was gi ven a

-32-


33/64

mul t i pl e- conspi r aci es i nst r ucti on by t he di st r i ct j udge, yet i t

st i l l deci ded t o convi ct appel l ant s.

I n l i ght of t he above, we bel i eve t hat a pr oper l y

i nst r uct ed j ur y coul d have convi ct ed appel l ant s of agr eei ng t o j oi n

a more l i mi t ed conspi r acy wi t h Matos and t he ot her co- def endant s t o

r ob t hei r own ar mored t r uck on Apr i l 30, 2004.

7. Whether the Variance Caused Appellants Prejudice

Now t hat we have det ermi ned t hat a var i ance occur r ed

because t he evi dence showed t hat appel l ant s j oi ned a nar r ower

conspi r acy t han t he one al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment , we must assess

whet her t hi s var i ance caused appel l ant s pr ej udi ce.

I n Uni t ed St ates v. Mubayyi d, we remarked t hat a

def endant "can hardl y be hear d t o compl ai n when t he ' government ' s

pr oof at t r i al est abl i shes a scheme si mi l ar t o but somewhat

nar r ower i n br eadt h and mal i gni t y t han that char ged i n t he

i ndi ct ment . ' " 658 F. 3d 35, 48- 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St ates v. Muef f el man, 470 F. 3d 33, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) . We have

al so st at ed t hat " [ a] j ur y need not bel i eve t hat t he def endant di d

ever yt hi ng t he i ndi ct ment char ges; i t may convi ct i f i t bel i eves he

di d some of t he t hi ngs t he i ndi ct ment char ges, " as l ong as " t hose

t hi ngs, by themsel ves, amount t o a vi ol at i on of t he st at ut e, [ and]

t he i ndi ct ment enabl es t he accused t o know t he nat ur e and cause of

t he accusat i on agai nst hi m. " Muef f el man, 470 F. 3d at 38- 39

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and br acket s omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed

-33-


34/64

St at es v. Muoz- Fr anco, 487 F. 3d 25, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( "Wher e, as

her e, t he i ndi ct ment al l eges a conspi r acy t o commi t mul t i pl e

of f enses, t he char ge may be sust ai ned by suf f i ci ent evi dence of

conspi r acy t o commi t any one of t he of f enses. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Bust amant e, 493 F. 3d 879, 885 (7t h Ci r . 2007) ( " [ A] pr osecut or may

el ect t o pr oceed on a subset of t he al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct ment ,

pr ovi ng a conspi r acy smal l er t han t he one al l eged. " ) . The f act

t hat t he conspi r acy pr oved i s not as ext ensi ve as t hat char ged does

not by i t sel f est abl i sh a mat er i al var i ance and t her ef or e t he

var i ance may be subj ect t o t he harml ess- er r or r ul e. Mubayyi d, 658

F. 3d at 51- 52, 54; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l son, 134 F. 3d 855

( 7t h Ci r . 1998) ( hol di ng t hat , i f t he conspi r acy char ged i n t he

i ndi ct ment i ncl udes t he smal l er conspi r acy f ound by t he j ur y, t hen

t he var i ance wi l l not be f at al si nce t he i ndi ct ment woul d have

suf f i ci ent l y not i f i ed t he def endant s of t he gover nment ' s

accusat i ons. ) .

Ther ef or e, t he mer e f act t hat t he evi dence mar shal ed at

t r i al pr oved a nar r ower conspi r acy t han t he one al l eged i n t he

i ndi ct ment i s not aut omat i cal l y gr ounds f or r ever sal ; "i n or der t o

r ever se a convi ct i on, a cour t must f i nd t hat t he var i ance af f ect ed

t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Tor mos- Vega,

959 F. 2d 1103, 1115 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) ;

Gl enn, 828 F. 2d at 858 ( "The r i sks of pr ej udi ce i n such t r i al s [ of

l ar ge cr i mi nal conspi r aci es] ar e ser i ous and war r ant r ever sal when

