United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)

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

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2265

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ANTHONY E. ALMEI DA I I I ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. D. Br ock Hor nby, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Henr y W. Gr i f f i n f or Appel l ant .Mar gar et D. McGaughey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t orney, was on br i ef ,f or Appel l ee.

Apr i l 4, 2014


2/27

STAHL, Circuit Judge. On J ul y 20, 2012, a j ur y convi ct ed

Ant hony Al mei da of possessi ng count er f ei t obl i gat i ons of t he Uni t ed

St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 472. The cour t sent enced

Al mei da t o f i f t y- one mont hs' i mpr i sonment . Al mei da t i mel y

appeal ed, chal l engi ng a number of evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs, t he

suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence t o sust ai n a convi ct i on, and hi s

sent ence. Fi ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed no er r or i n

t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, we af f i r m.

I. Facts & Background

On J ul y 5, 2011, Detect i ve Maur i ce Dr oui n was pur sui ng a

vehi cl e t hat was t r avel i ng wi t h a headl i ght out on Rout e 4 i n

Turner , Mai ne, when he not i ced a Chevr ol et Si l ver ado pi ckup t r uck

t hat f ai l ed t o yi el d t o hi s emer gency l i ght s. Al t hough Dr oui n

i ni t i al l y passed t he t r uck i n pur sui t of t he ot her vehi cl e, he

l at er l ocat ed t he t r uck and pul l ed i t over . A sear ch f or t he

t r uck' s l i cense pl at e number on Dr oui n' s mobi l e dat a t er mi nal

r eveal ed t hat t he t r uck was regi st er ed t o Maynar d Mar t i n. The

dr i ver pr ovi ded a t empor ar y Mai ne l i cense wi t h no phot ogr aph i ssued

t o J ohn Mart i n. The passenger gave hi s name as J oshua Al mei da. I n

f act , t he passenger was J ohn Mart i n and t he dr i ver was Ant hony

Al mei da, J oshua' s br ot her . 1

1 Thi s opi ni on wi l l r ef er t o Ant hony Al mei da as "Al mei da" andJ oshua Al mei da as " J oshua. "

-2-


3/27

Dr oui n r et ur ned t o hi s cr ui ser and r an another sear ch on

t he dat a t er mi nal t hat showed Mar t i n' s l i cense was expi r ed and

J oshua' s was suspended. Dr oui n i nf or med t he men i n t he t r uck of

t he r esul t s of t he sear ch, i ssued a war ni ng, and l et t hem go. As

t he t r uck headed of f , Dr oui n r an a cross- agency check on J ohn

Mar t i n and J oshua Al mei da, r et r i evi ng phot ogr aphs of each. He

det er mi ned t hat t he passenger was act ual l y J ohn Mar t i n, and

( er r oneousl y) i dent i f i ed t he dr i ver as J oshua Al mei da. He al so

l ear ned t hat J oshua Al mei da had a hi st or y of dr ug possessi on and

t raf f i cki ng.

Dr oui n pur sued t he t r uck agai n, i nt endi ng t o ar r est bot h

t he dr i ver and t he passenger f or dr i vi ng i dent i t y of f enses. When

he st opped t he t r uck, t he t wo occupant s had swi t ched pl aces t he

r eal J ohn Mar t i n was dr i vi ng and Al mei da was i n t he passenger seat .

Dr oui n ar r est ed t hem both. When he handcuf f ed and pat t ed down

Al mei da, Dr oui n r et r i eved a wal l et f r om hi s back pocket . Dr oui n

opened t he wal l et and saw a l arge bundl e of cash wr apped i n rubber

bands, a manner of car r yi ng money t hat Dr oui n associ ated wi t h dr ug

t r af f i cker s. He put t he wal l et wi t h t he money back i n Al mei da' s

pocket .

Af t er t he ar r est s, Dr oui n' s par t ner ar r i ved on t he scene,

and t he t wo of f i cer s cal l ed f or a K- 9 dog t o sni f f t he ext er i or of

t he t r uck. The dog al er t ed t o t he pr esence of dr ugs i n t he t r uck,

and the dog' s handl er f ound a smal l bag of mar i j uana i n the

-3-


4/27

passenger ' s si de door panel . On t hi s basi s, Dr oui n and t he ot her

of f i cer s pr esent conduct ed a f ul l sear ch of t he t r uck. 2

Dur i ng t he sear ch, t he of f i cer s f ound a l ar ge amount of

money wr apped i n r ubber bands i nsi de a Dor i t os bag and drug

par apher nal i a. Mar t i n st at ed t hat t he money i n t he Dor i t os bag

bel onged t o hi m. A dog sni f f of t he money i ndi cat ed t he pr esence

of dr ug r esi due on t he bi l l s. Dr oui n observed t hat t he money i n

t he Dor i t os bag was bundl ed i n t he same manner as t he money i n

Al mei da' s wal l et .

Pr i or t o t r anspor t i ng Mar t i n and Al mei da t o j ai l , Dr oui n

r emoved t he money f r om Al mei da' s wal l et . He count ed t he sei zed

money, pl aced i t i n a bag, and r et ai ned i t as evi dence. Dr oui n

l at er t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat he bel i eved he had pr obabl e cause t o

sei ze the cont ent s of Al mei da' s wal l et as pr oceeds of dr ug

t r af f i cki ng.

At t he Andr oscoggi n Count y J ai l , where Al mei da and Dr oui n

wer e hel d, t her e i s a pol i cy requi r i ng t he st af f member who admi t s

an i nmate t o conduct a pr el i mi nary sear ch f or weapons and

cont r aband. I f t he st af f member f i nds cont r aband, t he shi f t

super vi sor may tur n i t over t o t he or i gi nat i ng ar r est i ng agency f or

f ur t her acti on. I n t hi s i nst ance, j ai l of f i ci al s f ound cont r aband

on Mar t i n and t ur ned i t over t o Dr oui n. At some poi nt af t er Mar t i n

2 Al t hough t he magi st r at e j udge di scussed t he of f i cer s' useof t he K- 9 at l engt h, t hose det ai l s ar e not per t i nent t o t heout come of t hi s appeal , so we have omi t t ed t hemhere.

