United States v. Diaz-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)

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

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1513

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

CHRI STI AN D AZ- MALDONADO,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

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

Bef or e

Howard, Li pez, and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Raymond J . Ri gat f or appel l ant .J acquel i ne D. Novas- Debi en, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

wi t h whom J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St atesAt 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 Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 19, 2013


2/23

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. A j ur y convi ct ed Chr i st i an D az-

Mal donado ( "D az") , a Commonweal t h cor r ect i ons of f i cer , on dr ug and

weapons char ges af t er he pr ovi ded secur i t y f or a 2009 dr ug

t r ansact i on st aged by t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on as par t

of a st i ng oper at i on. D az now appeal s, pr i mar i l y ar gui ng t hat t he

di str i ct cour t i mpr oper l y pr event ed hi m f r om pr esent i ng an

ent r apment def ense, but al so chal l engi ng t he sent ence i mposed.

Fi ndi ng no er r or s, we af f i r m, subj ect t o a l i mi t ed r emand so t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t may cor r ect a ref er ence i n t he wr i t t en j udgment

t hat i s i n er r or , al bei t wi t hout causi ng any pr ej udi ce t o D az.

I. Background

The oper at i on t hat ul t i mat el y ensnar ed D az began i n

2008. Or gani zed by t he FBI and code named "Guar d Shack, " i t sought

t o capt ur e cor r upt l aw enf or cement of f i cer s as t hey engaged i n

i l l egal acti vi t y. Conf i dent i al i nf or mant s ( "CI s") wor ki ng f or t he

FBI of f er ed t ar get ed of f i cer s money to par t i ci pat e i n dr ug

t r ansact i ons st aged and secr et l y recor ded by the FBI .

D az became a t arget of Guard Shack f ol l owi ng an

encount er wi t h Hct or Cot t o Ri ver a ( "Cot t o" ) , a f or mer pol i ce

of f i cer who had become a pai d CI when t he FBI ar r est ed hi m on

br i ber y charges. The t wo met i n 2009 whi l e D az was recr eat i ng on

Cul ebr a, a smal l i sl and of f t he east coast of Puer t o Ri co. Cot t o

wi t nessed D az usi ng dr ugs and apparent l y det er mi ned t hat D az

woul d be wor t h pur sui ng. Cot t o " r eveal ed" t o D az t hat he was

-2-


3/23

i nvol ved i n dr ug t r ansact i ons and exchanged t el ephone numbers wi t h

hi m.

Fol l owi ng t hi s f i r st meet i ng, Cot t o and D az spoke

sever al t i mes, bot h i n per son and on t he t el ephone. Accor di ng t o

Cot t o, t he t wo di scussed on mul t i pl e occasi ons t he possi bi l i t y of

D az pr ovi di ng secur i t y f or a dr ug t r ansact i on. Whet her Cot t o

under t ook t hi s r ecr ui t ment at t he FBI ' s expl i ci t r equest or as par t

of hi s gener al ef f or t s t o i dent i f y t ar get s f or Guar d Shack i s

uncl ear , but by ear l y Sept ember 2009, agent s had deci ded t o pur sue

D az.

On Sept ember 9, 2009, Cot t o t el ephoned D az and of f ered

hi m $2, 000 f or "an hour or t wo hour s" of wor k "pr ovi d[ i ng]

secur i t y" f or "a st r eet deal . " D az sai d t hat he woul d not be abl e

t o at t end due t o a conf l i ct wi t h hi s r egul ar wor k schedul e, but

when Cot t o conveyed that he had some f l exi bi l i t y on the t i mi ng,

D az agr eed t o cal l back t he next day t o conf i r mhi s avai l abi l i t y.

Unbeknownst t o D az, Cot t o recor ded t he ent i r e conver sat i on, usi ng

equi pment pr ovi ded by the FBI .

The f ol l owi ng day, Sept ember 10, D az cal l ed Cot t o and

sai d that he woul d be l eavi ng work ear l y and was abl e to

par t i ci pate. He agr eed t o meet Cot t o at 6 p. m. i n a gar age at t he

Pl aza Las Amr i cas. Cot t o was unabl e t o r ecord t he conver sat i on

because he was wi t h ot her s when D az cal l ed.

-3-


4/23

At t he agr eed- upon t i me, D az and anot her man t argeted i n

t he i nvest i gat i on, Davi d Gonzl ez Pr ez ( "Gonzl ez" ) , met Cot t o at

t he gar age. Gonzl ez - a f or mer pol i ce col l eague of Cot t o' s

ul t i mat el y sent enced t o 292 mont hs' i mpr i sonment on char ges

st emmi ng f r omGuar d Shack - - ar r i ved f i r st , f ol l owed soon af t er by

D az. As Cot t o l at er t est i f i ed, "once [ t hey] wer e i n my car I

i nt r oduced t hem t o each ot her . . . . I expl ai ned t o t hem i n mor e

det ai l t hat t hi s was a dr ug t r ansact i on, t hat t her e was goi ng t o be

some ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, I gave t hem det ai l s t hat t he owner of

t he dr ugs was goi ng to be i n the apar t ment and that t hey had t o

t ake car e . . . of t he secur i t y, t he saf et y of t he owner and of

[ me] . Bot h were armed and t hey al so [ each had] a bul l et pr oof

vest. " 1 Al t hough t he FBI had equi pped Cot t o' s ci gar et t e l i ght er

wi t h a di sgui sed audi o- vi deo r ecor der t o capt ur e t hi s conver sat i on,

Gonzl ez appar ent l y was suspi ci ous of t he devi ce and di sabl ed i t

when he got i n t he car .