-34-


35/64

t hey mat er i al i ze; but when subst ant i al r i ght s ar e not af f ect ed, t he

er r or i s ' har ml ess. ' " ( ci t i ng 28 U. S. C. 2111) ) . Ther e ar e at

l east t hr ee ways i n whi ch a var i ance may be f ound t o af f ect a

def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s: ( 1) t he def endant may r ecei ve

i nadequat e not i ce of t he char ges agai nst hi m, such t hat he may be

sur pr i sed at t r i al ; ( 2) "a def endant may be t wi ce subj ect t o

pr osecut i on f or t he same of f ense; " and ( 3) a def endant may suf f er

f r om evi dent i ar y spi l l over , whi ch i s "t he ' t r ansf er ence of gui l t '

t o a def endant i nvol ved i n one conspi r acy f r om evi dence

i ncr i mi nat i ng def endant s i n anot her conspi r acy i n whi ch t he

par t i cul ar def endant was not i nvol ved. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Candel ar i a- Si l va, 166 F. 3d 19, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

The quest i on of whether t he var i ance i n t hi s case

af f ect ed appel l ant s' subst ant i al r i ght s i s r evi ewed de novo.

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi hbey, 75 F. 3d 761, 774 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

As t o the f i r st pr ong, we not e t hat appel l ant s do not

cl ai mt hat t hey r ecei ved i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce of t he char ges agai nst

t hem. The Second Supersedi ng i ndi ct ment i nf ormed appel l ant s that

t hey wer e bei ng charged wi t h par t i ci pat i ng i n a Hobbs Act

conspi r acy. Count One of t he i ndi ct ment al so i ncl uded t he "over t

act s i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, " whi ch named bot h

appel l ant s. Ther e, Monser r ate was al l eged t o "have obt ai ned and

pr ovi ded t o hi s co- conspi r at or s t he rout e of a Loomi s Far go ar mor ed

t r uck to be r obbed on Apr i l 30, 2004, i ncl udi ng t he i dent i f yi ng

-35-


36/64

f our di gi t number t hat appears on t he f r ont bumper and r ear por t i on

of ever y armored t r uck, " whi l e Fi guer oa was al l eged t o have

"ar r anged t o be t he messenger of t he Loomi s Fargo ar mored t r uck t o

be r obbed on Apr i l 30, 2004. " The i ndi ct ment t her ef or e cont ai ned

suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on f or appel l ant s t o be awar e of t he nat ur e and

cause of t he accusat i on made agai nst t hem. See Mor r ow, 39 F. 3d at

1235 ( hol di ng that , al t hough ther e was a var i ance bet ween t he

mul t i pl e- cr i me conspi r acy al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment and t he si ngl e-

cr i me conspi r acy pr oved at t r i al , i t was not pr ej udi ci al because

"t he i ndi ct ment gave appel l ant s ampl e not i ce of t he event s

char ged. " ) .

Appel l ant s al so do not ar gue t hat t he var i ance i n t hi s

case exposed t hem t o bei ng pr osecut ed agai n f or t he same of f ense,

and we pr ef er t o avoi d specul at i ng as t o t hi s possi bi l i t y.

As t o t he t hi r d pr ong, appel l ant s do compl ai n t hat t hey

wer e pr ej udi ced because of evi dent i ar y spi l l over . Fi guer oa

speci f i cal l y cl ai ms t hat t he evi dence as t o t he ot her t hr ee

r obber i es subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ced hi m, even t hough he had not hi ng

t o do wi t h t hose r obber i es. He f ur t her ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t " r educed t he st andar d of evi dence by per mi t t i ng [ hi s]

convi ct i on upon t he gener al conspi r acy, r at her [ t han] on t he

speci f i c act s f or whi ch evi dence was pr esent ed. " Addi t i onal l y, he

ar gues t hat I nf or mant I r ene' s t est i mony regar di ng what Mat os t ol d

I r ene mi sl ed t he j ur y and f aci l i t at ed i t s ver di ct agai nst hi m. At

-36-


37/64

t he end of t he day, we must r ej ect hi s ar gument s. The di st r i ct

cour t pr oper l y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t coul d onl y convi ct each

appel l ant based on hi s " own act s, st at ement s and conduct , and any

other evi dence i n t he case whi ch may be appl i cabl e t o hi m. " The

gover nment was not r equi r ed t o pr ove t hat appel l ant s par t i ci pat ed

i n al l of t he r obber i es, and t her ef or e t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

i mpr oper l y " r educe[ ] t he st andar d of evi dence. "

Monser r at e advances si mi l ar ar gument s. I n par t i cul ar , he

cl ai ms t hat t he var i ance i n t hi s case per mi t t ed hi s convi ct i on

"based upon hi s al l eged associ at i on wi t h a cr ew of pr of essi onal

r obbers whose mi sdeeds i nvol vi ng l ong weapons, masks, assaul t s and

ot her s wer e spr ead bef or e the j ur y when t hey i n f act per t ai ned t o

a separat e conspi r acy i n whi ch he was not i nvol ved. " But he does

not expl ai n why he t hi nks t he j ur y was unabl e t o separat e hi s

act i ons f r om t hose of t he ot her co- def endant s who wer e i nvol ved i n

t he ot her r obber i es, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he di str i ct cour t ' s

i nstr uct i ons.