-4-


5/27

and Al mei da wer e j ai l ed, Dr oui n l ear ned f r om a pr obat i on of f i cer

t hat Al mei da was Ant hony, not hi s brot her J oshua.

Dr oui n pl aced t he sei zed i t ems i nt o evi dence at t he

Andr oscoggi n Count y Sher i f f ' s Of f i ce ( "ACSO") . As he was count i ng

t he sei zed money, he not i ced bi l l s t hat wer e smal l er t han ot her s,

and bi l l s wi t h mat chi ng ser i al number s. Dr oui n suspect ed t hat some

of t he money was count er f ei t and cont acted t he Uni t ed St ates Secret

Ser vi ce. Lat er t hat day, he met wi t h Secr et Ser vi ce Speci al Agent

Mat t Fasul o, who exami ned t he sei zed money and concl uded that some

of i t was count er f ei t .

On J ul y 6, 2011, Al mei da pl aced t wo t el ephone cal l s t o

hi s wi f e f r omj ai l . These conver sat i ons wer e r ecor ded. The second

conver sat i on pr i mar i l y concer ned Al mei da' s ef f or t s t o secur e bai l

money, but Al mei da al so t ol d hi s wi f e, "Thr ow al l my shi t al l my

shi t needs t o be t hr own away. You know what I ' m sayi n? . . . My

sui t case al l t hat t hr own r i ght away okay?"

On J ul y 7, 2011, Dr oui n obt ai ned a war r ant t o sear ch t he

i mpounded t r uck f or addi t i onal evi dence r el at ed t o dr ug t r af f i cki ng

or count er f ei t i ng. The sear ch pur suant t o t he war r ant di d not

uncover any f ur t her evi dence. The t r uck r emai ned at ASCO, subj ect

t o asset f or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ngs i ni t i at ed by t he Secret Ser vi ce.

As par t of t hose pr oceedi ngs, Secr et Ser vi ce agent s Kel l ey Er ski ne

and J oshua Catel l a per f or med an i nvent or y sear ch of t he t r uck under

Fasul o' s di r ect i on. That sear ch yi el ded, among ot her i t ems, a

-5-


6/27

Canon pr i nt er car t r i dge. An exper t t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat t he i nk

used t o pr oduce t he count er f ei t bi l l s was "consi st ent wi t h i nks

manuf act ur ed i n Canon i nkj et pr i nt er s and copi er s. "

Whi l e t he i nvest i gat i on was i n pr ogr ess, Det ect i ve Kel l y

Ruper t cont act ed Dr oui n t o i nf or m hi m about t he di scover y of

count er f ei t bi l l s al ong Oak Pond Road i n Skowhegan, Mai ne. On J une

28, 2011, Tr avi s Pece f ound $5, 950 i n l oose cur r ency i n a pi l e on

t he si de of t he r oad ( "Oak Pond bi l l s" ) . He t ur ned t hemi n t o t he

pol i ce, who determi ned t hat t he money was count er f ei t . Subsequent

i nvest i gat i on i dent i f i ed Al mei da' s f i nger pr i nt s on t wo of t he Oak

Pond bi l l s. The pol i ce al so det er mi ned t hat t he ser i al number s on

some of t he genui ne bi l l s i n Al mei da' s wal l et mat ched t he ser i al

number s on sever al of t he Oak Pond bi l l s, as wel l as some of t he

count er f ei t bi l l s f ound i n t he t r uck. Fasul o t est i f i ed at t r i al

t hat t hese genui ne bi l l s wer e "pat t er n not es" used t o manuf act ur e

t he mat chi ng count er f ei t bi l l s.

Al mei da was arr ai gned on August 16, 2011. He pl eaded not

gui l t y t o t he char ge of possessi ng count er f ei t obl i gat i ons of t he

Uni t ed St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 472. Af t er a j ur y t r i al

on J une 19 and 20, 2012, Al mei da was f ound gui l t y. On Oct ober 15,

2012, t he pr esi di ng j udge sent enced Al mei da to f i f t y- one mont hs'

i mpr i sonment . Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

-6-


7/27

II. Analysis

On appeal , Al mei da chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on t o admi t cer t ai n evi dence at t r i al . He al so chal l enges

t he cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on f or acqui t t al , ar gui ng t hat t her e

was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o pr ove t he count er f ei t i ng char ge.

Fi nal l y, Al mei da di sput es t he reasonabl eness of hi s sent ence.

A. Motion to Suppress

On Sept ember 6, 2011, Al mei da f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess

evi dence obt ai ned f r om t he of f i cer s' sear ch of t he t r uck and f r om

t he sei zur e of t he money i n Al mei da' s wal l et . Magi st r at e J udge

Ri ch hel d a hear i ng on the mot i on and i ssued a r ecommended deci si on

denyi ng t he mot i on on J anuary 9, 2012. On March 20, 2012, t he

di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he r ecommended deci si on. "We appl y a mi xed

st andar d of r evi ew t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o

suppr ess, r evi ewi ng f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or and

concl usi ons of l aw . . . de novo. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bol t on, 520

F. 3d 80, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

1. Search of the Truck

I n hi s mot i on t o suppr ess , Al mei da ar gued t hat t he

warr ant l ess sear ch of t he t r uck vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment ,

because "[ n] o exi gency exi st ed whi ch j ust i f i ed a war r ant l ess

sear ch. " He al so chal l enges t he admi ssi on of t he evi dence gat her ed

i n t he i nvent or y sear ch. These ar gument s f ai l at a t hr eshol d

-7-


8/27

i ssue: whet her Al mei da had a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n

t he t r uck. We f i nd t hat he di d not .