Whi l e out l i ni ng D az and Gonzl ez' s dut i es, Cot t o made

t he f i f t een- t o t went y- mi nut e dr i ve t o t he FBI - cont r ol l ed apar t ment

i n I sl a Ver de wher e t he st aged t r ansact i on was t o occur . Upon

ar r i val , Cot t o took D az and Gonzl ez up t o t he apar t ment , whi ch

t he FBI was sur vei l l i ng f r om an adj acent uni t , and i nt r oduced t hem

t o hi s pur por t ed boss, "Eddi e. " Al t hough he cl ai med t o be a New

1D az appar ent l y br ought a vest embl azoned wi t h "Depar t ment ofCor r ect i ons, " and Cot t o l ent hi m anot her . D az evi dent l y di d notwear hi s vest .

-4-


5/23

Yor k- based dr ug t r af f i cker , "Eddi e" was i n f act El vi n Qui nones, an

under cover speci al agent f r om t he FBI ' s New Yor k of f i ce.

When t he supposed buyer ar r i ved, D az and Gonzl ez

sear ched hi m. D az t ook t he buyer ' s cel l phone so t hat t he buyer

coul d not use i t t o r ecor d t he t r ansact i on. D az gest ur ed t o

Gonzl ez t hat he shoul d l i f t t he buyer ' s shi r t t o conf i r m t hat t he

buyer di d not have a conceal ed weapon or r ecor di ng devi ce. Once

sat i sf i ed t hat t he buyer was unarmed and unwi r ed, D az and Gonzl ez

al l owed hi m t o ent er t he l i vi ng r oom wher e t he t r ansact i on was t o

occur .

Qui nones t hen r et r i eved a sui t case f r omanot her r oomand

pl aced i t i n f r ont of t he buyer , who opened i t and removed t wo

one- ki l ogr am"bri cks" of cocai ne. ( The br i cks wer e act ual l y hi gh-

qual i t y f akes. ) The supposed buyer t ook t he f ake cocai ne and l ef t

t he apar t ment , escor t ed t o t he door by D az and Gonzl ez. Af t er

wai t i ng t en mi nut es f or t he buyer t o l eave t he area, Qui nones

r emoved f r oma t i ssue box $6, 000, $2, 000 each f or Cot t o, D az, and

Gonzl ez.

Af t er t he t r ansact i on, D az cal l ed Cot t o and t hey had

conver sat i ons t hat l ef t Cot t o wi t h "no doubt what soever t hat [ D az]

want ed t o r et ur n t o t he apar t ment . " The FBI was onl y i nt er est ed i n

i nvol vi ng D az wi t h anot her t r ansact i on, however , i f he coul d br i ng

addi t i onal cor r upt l aw enf or cement of f i cer s wi t h hi m. D az

-5-


6/23

pr ovi ded the names of t wo or t hr ee per sons, but t he FBI di d not

i nvi t e hi m t o r et ur n.

J ust over a year af t er t he st aged dr ug t r ansact i on, a

gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed D az, Gonzl ez, and f i f t een ot her def endant s on

dr ug and weapons charges. D az f aced t hr ee charges: ( i ) conspi r acy

t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) , 846; ( i i ) ai di ng and abet t i ng an at t empt t o possess

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, i d. 841( a) ( 1) , 18 U. S. C. 2;

and ( i i i ) possessi on of a f i r ear mi n r el at i on t o a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

cr i me, i d. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) . Fol l owi ng a f i ve- day t r i al , a j ur y

f ound D az gui l t y on t he ai di ng- and- abet t i ng and f i r ear m- possessi on

count s, but acqui t t ed hi m on t he conspi r acy count . On Mar ch 30,

2012, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced D az t o 123 mont hs' i mpr i sonment

- - t hree mont hs above t he 120- mont h st at ut or y mandat or y mi ni mum,

but at t he bot t om of hi s gui del i nes r ange of 123- 138 mont hs. D az

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

II. Analysis

A. The entrapment defense

At t he begi nni ng of t he t r i al , t he gover nment moved i n

l i mi ne t o pr ecl ude D az f r om r ai si ng an ent r apment def ense i n hi s

openi ng st at ement . The government ar gued t hat D az l acked

suf f i ci ent evi dence t o r ai se such a def ense. Af t er br i ef i ng and

exami nat i on of an evi dent i ar y pr of f er f r om D az' s t r i al counsel ,

-6-


7/23

t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he gover nment ' s mot i on, expl ai ni ng as

f ol l ows:

I don' t f i nd t hat t he def ense met t he bur den ofest abl i shi ng t hat t her e i s har d evi dence t o r el y on f or

t he def ense of ent r apment . . . . Of cour se i f somet hi ngdevel op[ s] dur i ng t r i al f r om whi ch you can l at er onpr esent such a r equest f or a j ur y i nst r uct i on, t hat i s at ot al l y separ at e i ssue.

I n t he t r i al t hat f ol l owed, t he onl y evi dence pr of f er ed r el evant t o

t he pot ent i al def ense was t he t est i mony of Cot t o, descr i bed bot h

above and i n f ur t her det ai l bel ow. At t he concl usi on of t he t r i al ,

t he di st r i ct cour t adher ed t o i t s i ni t i al det er mi nat i on t hat t her e

was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of ent r apment by t he

j ur y. The di st r i ct cour t t heref or e r ej ect ed D az' s r equest t hat i t

i nst r uct t he j ur y on ent r apment .