He does, however , chal l enge t hose i nst r uct i ons as

def i ci ent , and he al so at t acks sever al of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

evi dent i ary rul i ngs concerni ng st atement s t hat wer e made by

unavai l abl e wi t nesses. These st atement s mai nl y descr i bed how

members of t he Mat os conspi r acy had t o pay unknown Loomi s empl oyees

f or i nsi de i nf or mat i on hel pf ul t o conduct t he r obber i es. I n

addi t i on, he and Fi guer oa cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

-37-


38/64

er r or i n r epl ayi ng sever al t ape r ecor di ngs cont ai ni ng t hese

st at ement s t o the j ur y out si de of t hei r pr esence and wi t hout

r el evant cr oss- exami nat i on t est i mony. For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow,

we are unconvi nced t hat t hese al l eged mi sst eps caused ei t her of t he

appel l ant s subst ant i al pr ej udi ce i n t he f or m of evi dent i ar y

spi l l over , and we t hus f i nd t hat t he var i ance i n t hi s case was

har ml ess. We begi n wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s admi ssi on of t he

st at ement s f r om t he unavai l abl e wi t nesses.

B. The District Court's Evidentiary Rulings

1. Background

Monser r at e chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o

admi t cer t ai n hearsay st atement s made by var i ous co- conspi r ators

who wer e unavai l abl e t o t est i f y at t r i al . He cl ai ms t hat t hese

st at ement s wer e unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al t o hi m under Feder al Rul e of

Evi dence 403 because t hey cont ai ned r ef er ences t o "i nsi der s, "

"guards" or "connect i ons" who had pur por t edl y pr ovi ded t he

necessary i nsi de i nf or mat i on t o per pet r at e t he r obber i es. The

di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t hese st at ement s under Feder al Rul e of

Evi dence 804( b) ( 3) as st at ement s agai nst i nt er est . We br i ef l y

di scuss t hi s r ul e bel ow.

2. Rule 804(b)(3)

Hearsay i s def i ned as a st at ement t hat t he decl arant

"does not make whi l e t est i f yi ng at t he cur r ent t r i al or hear i ng"

and whi ch t he pr oponent "of f er s i n evi dence t o pr ove t he t r ut h of

-38-


39/64

t he mat t er asser t ed i n t he st at ement . " Fed. R. Evi d. 801( c) .

Hear say i s i nadmi ssi bl e unl ess cer t ai n except i ons ar e met . Fed. R.

Evi d. 802. Rul e 804( b) ( 3) est abl i shes one of t hose except i ons:

st at ement s made by an unavai l abl e decl ar ant agai nst penal i nt er est .

"A st at ement i s agai nst t he decl ar ant ' s penal i nt er est i f i t t ends

t o subj ect t he decl ar ant t o cri mi nal l i abi l i t y to such an ext ent

t hat a reasonabl e person woul d not make t he st at ement unl ess i t

wer e t r ue. " Uni t ed St at es v. Fogg, 666 F. 3d 13, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. J i mnez, 419 F. 3d 34, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) )

( i nt er nal quot at i ons and br acket s omi t t ed) . We must l ook at al l of

t he sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances i n order t o det er mi ne whether a

st at ement i s admi ssi bl e under t he r ul e. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Pel l et i er , 666 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

I n Wi l l i amson v. Uni t ed St at es, 512 U. S. 594 ( 1994) , t he

Supr eme Cour t el uci dated t he scope of Rul e 804( b) ( 3) as i t appl i es

t o st at ement s agai nst penal i nt er est . Ther e, t he Cour t det er mi ned

t hat t he Rul e "does not al l ow [ t he] admi ssi on of non- sel f

i ncul patory st at ement s, even i f t hey are made wi t hi n a br oader

nar r at i ve t hat i s gener al l y sel f - i ncul pat or y. " I d. at 600- 01.