"The Four t h Amendment ' s pr otect i on agai nst unr easonabl e

sear ches may onl y be cl ai med wher e a def endant demonst r at es t hat he

or she per sonal l y has a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he

pl ace sear ched. " Uni t ed St at es v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) . I n t he cont ext of a vehi cl e sear ch, a def endant must

show "a pr oper t y [ or ] a possessory i nt er est i n t he aut omobi l e" i n

or der t o est abl i sh a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy. 3 I d.

We have hel d a person who i s "merel y a passenger " does

not have a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n a vehi cl e, i d.

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) , but i n some

ci r cumst ances, a person who borr ows a vehi cl e wi t h t he owner ' s

permi ss i on may have a r easonabl e expectat i on of pr i vacy, see Uni t ed

St at es v. Sugar , 322 F. Supp. 2d 85, 94 ( D. Mass. 2004) ( ci t i ng

cases) . The f act s of t hi s case f al l somewher e i n bet ween. Al mei da

was dr i vi ng t he t r uck dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op, appar ent l y wi t h

Mar t i n' s per mi ssi on, but dur i ng t he second st op Mar t i n was dr i vi ng

and Al mei da was t he passenger .

3 The Four t h Amendment may al so appl y when t he def endantshows "an i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y sei zed, " Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3dat 19, but her e Al mei da never cl ai med an i nt er est i n t hecount er f ei t bi l l s or any ot her evi dence sei zed f r om t he t r uck.

-8-


9/27

No br i ght - l i ne r ul e det er mi nes whet her a per son has a

r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n a vehi cl e; i nst ead t he cour t

consi der s a number of f act or s:

owner shi p, possessi on, and/ or cont r ol ; hi st or i cal use oft he pr oper t y sear ched or t he t hi ng sei zed; abi l i t y tor egul at e access; t he t ot al i t y of t he sur r oundi ngci r cumst ances; t he exi st ence or nonexi st ence of asubj ect i ve ant i ci pat i on of pr i vacy; and t he obj ect i ver easonabl eness of such an expectancy under t he f act s ofa gi ven case. We l ook, i n shor t , t o whet her or not t hei ndi vi dual t hought of t he pl ace ( or t he ar t i cl e) as apr i vat e one, and t r eat ed i t as such.

Uni t ed St at es v. Agui r r e, 839 F. 2d 854, 856- 57 ( 1st Ci r . 1988)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n appl yi ng t hese f actor s t o t he f act s bef or e

us, we take gui dance f r omour deci si ons i n Uni t ed St at es v. Lochan,

674 F. 2d 960 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) , and Uni t ed St at es v. Sanchez, 943

F. 2d 110 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

I n Lochan, as i n t hi s case at l east par t of t he t i me, t he

def endant was dr i vi ng t he car whi l e t he owner of t he car was i n t he

passenger seat . 4 674 F. 2d at 965. The cour t i n Lochan f ur t her

not ed t hat t he def endant had t he car ' s r egi st r at i on i n hi s pocket

and t hat he was on a l ong t r i p, whi ch mi ght "engender a sl i ght l y

gr eat er pr i vacy expect at i on t han woul d a shor t t r i p. " I d.

Never t hel ess, t he cour t f ound t hat other f act or s wei ghed mor e

heavi l y i n f avor of f i ndi ng no expect at i on of pr i vacy. The cour t

not ed, f or exampl e, t hat t he def endant "di d not own t he car , nor

4 Her e, t he t r uck was act ual l y regi st er ed t o Mar t i n' s f at her ,but i n t hi s case t hat di st i nct i on does not af f ect our anal ysi s.

-9-


10/27

was t here evi dence that he had used t he car on other occasi ons.

Ther e was no evi dence as t o t he r esponsi bi l i t y or cont r ol [ t he

def endant ] had over t he aut omobi l e ot her t han t he f act t hat he was

dr i vi ng i t when st opped. " I d. Accor di ngl y, t he cour t f ound t hat

t he def endant " f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den of pr oof of a pr i vacy

expectat i on. " I d.

I n Sanchez, t he def endant was dr i vi ng t he vehi cl e wi t h

t he appar ent per mi ssi on of i t s owner ( al t hough t he cour t expr essed

some doubt on t hat poi nt ) . 943 F. 2d at 11314. The cour t

observed, however , t hat t he def endant "had onl y a casual possessi on

of t he car . He di d not own i t , nor , as t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved,

was t here evi dence that he had used t he car on other occasi ons. "

I d. The cour t expl ai ned t hat "a hi st or y of r egul ar use of t he

[ car ] " or a "pat t er n of per mi ssi on, t oget her wi t h hi s sol e cont r ol

on a l ong t r i p, woul d have mi ni mi zed t he i nf ormal and t emporary

nat ur e of t hi s speci f i c acqui si t i on of t he car . " I d. at 114. But

i n t he absence of t hose ci r cumst ances, t he cour t hel d t hat t he

def endant had not met hi s bur den of pr oof . I d.