D az pr eser ved hi s obj ect i ons t o bot h of t hese r ul i ngs

and now pr esses t hem on appeal . As a pr act i cal mat t er , t he t wo

i ssues pr esent onl y a si ngl e quest i on: Di d D az manage t o pr of f er

at l east enough admi ssi bl e evi dence t o al l ow a r easonabl e j ur y to

f i nd i n hi s f avor ? I f so, t hen D az was ent i t l ed t o a j ur y

i nst r uct i on on t he ent r apment def ense, Mat t hews v. Uni t ed St ates,

485 U. S. 58, 63 ( 1988) , and t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve such an i nst r uct i on

woul d r equi r e t hat we vacat e t he convi ct i on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Gamache, 156 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ; Uni t ed St ates v.Rodr i quez, 858 F. 2d 809, 815- 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) . 2 I f not , i . e. , i f

2Cust omar i l y, i n deci di ng whet her t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve ar equest ed i nst r uct i on const i t ut es r ever si bl e er r or we al so ask i f

-7-


8/23

D az di d not manage t o pr esent evi dence mi ni mal l y suf f i ci ent t o

suppor t a j ur y f i ndi ng i n hi s f avor , t hen i t woul d necessar i l y

f ol l ow bot h t hat t he r ef usal t o gi ve t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on was

cor r ect , and t hat t he or der pr ecl udi ng D az' s counsel f r om

ment i oni ng t he def ense i n hi s openi ng st at ement was harml ess er r or

at worst . Cf . Uni t ed St ates v. Her shenow, 680 F. 2d 847, 857- 59

( 1st Ci r . 1982) ( r ef usal t o al l ow a def endant t o make an openi ng

st at ement was er r or , but di d not pr ej udi ce def endant or war r ant

r ever sal ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tel eguz, 492 F. 3d 80, 86 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( no abuse of di scr et i on i n bar r i ng def endant ' s cl osi ng

argument on ent r apment where cour t cor r ect l y rul ed t hat an

ent r apment i nst r uct i on was not war r ant ed) .

We t her ef or e t ur n our at t ent i on t o t hi s si ngl e

cont r ol l i ng quest i on: Was t he pr of f er ed, admi ssi bl e evi dence

suf f i ci ent t o r ai se a j ur y i ssue of ent r apment ? I n answer i ng t hi s

quest i on, we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on de novo. See

Rodr i guez, 858 F. 2d at 812; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

t he i nst r uct i on " ( 1) was subst ant i vel y cor r ect ; ( 2) was notsubst ant i al l y cover ed el sewher e i n the char ge; and ( 3) concer ned ani mpor t ant poi nt i n t he case so t hat t he f ai l ur e t o gi ve t hei nst r uct i on ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he def endant ' s abi l i t y t o pr esenthi s def ense. " Uni t ed St at es v. Rose, 104 F. 3d 1408, 1416 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . However , i n cases i nvol vi ng a st andard ent r apmenti nst r uct i on, when an appel l ant demonst r ates t hat he met hi sevi dent i ar y bur den and t he t r i al cour t nonet hel ess deni ed hi m t her equest ed i nst r uct i on, we t ypi cal l y assume ser i ous i mpai r ment andr equi r e r ever sal of t he convi ct i on. See, e. g. , Gamache, 156 F. 3dat 12 ( r ever si ng wi t hout a Rose anal ysi s) ; Rodr i guez, 858 F. 2d at815- 16 ( same) .

-8-


9/23

Dvi l a- Ni eves, 670 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Our f unct i on, l i ke

t hat of t he di st r i ct cour t , "i s t o exami ne t he evi dence on t he

r ecor d and t o dr aw t hose i nf erences as can r easonabl y be dr awn

t her ef r om, det er mi ni ng whet her t he pr oof , t aken i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e to the def ense can pl ausi bl y suppor t t he t heor y of t he

def ense. " Gamache, 156 F. 3d at 9 ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . We r everse

i f t her e i s " some har d evi dence" sat i sf yi ng t he def endant ' s bur den.

Dvi l a- Ni eves, 670 F. 3d at 9 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

The ent r apment def ense ar ose as a cr eat ur e of j udi ci al

" i nf er ence about congr essi onal i nt ent , " r at her t han as a command i n

t he expr ess l anguage of t he Const i t ut i on or of most cr i mi nal

st at ut es. Uni t ed St at es v. Lui si , 482 F. 3d 44, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

The def ense exi st s t o pr event "abuse[ ] " of t he "pr ocesses of

det ect i on and enf orcement . . . by gover nment of f i ci al s" who mi ght

i nst i gat e an i l l egal "act on t he par t of per sons ot her wi se i nnocent

i n or der t o l ur e t hem t o i t s commi ssi on and t o puni sh t hem. "

Sor r el l s v. Uni t ed St ates, 287 U. S. 435, 448 ( 1932) . Gover nment

"of f i ci al s go t oo f ar when t hey ' i mpl ant i n t he mi nd of an i nnocent

per son t he di sposi t i on t o commi t t he al l eged of f ense and i nduce i t s

commi ssi on i n or der t hat t hey may pr osecut e. ' " J acobson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 503 U. S. 540, 553 ( 1992) ( emphasi s i n J acobson) ( quot i ng

Sor r el l s, 287 U. S. at 442) .