The Cour t went on t o say t hat ,

[ W] het her a st at ement i s sel f - i ncul pat or y or

not can onl y be det er mi ned by vi ewi ng i t i ncont ext . Even st at ement s t hat ar e on thei rf ace neut r al may act ual l y be agai nst t hedecl ar ant ' s i nt er est . "I hi d t he gun i n J oe' sapar t ment " may not be a conf essi on of a cr i me;but i f i t i s l i kel y t o hel p t he pol i ce f i ndt he mur der weapon, t hen i t i s cer t ai nl y

-39-


40/64

sel f - i ncul pat or y. "Sam and I went to J oe' shouse" mi ght be agai nst t he decl ar ant ' si nt er est i f a r easonabl e per son i n t hedecl ar ant ' s shoes woul d r eal i ze t hat bei ngl i nked t o J oe and Sam woul d i mpl i cat e t hedecl ar ant i n J oe and Sam' s conspi r acy. And

ot her st at ement s t hat gi ve t he pol i cesi gni f i cant det ai l s about t he cr i me may al so,dependi ng on t he si t uat i on, be agai nst t hedecl ar ant ' s i nt er est .

I d. at 603- 04.

I n addi t i on t o bei ng suf f i ci ent l y sel f - i ncul pat or y, t he

st atement must al so be " suppor t ed by cor r oborat i ng ci r cumst ances

t hat cl ear l y i ndi cat e i t s t r ustwor t hi ness, i f i t i s of f er ed i n a

cr i mi nal case as one that t ends t o expose t he decl ar ant t o cr i mi nal

l i abi l i t y. " Fed. R. Evi d. 804( b) ( 3) ( B) . Al t hough t he r equi r ement

f or cor r obor at i on i s not "unr eal i st i cal l y sever e, " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mackey, 117 F. 3d 24, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) , i t does " demand meani ngf ul

cor r obor at i on of pr of f er ed t est i mony, " Uni t ed St at es v. Br adshaw,

281 F. 3d 278, 286 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Thi s means pr ovi di ng "evi dence

t hat cl ear l y i ndi cat es t hat t he st at ement s wer e wor t hy of bel i ef ,

based upon the ci r cumst ances i n whi ch t he st at ement s were made. "

Pel l et i er , 666 F. 3d at 8 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bar one, 114 F. 3d

1284, 1300 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of Rul e

804( b) ( 3) f or abuse of di scr et i on. Br adshaw, 281 F. 3d at 286.

-40-


41/64

3. Challenged Statements

a. Statement by Co-Defendant Salas-Fernndez

Monser r ate ar gues t hat t he st atement s co- def endant Sal as-

Fer nndez made t o hi s cousi n, Angel Echevar r a- Sal as, i n May of

2004, t hat he robbed a Loomi s t r uck at a Texaco st at i on wi t h

Tor r es- Or t i z, Mat os, Fer nndez and Her nndez, and t hat each had t o

pay $8, 000 f or an " i nsi de payment , " was not a si ngl e st at ement

agai nst i nt er est , but r at her "par t of a bl ame spr eadi ng nar r at i ve"

t hat was i nadmi ssi bl e under t he f r amewor k est abl i shed i n

Wi l l i amson. He al so ar gues t hat , even i f t hi s "nar r at i ve" was

admi ss i bl e, i t shoul d have been excl uded under Rul e 403 "because

t he f act t hat ' i nsi der s wer e pai d' i s onl y r el evant i f t he j ur y

specul ated or made t he i mpr oper i nf er ence t hat [ Monser r ate] was a

r eci pi ent , mer el y because he was one of t hose accused at t r i al . "

He cl ai ms t hat t he gover nment present ed no evi dence t hat he

r ecei ved $8, 000, or any quant i t y of money, f or hi s al l eged

par t i ci pat i on i n t he r obber y.

Monser r ate' s ar gument does not r esonate wi t h us. Sal as-

Fer nndez' s st at ement t hat he r obbed t he Loomi s t r uck at t he Texaco

gas st at i on i s pl ai nl y sel f - i ncul pat or y, even t hough i t al so

i ncul pated other member s of t he conspi r acy. I n Barone, we r ej ect ed

t he ar gument t hat Wi l l i amson cr eat ed a per se bar t o t he admi ssi on

of any st at ement s agai nst i nt er est t hat al so i ncr i mi nat e ot her

per sons. Barone, 114 F. 3d at 1295; see al so Wi l l i amson, 512 U. S.