I n t hi s case, al t hough Al mei da was dr i vi ng par t of t he

t i me, appar ent l y wi t h Mar t i n' s per mi ssi on, he had "onl y a casual

possessi on" of t he t r uck. I d. at 113. He di d not own i t , and he

has shown no pat t er n of r epeat ed use or cont r ol over t he t r uck t hat

woul d al l ow us t o concl ude t hat hi s possess i on of t he t r uck was

anythi ng mor e t han " i nf or mal and t empor ar y. " I d. at 114. Al mei da

-10-


11/27

ar gues t hat we shoul d i nf er an expect at i on of pr i vacy f r omt he f act

t hat t her e was i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence i n t he t r uck: "Consi der i ng

t hat t he cont ent s of t he t r uck . . . f or med much of t he

condemnat or y evi dence pr oduced at t r i al , i t i s l ogi cal t hat

[ Al mei da] bor e a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy wi t h r espect t o

t he area sear ched and t he i t ems sei zed. " Thi s ar gument goes

nowher e. The exi st ence of i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence does not by

i t sel f creat e a r easonabl e expectat i on of pr i vacy. I f i t di d, t he

Four t h Amendment woul d appl y t o any sear ch t he r eveal s

i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence. That i s obvi ousl y not the case. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Her shenow, 680 F. 2d 847, 855 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) ( " [ A]

l egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy means mor e t han a subj ect i ve

expect at i on of keepi ng i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence hi dden. " )

Consi der i ng t he r el evant f act or s as appl i ed i n Sanchez

and Lochan, we concl ude t hat Al mei da has f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den

of pr oof est abl i shi ng t hat he had a reasonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy i n t he t r uck. Thus, he cannot br i ng a chal l enge under t he

Four t h Amendment t o t he evi dence r ecover ed f r omt he t r uck, ei t her

i n t he cour se of Dr oui n' s war r ant l ess sear ch or t he subsequent

i nvent or y sear ch. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der

denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess wi t h r espect t o t hi s i ssue.

2. Seizure of Bills from Almeida's Wallet

Al mei da' s mot i on t o suppr ess al so chal l enged Dr oui n' s

sei zur e of money f r om hi s wal l et pr i or t o Al mei da' s t r ansf er t o

-11-


12/27

j ai l . The Magi st r at e J udge r ecommended denyi ng t he mot i on on t wo

al t er nat e gr ounds, t he "pl ai n vi ew" except i on and t he " i nevi t abl e

di scover y" except i on, and t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he deci si on.

We af f i r m on t he basi s of t he i nevi t abl e di scover y except i on.

The appl i cat i on of t he i nevi t abl e di scover y except i on

i nvol ves t hr ee quest i ons:

f i r st , whet her t he l egal means by whi ch t he evi dencewoul d have been di scovered was t r ul y i ndependent ; second,whether t he use of t he l egal means woul d have i nevi t abl yl ed t o t he di scover y of t he evi dence; and t hi r d, whet herappl yi ng t he i nevi t abl e di scover y rul e woul d ei t herpr ovi de an i ncent i ve f or pol i ce mi sconduct orsi gni f i cant l y weaken const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons.

Uni t ed St at es v. Al mei da, 434 F. 3d 25, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . 5 Her e,

Dr oui n ar r est ed Al mei da and Mar t i n f or pr esent i ng hi m wi t h f al se

i dent i f i cat i on dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op. Andr oscoggi n Count y J ai l ,

where Al mei da was booked, has a pol i cy mandat i ng t hat ar r est ees be

f ul l y sear ched and t hei r pr oper t y r emoved. I f t he sear ch uncover s

cont r aband, t he j ai l r out i nel y t ur ns i t over t o t he ar r est i ng

of f i cer . Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat

" t he cont ent s of t he wal l et i nevi t abl y woul d have been di scover ed

and sei zed by an i ndependent , l awf ul means when Al mei da was

pr ocessed at t he J ai l . " Al mei da pr esent s us wi t h no per suasi ve

r eason t o di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on.

Turni ng t o t he f i r st quest i on i nvol ved i n t hi s anal ysi s,

t he l egal means of di scover y i n t hi s case wer e " t r ul y i ndependent , "

5 The 2006 Al mei da case i s unr el ated t o t he pr esent case.

-12-


13/27

because Dr oui n had pr obabl e cause t o ar r est Al mei da f or pr esent i ng

f al se i dent i f i cat i on ( and i n f act di d ar r est hi m on t hat basi s) ,

r egar dl ess of whet her he sei zed t he cash. Ther ef or e t he ar r est and

subsequent sei zur e of cash dur i ng t he booki ng pr ocess at t he j ai l

woul d have occur r ed i ndependent l y of t he chal l enged sei zur e.

Second, t he sear ch at t he j ai l woul d have i nevi t abl y

r esul t ed i n t he sei zur e of t he cash, because i t was t he j ai l ' s

pol i cy t o remove an ar r est ee' s proper t y dur i ng t he booki ng pr ocess.

Al mei da does not di sput e t he exi st ence of t he pol i cy, or cl ai mt hat

t he pol i cy was not r egul ar l y f ol l owed. I nst ead, he ar gues that

t her e i s "not hi ng ' i nevi t abl e' about t he j ai l s [ si c] di scover y of

t he bi l l s i n t he wal l et t hat i ni t i al l y f ool ed a t r ai ned det ect i ve. "

Thi s ar gument t akes t he name of t he except i on t oo l i t er al l y.

I t i s possi bl e, of cour se, t hat t he j ai l of f i ci al mi ght

have mi ssed what Dr oui n not i ced, t he i r r egul ar si ze and mat chi ng

ser i al number s of t he count er f ei t bi l l s. But we ar e not l ooki ng

f or met aphysi cal cer t ai nt y. The except i on i s appl i cabl e i f t her e

i s a "hi gh degr ee of pr obabi l i t y[ ] t hat t he evi dence woul d have

been di scover ed. " Al mei da, 434 F. 3d at 29; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Roger s, 102 F. 3d 641, 646 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( "The t er m

' i nevi t abl e' . . . i s somet hi ng of an over st at ement . ") . Ther e i s

no quest i on t he bi l l s woul d have been sei zed at t he j ai l . The

count er f ei t bi l l s mi ght have " f ool ed" Dr oui n i n t he mi dst of

conduct i ng an ar r est , but when he had the oppor t uni t y t o l ook at

-13-


14/27

t he bi l l s wi t hout di st r act i on, he r ecogni zed t hemas f ake. We have

no t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat t her e i s a hi gh degr ee of pr obabi l i t y

t hat t he r esul t woul d have been t he same i f a j ai l of f i ci al had

i nspected t he bi l l s.