-9-


10/23

To f ur t her t hi s purpose of pr event i ng gover nment abuse,

t he cour t s have adopt ed a t wo- par t t est . Fi r st , we l ook at t he

gover nment ' s conduct t o see i f i t i s of t he t ype t hat woul d cause

a person not ot herwi se pr edi sposed t o commi t a cr i me t o do so. See

Gamache, 156 F. 3d at 9. Exampl es of such "gover nment over r eachi ng"

i ncl ude "i nt i mi dat i on, t hr eat s, dogged i nsi st ence, " or "excessi ve

pr essur e" di r ect ed at t he t ar get of an i nvest i gat i on by a

gover nment agent . Uni t ed St at es v. Vasco, 564 F. 3d 12, 18 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I f t he gover nment ' s act i ons do not r i se t o t hi s l evel of wr ongf ul

pr essur e, t he i nqui r y ends. I d. at 20; see al so Rodr i guez, 858

F. 2d at 814. I f t he government does over r each, however , we pr oceed

t o a second st ep and l ook at t he par t i cul ar per son t o see i f t hat

person was i n any event predi sposed t o commi t t he cr i me. Vasco,

564 F. 3d at 18, 20. I n ot her wor ds, Wi l l i e Sut t on l i kel y coul d not

have beat en a bank r obber y char ge wi t h an ent r apment def ense, even

i f t he conduct of t he government were such as t o cause a person not

otherwi se pr edi sposed t o commi t t he cr i me t o do so. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Acost a, 67 F. 3d 334, 337- 38 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . The

def endant has t he i ni t i al bur den of pr oduct i on as t o bot h el ement s

of our t wo- par t t est , "measur ed by t he t i me- honor ed suf f i ci ency- of -

t he- evi dence yar dst i ck . . . . " Rodr i guez, 858 F. 2d at 813- 14.

Then, i f " t he def ense i s pr oper l y i n t he case, t he government i s

-10-


11/23

obl i gat ed t o pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat no ent r apment

occur r ed. " I d. at 815.

To car r y hi s i ni t i al bur den of pr oduct i on, D az poi nt s

f i r st t o t he gover nment ' s cr eat i on and pr esent at i on of t he

oppor t uni t y t o commi t t he cr i me of convi ct i on. But t hat i s not

enough. Uni t ed St ates v. Gendr on, 18 F. 3d 955, 961 ( 1st Ci r .

1994) . Gener al l y, we accept st i ng oper at i ons as an i mpor t ant t ool

of l aw enf orcement . See Gamache, 156 F. 3d at 9; see al so Tel eguz,

492 F. 3d at 84- 85. We expect i nnocent persons t o decl i ne such

oppor t uni t i es i n t he absence of some addi t i onal i mpor t uni ng by t he

government . See Gendron, 18 F. 3d at 962.

D az al so poi nt s t o r epet i t i on i n t he pr esent at i on of t he

oppor t uni t y. He ar gues t hat Cot t o "act i vel y sol i ci t ed" hi m on at

l east f i ve occasi ons t o par t i ci pat e i n a dr ug t r ansact i on i n

exchange f or money. Thi s i s not a case, however , i n whi ch a

government agent r ef used t o t ake "no" f or an answer and persi st ed

i n r ecr ui t i ng a t ar get on f i ve separ at e occasi ons. The r ecor d

shows t hat , over t he cour se of sever al mont hs, Cot t o and D az spoke

by phone several t i mes and happened t o r un i nt o each ot her on

per haps as many as sever al occasi ons. Cot t o f i r st r eveal ed t o D az

hi s i nvol vement i n dr ug t r ansact i ons, and t hen on sever al occasi ons

di scussed t he possi bi l i t y of D az par t i ci pat i ng. Ther e i s no

evi dence t hat Cot t o pr esent ed any oppor t uni t i es dur i ng t hese

occasi ons, or other wi se expr essl y sought any commi t ment f r omD az.

-11-


12/23

Mor e i mpor t ant l y, t her e i s no evi dence t hat Cot t o i n any of t hese

casual soci al cont act s sought t o over bear any resi st ance t o t he

i dea of a cr i me. To t he cont r ar y, t he r ecor d pai nt s a pi ct ur e of

Cot t o goi ng f or war d i ncr ement al l y, f i r st di scl osi ng hi s own

cri mi nal i t y, and t hen r ai si ng t he possi bi l i t y of D az' s

par t i ci pat i on i n t he abst r act , encount er i ng no appar ent r esi st ance

f r om D az at any poi nt . To r ul e t hat such communi cat i ons coul d

gi ve r i se t o an ent r apment def ense woul d f orce gover nment st i ng

oper at i ons t o adopt ar t i f i ci al l y shor t t i me schedul es, poppi ng t he

ul t i mat e quest i on bef or e f i ndi ng out whet her t he t ar get i s act ual l y

i nt erest ed i n t he cr i me. Such an out come woul d work at cr oss

pur poses wi t h t he ai m of t he def ense.

D az al so ar gues t hat Cot t o i mpr oper l y pl ayed of f what

D az cal l s t hei r f r i endshi p. Al t hough D az' s counsel el i ci t ed

t est i mony f r om Cot t o t hat he and D az f i r st met " i n a r ecr eat i onal

manner , " t her e was l i t t l e evi dence t hat t he two wer e f r i ends.

I ndeed, vi r t ual l y t he onl y r el evant t est i mony was Cot t o' s

descri pt i on of t hei r r el at i onshi p as that of "[ a] cquai nt ances. "

Mor e t o t he poi nt , however , D az ci t es no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat

Cot t o sol i ci t ed hi s par t i ci pat i on by appeal i ng di r ectl y t o t hei r

pur por t ed f r i endshi p. We t hus have both a weak t ool f or i mpr oper

i mpor t uni ng and no evi dence t hat t hat weak t ool was even empl oyed.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Young, 78 F. 3d 758, 761- 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

-12-


13/23

D az, f i nal l y and wi t h gr eat est emphasi s, r et ur ns t o hi s

r epet i t i on ar gument , t hi s t i me cont endi ng t hat , i n t he cour se of

hi s Sept ember 9, 2009, phone cal l wi t h Cot t o, Cot t o repeat ed hi s

ent r eat i es si xt een t i mes i n or der t o over come D az' s obj ect i ons.