-41-


42/64

at 606 ( Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng) ( "[ A] decl ar ant ' s st at ement i s not

magi cal l y t r ansf or med f r oma st at ement agai nst penal i nt er est i nt o

one t hat i s i nadmi ss i bl e merel y because t he decl arant names anot her

per son or i mpl i cat es a possi bl e co- def endant . ") . Fur t her , t he

st at ement at i ssue by i t s ver y nat ur e does not r ef l ect t hat i t was

made wi t h t he i nt ent t o shi f t t he bl ame f or t he robber i es t o the

ot her co- conspi r at or s. The same can be sai d f or Sal as- Fer nndez' s

st at ement t hat he had t o make an i nsi de payment ; i t merel y

descr i bed what he and t he other co- conspi r ators had t o do wi t h

t hei r i l l - got t en pr oceeds.

Addi t i onal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scret i on i n r ul i ng t hat t he st at ement s wer e suf f i ci ent l y

cor r oborat ed as t r ust wor t hy because t he st at ement s were made t o a

cl ose r el at i ve of Sal as- Fer nndez. See Bar one, 114 F. 3d at 1301

( agr eei ng wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he f act t hat t he decl ar ant

made t he st at ement t o cl ose rel at i ves " i n a noncust odi al set t i ng

r at her t han t o the pol i ce" and t hat he had no reason t o l i e wer e

f act or s const i t ut i ng "cor r obor at i ng ci r cumst ances" ) .

Last l y, we agr ee wi t h t he government t hat t he st at ement

di d not l end i t sel f t o i mpr oper i nf er ences or specul at i on. Not hi ng

pr event ed Monser r at e f r omargui ng to t he j ur y t hat t hose st at ement s

di d not concl usi vel y est abl i sh t hat he was such an i nsi der , and

t hat i n f act t her e wer e ot her i nsi der s i n Loomi s who wer e al so

i nvol ved i n t he r obber i es. Ul t i mat el y, i t was f or t he j ur y t o

-42-


43/64

det er mi ne whet her t he i nsi der s ment i oned wer e t he appel l ant s, and

as di scussed at l engt h i n t he pr evi ous sect i on, t her e was

suf f i ci ent evi dence f or t he j ur y to concl ude t hat appel l ant s wer e

among t he i nsi der s ment i oned.

b. Statements by Matos to Informant Irene

Monser r at e al so at t acks t he di st r i ct cour t ' s admi ssi on of

sever al st at ement s made by Mat os t o I nf ormant I r ene over t he phone.

The f i r st gr oup of i mpugned st at ements i ncl ude t hose cont ai ned i n

"al l of pages 26 and 27" of a r ecor di ng t aken on May 7, 2007. The

par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he st atement s ar e most l y Matos'

descr i pt i ons of Tor r es- Or t i z' s r ol e i n t he r obber y, t o t he ef f ect

t hat t he l at t er , af t er commi t t i ng t he Texaco r obber y, dr ove of f

wi t h t he money and t hen par ked hi s car i n f r ont of a school .

Appar ent l y sever al byst ander s saw Tor r es- Or t i z handl i ng t he st ol en

cash i n hi s vehi cl e and r epor t ed i t t o t he pol i ce, al ong wi t h hi s

l i cense pl at e number . Then, accor di ng t o Mat os, Tor r es- Or t i z ( " t he

dummy") pani cked and repor t ed hi s vehi cl e st ol en "r i ght away" and

"got f ucked. "

Monser r at e ar gues t hat t hese st at ement s do not

i ncr i mi nate Mat os i n t he Texaco r obber y; r at her , t hey mer el y

descr i be Tor r es- Or t i z' s er r or i n t he commi ssi on of sai d r obber y and

r ef l ect t hat Mat os was "pr i vy t o t hi s gossi p. " The gover nment

r ej oi ns t hat t he st at ement s, when t aken i n cont ext , r ef l ect t hat

Matos had " i nt i mate knowl edge" of t he conspi r acy' s cr i mi nal

-43-


44/64

act i vi t i es. Al t hough i t i s a cl ose cal l , we agr ee wi t h Monser r at e

t hat t he st at ement s do not suf f i ci ent l y i ncr i mi nat e Mat os i n t he

Texaco r obber y. Rat her , t he st at ement gi ves t he i mpr ess i on t hat

Tor r es- Or t i z' s mi shap was common knowl edge, especi al l y si nce i t

occur r ed i n pl ai n vi ew of i nnocent byst ander s who repor t ed i t t o

t he pol i ce. Were any of t hese byst anders t o make t he same ki nd of

comment s based on what t hey saw, we do not t hi nk t hat t he

st at ement s woul d be admi ss i bl e t o pr ove t hei r membershi p i n t he

conspi r acy. However , t he admi ss i on of t hese st at ement s was

harml ess t o t he appel l ant s, because they mer el y descr i bed Tor r es-

Or t i z' s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy, and, as such, t hey di d not

af f ect t he out come of t he t r i al .