Thi r d, gi ven t he par t i cul ar f act s of t hi s case, t he

appl i cat i on of t hi s except i on wi l l not "provi de an i ncent i ve f or

pol i ce mi sconduct or si gni f i cant l y weaken const i t ut i onal

pr ot ect i ons. " Al mei da, 434 F. 3d at 28. Dr oui n ar r est ed Al mei da

f or r easons unr el ated t o t he sei zed money. At t he t i me of t he

ar r est , Dr oui n was f ul l y awar e t hat t he j ai l woul d t ake Al emi da' s

money and other pr oper t y when he was booked he t est i f i ed t hat t he

money "woul d have went t o t he j ai l wi t h hi m and I pr obabl y woul d

have j ust t aken i t f r om hi s pr oper t y t her e. " Under t hese

ci r cumst ances, appl i cat i on of t he except i on wi l l not i ncent i vi ze

unconst i t ut i onal behavi or , because t he sei zur e of t he money gave

t he pol i ce no par t i cul ar i nvest i gat i ve advant age. See i d. at 29.

Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat t he i nevi t abl e di scover y

except i on appl i es t o Dr oui n' s sei zur e of t he money i n Al mei da' s

wal l et and af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Al mei da' s mot i on

t o suppr ess wi t h r espect t o t hat i ssue.

B. Motions in Limine

Pr i or t o t r i al , t he gover nment f i l ed a mot i on i n l i mi ne

seeki ng the admi ssi on of evi dence rel at ed t o t he Oak Pond bi l l s,

whi ch Al mei da opposed. Al mei da f i l ed a mot i on i n l i mi ne t o excl ude

-14-


15/27

evi dence t hat he f al sel y i dent i f i ed hi msel f t o Dr oui n as J oshua

Al mei da dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

government ' s mot i on and deni ed Al mei da' s.

We r evi ew t hese rul i ngs f or pl ai n er r or , because Al mei da

di d not r enew hi s obj ect i on t o t he chal l enged evi dence at t r i al .

As we have expl ai ned:

[ i ] f an i n l i mi ne r ul i ng excl udes evi denceuncondi t i onal l y, t he adver sel y- af f ect ed par t y need t akeno addi t i onal st eps t o pr eser ve t he i ssue f or appeal ,whi ch means abuse- of - di scr et i on r evi ew wi l l cont r ol . Buti f t he r ul i ng i s mer el y t ent at i ve and cl ear l y i nvi t es t hepar t y to of f er t he evi dence at t r i al under t he r ul i ng' st er ms, t hat par t y must f ol l ow up on t he i nvi t at i on orel se pl ai n- er r or r evi ew wi l l hol d sway.

Rodr guez v. Seor Frog' s de l a I sl a, I nc. , 642 F. 3d 28, 35 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( al t er at i ons, ci t at i ons, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Her e, whi l e t he r ul i ngs i n l i mi ne admi t t ed t he

chal l enged evi dence, Al mei da has not ar gued that t hose r ul i ngs wer e

f i nal r at her t han t ent at i ve, so Al mei da' s f ai l ur e t o r enew hi s

obj ect i on at t r i al t r i gger s pl ai n er r or r evi ew on appeal . "To

est abl i sh pl ai n er r or , a par t y must show t hat t her e was er r or , t hat

i t was pl ai n, and t hat i t af f ected t he par t y' s subst ant i al r i ght s;

an appel l at e cour t may then not i ce t he er r or onl y i f i t ser i ousl y

af f ect[ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of

j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " Long v. Fai r bank Reconst r uct i on Cor p. , 701

F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( per cur i am) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Al mei da has not met t hi s hi gh st andar d.

-15-


16/27

1. The Oak Pond Bills

Al mei da cl ai ms t hat evi dence rel ated t o t he Oak Pond

bi l l s was pr opensi t y evi dence i nadmi ssi bl e under Feder al Rul e of

Evi dence 404( b) . Accor di ng t o Al mei da, t he evi dence onl y t ends t o

pr ove t hat "si nce he apparent l y possessed count er f ei t money on a

pr i or occasi on, he must have possessed i t on t he occasi on of hi s

ar r est . " He ar gues f ur t her t hat " [ e] ven i f such evi dence suggest ed

i nt ent . . . [ i t ] i ncl uded ' bad char acter or pr opensi t y as a

necessary l i nk i n t he i nf er ent i al chai n' and any pr obat i ve val ue

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

The di st r i ct cour t quest i oned whet her evi dence of t he Oak

Pond bi l l s was pr opensi t y evi dence at al l , suggest i ng t hat "[ i ] t ' s

ar guabl y par t of t he r es gest ae of t he t r ansact i on i n t er ms of t he

def endant ' s al l eged use of cer t ai n pat t er n bi l l s i n r el at i onshi p t o

what was f ound i n t he t wo l ocat i ons. " I t deci ded, however , t hat

even "[ i ] f i t i s Rul e 404( b) evi dence, . . . i t does come i n under

404( b) ( 2) because i t can be used t o show evi dence of [ absence of ]

mi st ake or l ack of acci dent , knowl edge of what was goi ng on[ , ] and

I don' t f i nd any unf ai r pr ej udi ce under Rul e 403. " We see no er r or

at al l i n t hi s deci si on, much l ess pl ai n er r or .

Thi s ci r cui t uses a t wo- par t t est t o eval uat e t he

admi ssi bi l i t y of evi dence under Rul e 404( b) . Uni t ed St at es v.

Appol on, 715 F. 3d 362, 373 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We det er mi ne f i r st

whet her t he pr of f er ed evi dence has " speci al r el evance, such as

-16-


17/27

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

i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent . " I d. at 37273

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "I f i t does, we

t hen appl y Rul e 403 t o ascer t ai n whet her t he evi dence' s probat i ve

val ue i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he danger of unf ai r

pr ej udi ce. " I d. at 373.