Whi l e our r eadi ng of t he t r anscr i pt of t he r ecor ded conver sat i on

r eveal s onl y f our ent r eat i es, t he key poi nt i s t hat D az' s

r el uct ance as expr essed t o Cot t o rel at ed sol el y to hi s wor k

schedul e. I ndeed, he r epeat edl y expr essed f r ust r at i on about not

bei ng abl e t o par t i ci pat e: "Damn, . . . t omor r ow i s Thur sday. "

"Damn. The t hi ng i s that . . . I can' t accept i t . . . . I can' t

assur e you, because I don' t know at what t i me I wi l l be out [ of

wor k] . " A r evi ew of t he t r anscr i pt as a whol e makes pl ai n t hat t he

natur e of t he obj ect i on Cot t o sought t o over come was not t he t ype

of whi ch t he ent r apment def ense i s sol i ci t ous.

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we do not ent i r el y di sr egar d

t he possi bi l i t y that a t arget who does not want t o commi t a cr i me

mi ght r ai se a schedul i ng obj ect i on as a "pol i t e way" of decl i ni ng

t o get i nvol ved. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. J oost , 92 F. 3d 7, 13 ( 1st

Ci r . 1996) ( f i ndi ng r ever si bl e er r or i n t he deni al of an ent r apment

i nst r uct i on when t he def endant cl ai med a st r at egy, "cor r obor at ed by

t he evi dence, " of "i nvent i ng excuses" t o avoi d par t i ci pat i ng i n

cr i mi nal act i vi t y) . Her e t hough, Cot t o secur ed no commi t ment t o

par t i ci pat e i n t he cr i me dur i ng t he cal l . I nst ead, t he pr ospect of

a schedul i ng conf l i ct r emai ned ext ant , whi ch l ef t D az t he out of

-13-


14/23

si mpl y t el l i ng Cot t o t he f ol l owi ng day t hat he coul d not r esol ve

t he conf l i ct . The st i ng went f or war d onl y because D az, l ef t t o

hi s own devi ces, deci ded t o t el l Cot t o t hat he coul d make i t . On

such a r ecor d, t her e i s si mpl y not hi ng i n t he gover nment ' s act i ons

t hat one mi ght l abel t he type of over r eachi ng conduct t hat coul d be

cal l ed wr ongf ul i nducement wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he ent r apment

def ense. See Sor r el l s, 287 U. S. at 442.

To summar i ze: t he gover nment ' s conf i dent i al i nf or mant ,

Cot t o, appr oached a cor r ect i ons of f i cer , D az, whomCot t o obser ved

usi ng dr ugs. Cot t o di scl osed t o D az that Cot t o was i nvol ved i n

dr ug t r ansact i ons. I n r esponse, D az agr eed t o exchange t el ephone

numbers. The t wo t hen di scussed on sever al occasi ons t he concept

of D az pr ovi di ng secur i t y f or a "st r eet deal , " wi t h no evi dence

t hat D az r equi r ed much convi nci ng. When Cot t o t hen made a

speci f i c pr oposal , D az voi ced a schedul i ng obj ect i on, and Cot t o

changed t he det ai l s of t he pr oposal t o meet t hose obj ect i ons,

r epeat i ng t he r equest and sayi ng he needed t he hel p, whi ch D az

agr eed t o suppl y af t er det er mi ni ng t hat he coul d f i t i t i n hi s

schedul e. On t hese f act s, our hol di ng i s t hat D az di d not pr oduce

evi dence suf f i ci ent t o gener at e a need f or t he j ur y t o deci de i f

t he gover nment over r eached.

I n f ocusi ng at t hi s st age of t he anal ysi s on D az' s

apparent di sposi t i on as mani f est t o t he gover nment , we ar e not

l eapi ng f or war d t o the second par t of t he ent r apment t est , whi ch

-14-


15/23

exami nes D az' s act ual pr edi sposi t i on. Rat her , we ar e eval uat i ng

t he nat ur e of t he gover nment ' s conduct by consi der i ng pr eci sel y

what hur dl es t he government ' s t act i cs were ai med at overcomi ng.

Fi ve cal l s t o a per son who expr esses no i nt er est i n t he cr i me may

r ai se t he t ypes of concer ns about i mproper gover nment i nducement

t hat t he ent r apment def ense works t o det er . Comparabl e per si st ence

i n over comi ng pr act i cal obj ect i ons by one seemi ngl y comf or t abl e

wi t h the i dea of commi t t i ng a cr i me may, as her e, war r ant no

det er r ence.