The second gr oup of st at ements chal l enged by Monser r at e

can be f ound at t he bot t om hal f of page 28 and at t he top hal f of

page 29 of t he t r anscr i pt . As t o t hese, we al so have t o agr ee wi t h

Monser r at e t hat t hey were er r oneousl y admi t t ed. The onl y st at ement

of subst ance ut t er ed by Mat os i n t hi s segment i s t he f ol l owi ng:

Tel l t hem t o f uck t hemsel ves. No one hasevi dence or anyt hi ng. And, r egr et f ul l y, I ' mcl ear . Because I ' m cl ear wi t h what ' s mi ne.Look, damn, Baby i s goi ng t o rai se hi s hand.

Mat os appar ent l y made these r emar ks i n r esponse to I nf or mant

I r ene' s comment t hat Mat os' name was "messed up" i n some ci r cl es.And al t hough i t i s uncl ear what exact l y was bei ng sai d about Matos

behi nd hi s back, we bel i eve t hat t hese st at ement s ar e not sel f -

i ncri mi nat i ng. J ust t he opposi t e, i t appear s t hat Mat os i s

-44-


45/64

at t empt i ng t o say that he does not care about what i s bei ng sai d

about hi m, because "no one has evi dence" and he i s " cl ear wi t h

what ' s mi ne. " The st atement s are t her ef ore not agai nst Matos'

penal i nt er est , and we di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng

t hat , when t aken i n cont ext wi t h t he pr ecedi ng st at ement s, t hey

descr i bed Mat os' r ol e i n t he conspi r acy. The f act t hat Mat os'

st at ement somehow i ncr i mi nat ed "Baby, " whomt he gover nment asser t s

was Sal as- Fer nndez, does not al t er our concl usi on. However , as

bef or e, Monser r at e does not expl ai n how t hi s s t at ement pr ej udi ced

hi s def ense and we ar e conf i dent t hat t hey di d not af f ect t he

out come of t he case one way or anot her .

The t hi r d gr oup of st at ements chal l enged by Monser r at e

can be f ound i n t he f ol l owi ng exchanges bet ween I nf ormant I r ene

( CW) and Mat os ( LM) :

LM: "[ Sal as- Fer nndez] can' t r ai se hi s hand.He has t o wai t f or someone t o accuse hi m.Because i n t hi s, when you go to do these ki ndof j obs . . . bam, i f someone accuses you. . . over t her e, t hat ' s when you go t o j ai l . "

* * *

CW: "There, t he guar ds had somet hi ng t o dowi t h i t , r i ght ? They r e f ucked t her e. "12

LM: "Man, ever ybody t her e has somet hi ng t o dowi t h i t . Ever yone t her e t ook money. . . . "

CW: "There, everyone, everyone t here t ookmoney. Even, even, even t hi s one was pi ssed

12 I nf or mant I r ene t est i f i ed t hat he was r ef er r i ng t o t he guar ds" f r om t he ar mored t r uck i n Bayamn. "

-45-


46/64

of f once, because . . . t hey of f er ed hi msomethi ng and t hey di dn' t compl y. "

LM: "Who?"

CW: "Andr s, t hey of f ered Andr s money f or

t he, f or t he one . . . and supposedl y theyof f er ed hi m an amount and t hey gave hi manot her . And he i s . . . you know what Andr swas l i ke. "

LM: "No, but not me, not me, not r eal l y.Ther e I don' t know. I don' t have know . . . eh. . . I don' t know shi t about t hat . But I knowt hat everybody got money and . . . and t heywer e al so f i ght i ng because t hose peopl e gotpayed a l ot of money . . . "

CW: "The ones f r om t he van?"

LM: "Yes. [ Pause] . They wer e t al ki ng shi t ,' not , t hat . . . You see, t hey payed t hosepeopl e t oo much. That t hey had t o pay theml ess. ' "

The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n admi t t i ng t hese

st at ement s under Rul e 804( b) ( 3) . The st at ement s demonst r at e "an

i nsi der ' s knowl edge" as t o t he act i vi t i es of t he conspi r acy,

because

United States v. Monserrate-Valentin, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Monserrate-Valentin, 1st Cir. (2013)