The evi dence of t he Oak Pond bi l l s easi l y sat i sf i es bot h

par t s of t he t est . The exi st ence of count er f ei t bi l l s at a

separ at e l ocat i on, bear i ng Al mei da' s f i nger pr i nt s and ser i al

number s mat chi ng pat t er n bi l l s f ound i n Al mei da' s wal l et , i s

pr obat i ve of Al mei da' s knowl edge and i nt ent r egar di ng t he

count er f ei t money f ound i n t he t r uck t he j ur y coul d deci de that

t hi s evi dence wei ghed agai nst t he concl usi on t hat Al mei da' s

possessi on of count er f ei t bi l l s i n t he t r uck was unknowi ng or

uni nt ent i onal . Thus, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hi s

evi dence has "speci al r el evance. " I d.

We al so agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hi s evi dence

i s not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . As we have observed numer ous t i mes,

"al l evi dence i s meant t o be pr ej udi ci al ; i t i s onl y unf ai r

pr ej udi ce whi ch must be avoi ded. " I d. The t er m" unf ai r pr ej udi ce"

usual l y r ef er s t o "evi dence t hat i nvi t es t he j ur y t o r ender a

ver di ct on an i mpr oper emot i onal basi s. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d 113, 122 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Al mei da has not

-17-


18/27

shown anythi ng of t he sort her e. I n sum, we f i nd no er r or i n t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t evi dence of t he Oak Pond bi l l s.

2. False Identification

Al mei da al so rai ses a Rul e 404( b) chal l enge t o t he

evi dence r el at ed t o hi s f al se i dent i f i cat i on. He ar gues t hat he

"was char ged wi t h a cr i me sat ur at ed i n t he concept of decei t . To

al l ow t est i mony regar di ng hi s pr ovi si on of decei t f ul i nf or mat i on

. . . r egar di ng ul t i mat el y unchar ged conduct was a cl ear i nvi t at i on

t o t he j ur y t o reach a concl usi on based on i nappr opr i at e char act er

evi dence. "

Rel yi ng on Uni t ed St ates v. Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d 15 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) , t he di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he evi dence as " pr obat i ve

of a gui l t y [ consci ence] or consci ousness of gui l t . " I t f ur t her

expl ai ned t hat t o t he extent t he evi dence f el l under Rul e 404( b) ,

" i t woul d be admi ssi bl e under 404( b) ( 2) because i t does go t o pr oof

of i nt ent and knowl edge and I don' t f i nd unf ai r pr ej udi ce under

Rul e 403. " We see no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on.

On appeal , Al mei da cl ai ms t hat " t he ' consci ousness of

gui l t ' r ef er r ed t o by t he t r i al cour t was consci ousness of [ an]

uncharged motor vehi cl e of f ense and not t he event ual f ederal

charges t hat were not bei ng i nvest i gated at t he t i me he was

ar r est ed. " But Wal l ace f or ecl oses t hi s ar gument . I n t hat case,

"we r ej ected a br oad r ul e t hat woul d bar al i as evi dence whenever a

def endant commi t s more t han one cr i me, " because "such a rul e woul d

-18-


19/27

i gnor e t he subst ant i al possi bi l i t y t hat t he def endant i s usi ng t he

al i as t o evade det ect i on f or al l hi s cr i mes, i ncl udi ng t he one

char ged. " Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d at 26 ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Ther e was no r eason i n t hi s case f or t he di st r i ct cour t

t o pr event t he j ur y f r om consi der i ng whet her t he f al se

i dent i f i cat i on r eveal ed a consci ousness of gui l t of count er f ei t i ng,

even i f Al mei da was engaged i n ot her cr i mi nal act i vi t y at t he same

t i me. Whi l e we have warned t hat such evi dence " i s cont r oversi al

and must be handl ed wi t h car e, " i d. at 25 ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , t he di st r i ct cour t was wel l awar e of our

admoni t i on and of f er ed t he def ense a caut i onar y i nst r uct i on f or t he

j ury.

Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r

i n hol di ng t hat t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent l y pr obat i ve t o be

admi ssi bl e under Rul e 404( b) . Nei t her di d i t er r i n f i ndi ng no

unf ai r pr ej udi ce under Rul e 403. As wi t h t he evi dence of t he Oak

Pond bi l l s, Al mei da has f ai l ed t o poi nt out any unf ai r ness beyond

t he or di nar y pr ej udi ce i nher ent i n al l evi dence. We t her ef or e

af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Al mei da' s mot i on i n l i mi ne

seeki ng t he excl usi on of evi dence r el at ed t o hi s f al se

i dent i f i cat i on.

-19-


20/27

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

At t r i al , af t er t he cl ose of t he gover nment ' s case,

Al mei da made an or al mot i on f or acqui t t al , ar gui ng t hat t he

government had f ai l ed t o meet i t s bur den t o pr ove Al mei da' s i nt ent

t o def r aud as requi r ed by 18 U. S. C. 472. The di st r i ct cour t

deci ded t here was enough evi dence of i nt ent t o go to t he j ur y and

deni ed t he mot i on. On appeal , Al mei da r enews hi s argument t hat t he

evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove i nt ent . We

di sagr ee.