Our concl usi on t hat D az f ai l ed t o gener at e enough

evi dence t o r ai se a j ur y i ssue r ef l ect s i n gr eat par t t he f act t hat

t he ent r apment def ense i s a di f f i cul t def ense t o r ai se and pr evai l

on. "Because ent r apment i s a j udi ci al l y cr eat ed doct r i ne, cour t s

have been car ef ul not t o cont r avene congr essi onal i nt ent t o puni sh

t hose who commi t t he of f ense; t hat , i n t ur n, r equi r es t hat t he

doct r i ne t ake i nt o account t he pr act i cal pr obl ems f aced by f eder al

l aw enf or cement . " Tel eguz, 492 F. 3d at 84. Ther ef or e, t he

def endant must of f er evi dence not merel y of gover nment i nducement ,

but of i mpr oper gover nment i nducement . See i d. Si mi l ar l y, gi ven

t he need t o avoi d havi ng cr i mi nal t r i al s t ur n i nt o di ver si onar y

exami nat i ons of " l ong- per mi t t ed oper at i ons of l aw enf or cement , "

Uni t ed St at es v. DePi er r e, 599 F. 3d 25, 27- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ,

af f ' d, 131 S. Ct . 2225 ( 2011) , def endant s may pr esent t he def ense

onl y af t er sat i sf yi ng t hei r "ent r y- l evel bur den" of pr oduct i on,

-15-


16/23

Uni t ed St at es v. Coady, 809 F. 2d 119, 122 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ; see al so

Rodr i guez, 858 F. 2d at 812. I n t went y- t wo pr i or appeal s t o t hi s

ci r cui t chal l engi ng a t r i al cour t ' s ref usal t o gi ve a j ur y

i nst r uct i on on ent r apment , 3 we have over r ul ed the ref usal onl y

t hr ee t i mes. 4 The r ecord her e does not cr eate t he occasi on f or a

f our t h.

3Uni t ed St at es v. Guevar a, 706 F. 3d 38, 46- 47 ( 1st Ci r .2013) ( appl yi ng pl ai n er r or r evi ew) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Ni eves,670 F. 3d 1, 9, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( appl yi ng de novo r evi ew) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Vasco, 564 F. 3d 12, 18, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( de novo) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Shi nder man, 515 F. 3d 5, 13, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( denovo) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tel eguz, 492 F. 3d 80, 83, 85- 86 ( 1st Ci r .2007) ( de novo) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos- Paul i no, 488 F. 3d 459, 461-62 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( pl enar y revi ew) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Snchez-Ber r os, 424 F. 3d 65, 76- 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( de novo) ; Uni t ed St at esv. Di az- Di az, 433 F. 3d 128, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( st andar d of r evi ewunspeci f i ed, pr obabl y de novo) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ni shni ani dze, 342

F. 3d 6, 17- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( pl enar y) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bal t as,236 F. 3d 27, 36- 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( pl ai n er r or ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Gamache, 156 F. 3d 1, 9, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( pl enar y) ; Uni t ed St at esv. Roger s, 102 F. 3d 641, 645- 46 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( de novo) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Vega, 102 F. 3d 1301, 1302, 1307 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( pl enar y) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Young, 78 F. 3d 758, 760 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( pl enar y) ;Uni t ed St at es v. J oost , 92 F. 3d 7, 12, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( pl enar y) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Her nandez, 995 F. 2d 307, 313 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( pl ai ner r or ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tej eda, 974 F. 2d 210, 217- 19 ( 1st Ci r .1992) ( de novo) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Panet - Col l azo, 960 F. 2d 256, 259-60 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( de novo) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mor al es- Di az, 925F. 2d 535, 539 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( unspeci f i ed, pr obabl y de novo) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Pr at t , 913 F. 2d 982, 988- 89 ( 1st Ci r .1990) ( pl enary) ; Uni t ed St ates v. McKenna, 889 F. 2d 1168, 1174 ( 1stCi r . 1989) ( pl enar y) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 858 F. 2d 809, 812( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( pl enar y) .

4Gamache, 156 F. 3d at 12; J oost , 92 F. 3d at 14; Rodr i guez, 858F. 2d at 815- 16.

-16-


17/23

B. Consideration of entrapment as a factor at sentencing

Fol l owi ng hi s convi ct i on, D az f aced a st at ut or y

mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence of 120 mont hs. Speci f i cal l y, each count

of convi ct i on car r i ed a 60- mont h mandat or y mi ni mum. See 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( B) ; 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( I ) . The sent ence f or t he

f i r ear m- possessi on count , however , was subj ect t o a st at ut or y

mandat e t hat i t be ser ved " i n addi t i on t o" t he dr ug- r el at ed ai di ng-

and- abet t i ng count . See i d. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) . 5 The gui del i nes

sent ence f or D az was 123- 138 mont hs: 63- 78 mont hs on t he ai di ng-

and- abet t i ng count , U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( c) ( 7) , 2X2. 1. , Ch. 5 p. A

Sent enci ng Tabl e, and 60 mont hs on t he f i r ear m- possessi on count ,

i d. 2K2. 4( b) .

D az, however , sought a downwar d adj ust ment f or what he

cl ai med was a mi ni mal r ol e i n t he of f ense. See U. S. S. G. 3B1. 2.

5

D az al so appear s t o ar gue t hat t he government engaged i nunf ai r sent enci ng mani pul at i on by aski ng hi m t o br i ng a gun t o t hest i ng. He has not , however , i dent i f i ed anywher e i n t he r ecor dwher e he r ai sed t hi s i ssue bel ow. ( The gover nment vi ewed t hi s aspar t of hi s i mper f ect ent r apment cl ai m, and ar gues t hat i t was notr ai sed bel ow, and so i s subj ect t o pl ai n er r or r evi ew. ) I n t hi sci r cui t , a j udge "can adj ust a sent ence downwar d i f t he j udgeconcl udes t hat t he government has i mpr oper l y enl arged t he scope orscal e of t he cr i me t o secur e a hi gher sent ence. " Uni t ed St at es v.DePi er r e, 599 F. 3d at 29. Her e, D az onl y ar gues t hat t hegovernment coul d have achi eved i t s goal wi t hout havi ng an agent askhi m t o br i ng a gun; t hi s hardl y suggest s t he "ext r eme and unusual

case" f or whi ch a f act or mani pul at i on r educt i on i s appr opr i at e.Uni t ed St at es v. Font es, 415 F. 3d 174, 180 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .Sent enci ng mani pul at i on i s a f act - bound, case- by- case i nqui r y. Seei d. at 180- 82. By not r ai si ng t he i ssue cl ear l y bel ow, D azdepr i ved t he di st r i ct cour t of t he chance t o exami ne t hegover nment ' s mot i ves i n t he f i r st i nst ance. On t hi s r ecor d, we seenot hi ng appr oachi ng an abuse of di scr et i on, l et al one pl ai n er r or .

-17-


18/23

D az r equest ed t he st at ut ory mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence of 120

mont hs, t hree mont hs bel ow t he gui del i nes r ange. The gover nment ,

i n cont r ast , hi ghl i ght ed D az' s di sr egar d of hi s oat h as a

cor r ect i ons of f i cer t o uphol d t he l aw, and sought a sent ence at t he

"hi gher end" of t he gui del i nes r ange of 123- 138 mont hs. The

gover nment di d not , however , r equest a par t i cul ar sent ence.

Ul t i mat el y the cour t sent enced D az t o 123 mont hs.

D az now cl ai ms t hat t he sent ence t he di st r i ct cour t

i mposed i s "pr ocedur al l y unr easonabl e. " We r evi ew t he

r easonabl eness of a sent ence f or abuse of di scr et i on, f ol l owi ng a

t wo- st ep anal ysi s. Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Mor eno, 613 F. 3d 1, 8

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . We f i r st ver i f y t hat t he sent ence was

pr ocedur al l y sound, and we then ensur e t hat i t was subst ant i vel y

r easonabl e. I d. Among t he exampl es of pr ocedur al i nf i r mi t y i s

"f ai l i ng t o consi der t he 3553( a) f act or s, " Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es,

552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) , whi ch gui de a sent enci ng cour t i n r eachi ng

a "suf f i ci ent , but not gr eat er t han necessary" sent ence, 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) .

D az asser t s t hat by not consi der i ng t he i ssue of

" i mper f ect ent r apment , " t he di st r i ct cour t di d not gi ve pr oper heed

t o t he sect i on 3553 f actors. " I mper f ect ent r apment " has somet i mes

been used by ot her cour t s as t he basi s f or a downward depar t ur e at

sent enci ng when a def endant demonst r at ed t hat he was " pressured

undul y by t he gover nment t o go f or war d wi t h [ an] of f ense . . . . "

-18-


19/23

Uni t ed St at es v. McCl el l and, 72 F. 3d 717, 725 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) .

Wher e, as her e, a def endant seeks a downwar d var i ance on t hat

basi s, t he cl ai m of i mper f ect ent r apment can be t hought of as

f ai r l y encompassed i n t he anal ysi s of t he "nat ur e and ci r cumst ances

of t he of f ense" under 3553( a) . Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 358 F.

App' x 634, 638 ( 6t h Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ;

see al so i d. at 641- 42 ( Cl ay, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng

i n par t ) .

Cont r ar y t o D az' s cl ai m t hat t he j udge r ef used t o

consi der hi s i mper f ect ent r apment argument , t he sent enci ng hear i ng

t r anscr i pt r eveal s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i n f act di d consi der t he

t heor y and f ound i t i nappl i cabl e. 6 I n maki ng hi s st atement t o t he

cour t at hi s sent enci ng hear i ng, D az obj ect ed t hat "[ a] s f ar as

why I di dn' t r epor t [ t he dr ug deal t o t he aut hor i t i es af t er i t

t r anspi r ed] , i t i s not f ai r t hat t he gover nment makes you commi t an

of f ense wi t hout a pr evi ous i nvest i gat i on, and put [ s] you i n a ver y

compr omi si ng and di f f i cul t si t uat i on. " The cour t asked

speci f i cal l y what D az meant by t he gover nment "maki ng [ hi m] commi t

an of f ense. " Rather t han argui ng t hat he was mani pul ated, or t hat

he was l ess bl amewor t hy as a r esul t of t he gover nment ' s ent r eat i es,

D az obj ect ed t hat Guard Shack was supposed t o cat ch of f i cer s

6 Because we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed D az' sar gument , we need not t ake up t he gover nment ' s ar gument on appealt hat he f or f ei t ed t he i ssue bel ow.

-19-


20/23

al r eady under i nvest i gat i on f or cor r upt i on, and he had been t he

subj ect of no such i nvest i gat i on.

The di st r i ct j udge r evi ewed D az' s sentenci ng memor andum

and, af t er hear i ng f r omt he def endant and t he gover nment , expl ai ned

t he gui del i ne r ange and t hen expl i ci t l y t ur ned t o the sect i on 3553

f act or s. The cour t began by consi der i ng var i ous f act or s i n D az' s

f avor , i ncl udi ng hi s l ack of a cri mi nal hi st or y and t he pr obabi l i t y

t hat he woul d "r ehabi l i t at e and t ur n t o t he r i ght t r ack and l i ve a

l aw abi di ng l i f e. " As f or t he al l eged ent r apment , t he cour t

expl ai ned:

I n t er ms of t he f act or s t o whi ch [ D az' s] counsel hasmade r ef erence i n t he sent enci ng memor andum and al sot hr ough [ D az' s] al l ocut i on i n Cour t , . . . I must poi ntt o t he f act t hat my r ecol l ect i on f r om t he t r i al i n t er msof when . . . [ D az] was al er t ed t hat he was t opar t i ci pat e i n a st r eet deal , was pr i or t o hi mget t i ng t ot he apar t ment i n I sl a Ver de wher e t he dr ug t r ansact i onwas t o occur . Even t hough he al l udes to t he gover nmentmaki ng an i ndi vi dual commi t a cr i me, t o t he ext ent t hathe cl ar i f i ed and says t hat based on t he f act t hat he wasnot a t ar get of a pr evi ous pol i ce cor r upt i oni nvest i gat i on, I can under st and t hat . To t he ext ent t hathe may equat e t hat t o a possi bl e def ense of ent r apment ,I know t hat t hat was a f act or t hat was l i nger i ng i n someof t he quest i ons of t hi s def endant , and t he Cour tr emai ned vi gi l ant and based on my eval uat i on andassessment of t he evi dence t her e was no i ndi ci a of apossi bl e ent r apment def ense whatsoever i n t hi s case andt hat i s why t he i nst r uct i on was not gi ven.