We r evi ew cl ai ms of i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence de novo,

"consi der i ng whet her t he evi dence, vi ewed i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, woul d al l ow a r at i onal j ur y t o f i nd

al l t he el ement s of t he cr i me beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mousl i , 511 F. 3d 7, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hal l , 434 F. 3d

42, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . "The r equi si t e f r audul ent i nt ent r equi r ed

by . . . 18 U. S. C. 472[ ] may be i nf er r ed f r om sur r oundi ng

ci r cumst ances or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and thus need not be

pr oven di r ect l y. Cour t s may l ook t o sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances t o

suppl y i nf er ences of knowl edge whi ch adequat el y pr ove i nt ent . "

Mousl i , 511 F. 3d at 16 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Si l va, 742 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Ther e i s no need t o cat al ogue every pi ece of evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al ; t wo key poi nt s wi l l suf f i ce. The gover nment

-20-


21/27

pr esent ed evi dence t hat Al mei da possessed f our t een pat t ern notes

t hat mat ched numer ous count er f ei t bi l l s f ound i n t he t r uck and

al ong Oak Pond Road. The j ur y coul d easi l y i nf er f r omt he "number

and var i et y of bi l l s" t hat Al mei da' s possessi on of t hem was not

unwi t t i ng or coi nci dent al ; r at her he "was engaged i n an ongoi ng

ef f or t t o pr oduce . . . f ake cur r ency wi t h t he i nt ent of usi ng i t . "

Mousl i , 511 F. 3d at 16. The j ur y al so hear d evi dence t hat t wel ve

count er f ei t bi l l s wi t h ser i al number s mat chi ng t he pat t er n bi l l s

wer e put i nt o ci r cul at i on i n ar eas near wher e Al mei da l i ved and

vacat i oned. That evi dence "suppor t [ s] an i nf er ence t hat [ Al mei da]

had pr evi ousl y passed t he bi l l s i n commer ci al t r ansact i ons. "

Si l va, 742 F. 3d at 10. These f act s pr ovi de suf f i ci ent

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of i nt ent t o sust ai n a convi ct i on under 18

U. S. C. 472.

Al mei da' s suggest i on t hat t he count er f ei t bi l l s wer e of

such poor qual i t y t hat he coul d not have i nt ended t o use them t o

def r aud i s unper suasi ve. Fi r st , i t di r ectl y cont r adi cts hi s

ar gument t hat t he di scover y of t he count er f ei t bi l l s at t he j ai l

was not i nevi t abl e because the bi l l s l ooked aut hent i c enough t o

f ool Of f i cer Dr oui n at t he scene of t he ar r est . But even set t i ng

t hat cont r adi ct i on asi de, t her e was ampl e evi dence t hat t he bi l l s

wer e of suf f i ci ent qual i t y f or a r easonabl e j ur y t o i nf er Al mei da' s

i nt ent t o def r aud. Twel ve count er f ei t bi l l s mat chi ng t he pat t er n

bi l l s f ound i n Al mei da' s possessi on wer e successf ul l y passed ar ound

-21-


22/27

t he t i me of Al mei da' s ar r est and were di scover ed onl y when t he

peopl e who had accept ed t hemi n good f ai t h pr esent ed t hemt o banks.

Moreover , even were there not "evi dence [ of ] a hi gh degr ee of

l i keness" bet ween t he count er f ei t bi l l s and t he r eal ones, t hat

woul d not "pr event pr oof by ot her means of i nt ent t o def r aud. "

Mousl i 511 F. 3d at 16. Here, t he government pr esent ed enough

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o al l ow a j ur y t o i nf er Al mei da' s i nt ent

t o def r aud. Thus, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he

mot i on f or acqui t t al .

D. Sentencing

Al mei da at t acks hi s f i f t y- one- mont h sent ence on t hr ee

f r ont s: t he cal cul at i on of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y (" CHC") ,

t he appl i cat i on of sent enci ng gui del i ne enhancement s t o hi s base

of f ense l evel ( "BOL") , and t he di spar i t y bet ween hi s sent ence and

t hat of hi s co- def endant , Mar t i n. He has f ai l ed t o i dent i f y any

er r or s, however , and we t her ef or e af f i r m t he sent ence as handed

down by t he di st r i ct cour t .

1. Criminal History Category

Wi t h respect t o hi s CHC, Al mei da does not cont end that

t he di st r i ct cour t made any f act ual er r or s i n t he cal cul at i on.

Rather , he argues t hat a downward depart ur e was appr opr i ate i n t hi s

case because t he CHC "si gni f i cant l y over - r epr esent s hi s cr i mi nal

hi st or y. " The di st r i ct cour t consi der ed t hi s ar gument at t he

sent enci ng hear i ng and came to the opposi t e concl usi on: " I f i nd

-22-


23/27

t hat t he cr i mi nal hi st or y her e does not over r epr esent i n l i ght of

t he def endant ' s hi st or y of r ecur r ent cr i mi nal l aw vi ol at i ons,

despi t e sent ences t hat have been i mposed whi ch i nvol ve cust ody of

ei t her smal l amount s or l ar ge amount s. "

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on whet her t o depar t

f r omt he CHC f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 93

F. 3d 10, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

commi t an er r or of any sor t ; i t si mpl y di sagr eed wi t h Al mei da about

t he ser i ousness of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y. A di sagr eement of t hat

nat ur e does not appr oach an abuse of di scr et i on. Accor di ngl y, i t

i s not gr ounds f or r ever sal on appeal .

2. Sentencing Guideline Enhancements

Al mei da cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n appl yi ng

enhancement s t o hi s BOL f or l oss i n excess of $10, 000 under

U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) , t he manuf act ur e or pr oduct i on of

count er f ei t obl i gat i ons under U. S. S. G. 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) , and

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1. "As a gener al

mat t er , we r evi ew a sent enci ng cour t ' s l egal det er mi nat i ons of t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' meani ng and scope de novo and i t s f act ual

det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Br yant , 571 F. 3d

147, 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d

217, 235 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I t i s t he gover nment ' s bur den at

sent enci ng to pr ove sent enci ng enhancement f actors by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, and a di st r i ct cour t may base i t s

-23-


24/27

det er mi nat i ons on "any evi dence t hat i t r easonabl y f i nds t o be

r el i abl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 232 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) .