The j udge t hen pr oceeded t o di scuss her vi ew t hat

def endant appear ed t o be i n a "ver y comf or t abl e posi t i on" dur i ng

t he t r ansact i on.

-20-


21/23

I n shor t , t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t hi s was not

a case i n whi ch t he def endant had a sympat het i c but unsuccessf ul

ent r apment def ense t hat mi ght war r ant mi t i gat i on, t hough not

acqui t t al . The cour t ' s concl usi on was suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, and

demonst r at ed consi der at i on of " t he natur e and ci r cumst ances of t he

of f ense and t he . . . char act er i st i cs of t he def endant , " 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) ( 1) . I n so pr oceedi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scr et i on.

C. Error related to sentencing

The f i nal er r or D az cl ai ms on appeal concer ns t wo

mi st akes by t he di st r i ct cour t i n r ef er r i ng t o t he count s of

convi ct i on. The cour t began t he sent enci ng hear i ng by not i ng t hat

i t had " r evi ewed once agai n t he ver di ct f or m. " The cour t t hen

accur at el y descr i bed t he j ur y' s ver di ct :

The r ecor d shoul d r ef l ect t hat t he def endant went t o

t r i al as t o Count 1 whi ch i s t he conspi r acy t o possesswi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e. The def endant was f ound notgui l t y. However , as to t he r emai ni ng count s he was f oundgui l t y i n count s 2 and 4. Count 2 . . . [ char ged]i l l egal possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, and. . . t he j ur y al so f ound hi mgui l t y of t he possessi on ofa weapon i n r el at i on t o a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me [ Count4 ] .

The cour t next asked t he par t i es i f t hey had any cl ar i f i cat i ons

wi t h r egard t o t he pr esent ence r epor t ( PSR) . The gover nment cal l ed

at t ent i on t o the f i r st par agr aph of t he PSR; as t he gover nment

expl ai ned, i t "says count 2 of convi ct i on char ges t he conspi r acy,

and t hat i s i ncor r ect . " Rat her , t he gover nment not ed, " [ c] ount 2

-21-


22/23

has t o do wi t h t he ai di ng and abet t i ng and at t empt t o possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e mor e t h[ a] n 5 ki l ogr ams. " The cour t agr eed,

acknowl edgi ng "[ t ] hat i s cor r ect , and i t i s t o be cor r ect ed. " ( The

pr obat i on of f i ce has si nce i ssued an amended r epor t , cor r ect i ng t he

er r or i n t he f i r st par agr aph of Par t A, but st i l l i ncor r ect l y

l i st i ng count 2 i n t he of f ense summar y at t he begi nni ng of t he

r epor t . )

Af t er hear i ng f r omt he par t i es, however , t he cour t began

i t s sent enci ng anal ysi s by r epeat i ng t he er r or i n t he PSR.

Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t sai d t hat D az "was f ound gui l t y by j ur y

t r i al as t o count s 2 and 4 of t he i ndi ct ment i n . . . t hi s case,

char gi ng, " r espect i vel y, "conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e . . . cocai ne, " and "knowi ng possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance and or i n r el at i on t o a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. " D az

di d not obj ect , and t he cour t made t he same mi st ake i n ent er i ng the

wr i t t en j udgment .

D az now ar gues t hat t he cour t ' s er r ors pr ej udi ced hi m,

because conspi r acy may r epr esent a more ser i ous cr i me than ai di ng

and abet t i ng, and, he cl ai ms, t he cour t may have sent enced hi m f or

t he wr ong cr i me. He concedes t hat he f ai l ed t o r ai se t hi s i ssue

bel ow, and t hus our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or onl y. Accor di ngl y,

he must demonst r ate "( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear

or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y (3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s

subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness,

-22-


23/23

i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d 211, 218 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( en banc)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Whi l e "l osi ng counsel ar e ent i t l ed t o t r ol l t hr ough

t r anscr i pt s t o f i nd al l eged gl i t ches, " t he "pl ai n er r or r ul e

cr eat es a hi gh t hr eshol d where t he supposed mi sst eps ar e ones t hat

no one not i ced at t he t i me or , i f not i ced, t hought wor t hy of a

t i mel y obj ect i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Deher t ogh, 696 F. 3d 162, 170

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Her e, a r evi ew of t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt as a

whol e r eveal s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was wel l awar e of t he count s

of convi ct i on f or whi ch i t was sent enci ng D az, not wi t hst andi ng i t s

memor i al i zed mi sspeaki ng. Accor di ngl y, we af f i r mt he sent ence, but

r emand t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t t o cor r ect i t s wr i t t en

j udgment .

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons st at ed, we af f i r m

D az' s convi ct i on and

sent ence, and r emand t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or cor r ect i on

of t he j udgment .

So or der ed.

-23-

United States v. Diaz-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Diaz-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2013)