Sect i on 2B1. 1 i ncr eases a def endant ' s BOL f or var i ous

f or ms of t hef t and f r aud, i ncl udi ng count er f ei t i ng, based on t he

amount of l oss caused by t he def endant . U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1; Uni t ed

St at es v. Appol l on, 695 F. 3d 44, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . As a gener al

r ul e, we measur e l oss under 2B1. 1 as " t he gr eat er of act ual l oss

or i nt ended l oss. " Appol l on, 695 F. 3d at 66. " I nt ended l oss i s

t he l oss t hat t he def endant coul d have r easonabl y expected t o occur

at t he t i me he or she per pet uat ed t he f r aud. " I d. at 67.

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a f our - l evel enhancement

under 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) f or a l oss gr eat er t han $10, 000. I t f ound

as a f act ual mat t er t hat Al mei da was r esponsi bl e f or t he

count er f ei t money i n t he t r uck as wel l as t he Oak Pond bi l l s,

t ot al i ng $10, 270, based on hi s possessi on of t he pat t er n bi l l s and

hi s f i nger pr i nt s on t he Oak Pond bi l l s. These f act s ar e a

suf f i ci ent basi s f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o i nf er by a pr eponder ance

of t he evi dence that Al mei da was r esponsi bl e f or pr oduci ng over

$10, 000 i n count er f ei t bi l l s. I t f ol l ows t hat Al mei da coul d

r easonabl y expect over $10, 000 i n l oss t o r esul t . Ther ef or e t he

cour t di d not er r i n appl yi ng 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) .

Sect i on 2B5. 1 pr ovi des f or a t wo- l evel enhancement " i f

t he def endant . . . manuf act ur ed or pr oduced any count er f ei t

-24-


25/27

obl i gat i on or secur i t y of t he Uni t ed St at es, or possessed or had

cust ody of or cont r ol over a count er f ei t i ng devi ce or mat er i al s

used f or count er f ei t i ng. " U. S. S. G. 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) ( A) . On appeal ,

Al mei da ar gues pr i mar i l y t hat pat t er n not es are not "a

count er f ei t i ng devi ce or mat er i al s used f or count er f ei t i ng. " The

di st r i ct cour t st at ed qui t e cl ear l y, however , t hat i t was "not

goi ng t o r el y on t he possessi on of mat er i al used f or

count er f ei t i ng, but i nst ead t hat t he def endant di d manuf act ur e or

pr oduce count er f ei t obl i gat i ons. " I t based t hi s concl usi on on

Al mei da' s possessi on of t he pat t er n not es and t he count er f ei t bi l l s

t hat wer e pr oduced wi t h t hem. Agai n, we f i nd t hi s concl usi on

suf f i ci ent l y suppor t ed by t he evi dence. Thus, Al mei da' s chal l enge

t o t he appl i cat i on of 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) ( A) f ai l s.

The t hi r d enhancement i mposed by t he cour t was t wo l evel s

f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under 3C1. 1. That enhancement was

based on t he cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he phone cal l s Al mei da made

t o hi s wi f e f r om j ai l , i n whi ch he t ol d her "al l my shi t needs t o

be t hr own away. " The di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed t hi s

st at ement as an i nst r uct i on t o di spose of evi dence. Havi ng

r evi ewed t he t r anscri pt of t he cal l s, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s under st andi ng of Al mei da' s st at ement i s mor e pl ausi bl e t han

t he i nt er pr et at i on Al mei da of f er s on appeal t hat he was r ef er r i ng

t o a sui t case f ul l of cl ot hes t hat he br ought wi t h hi mon vacat i on.

-25-


26/27

Al mei da al so argues t hat he coul d not have been

obst r uct i ng t he i nvest i gat i on of t he count er f ei t i ng char ge, because

at t he t i me of t he cal l s he was onl y f aci ng t he f al se

i dent i f i cat i on char ge. But dur i ng t he cal l r ecor ded at 4: 39 on

J ul y 6, 2011, pr i or t o t he cal l wher e Al mei da t ol d hi s wi f e t o

di spose of hi s t hi ngs, hi s wi f e st at ed t hat " t hey had t he Secr et

Ser vi ce l ooki ng i nt o ever yt hi ng and st uf f l i ke t hat . " The di st r i ct

cour t coul d i nf er f r omt hat st at ement t hat Al mei da was awar e of t he

count er f ei t i ng i nvest i gat i on at t hat t i me. I n sum, t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not er r i n appl yi ng a two- l evel enhancement f or

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under 3C1. 1.

3. Sentencing Disparity

Fi nal l y, Al mei da poi nt s t o t he di spar i t y bet ween hi s

sent ence of f i f t y- one mont hs and Mar t i n' s sent ence of onl y si x

mont hs. He cl ai ms t hat " [ t ] o del i ver a sent ence t hat i s

pot ent i al l y t en t i mes t he sent ence of a co- def endant i s si mpl y not

r easonabl e. " He does not f ul l y devel op an ar gument on t hi s poi nt ,

but we const r ue i t as a chal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness

of t he sent ence. We r evi ew subst ant i ve r easonabl eness f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 232 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . " [ T] he l i nchpi n of a r easonabl e sent ence i s a pl ausi bl e

sent enci ng r at i onal e and a def ensi bl e r esul t . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

-26-


27/27

Her e, Al mei da f ai l s t o of f er any expl anat i on as t o why

t he sent ences of t he t wo co- def endant s shoul d be l ess di spar at e.

Mer el y poi nt i ng out t he di spar i t y i s pl ai nl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh unr easonabl eness. There are many val i d r easons why t wo

co- def endant s mi ght r ecei ve dr amat i cal l y di f f er ent sent ences, and

t he di st r i ct cour t expr essl y i dent i f i ed t he r easons appl i cabl e i n

t hi s case. Mar t i n accept ed r esponsi bi l i t y; he was not connect ed t o

t he Oak Pond bi l l s; and he di d not engage i n obst r uct i on. Under

t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on i n sent enci ng Al mei da t o a much har sher penal t y t han

Mar t i n.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, weAFFIRM Al mei da' s convi ct i on

and sent ence.

-27-

United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

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