United States v. Antonio Farias
836 F.3d 1315
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Between June 2008 and April 2009 undercover ATF agents sold Antonio Farias over 18 million unstamped Marlboro cigarettes at well-below-market prices; recordings captured the agents describing the cigarettes as stolen and Farias acknowledging the risk.
- Farias resold the cigarettes to Stephen Valvo for transport/sale on an Indian reservation in New York; Valvo later cooperated and testified.
- An initial indictment (filed July 21, 2013, and sealed earlier) charged a conspiracy spanning 2006–2009 and seven substantive counts; a superseding indictment (July 17, 2014) narrowed the conspiracy timeframe to June 4, 2008–April 2, 2009, dropped the substantive §2342 counts, and added §2314 (trafficking in stolen goods) as an object.
- At trial the jury convicted Farias of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §371 (finding objects were both trafficking in stolen goods and trafficking in contraband cigarettes).
- At sentencing the district court ordered forfeiture of Farias’s agreed-upon profit of $331,426; Farias appealed, challenging timeliness, discovery/ misconduct, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and forfeiture procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Farias) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / statute of limitations on superseding indictment | Original indictment was timely and tolls statute; superseding indictment did not broaden charges and thus relates back | Superseding indictment was filed beyond 5-year limitations period and therefore untimely; delay also violated due process | Affirmed: original timely indictment tolled limitations because superseding indictment narrowed allegations and did not broaden charges; due-process claim failed (no actual prejudice or deliberate government design) |
| Discovery / outrageous government misconduct (including alleged tobacco-company involvement) | No controlling involvement by tobacco companies; defendant not entitled to discovery because allegations speculative and not shown to affect prosecution; Brady obligations satisfied | ATF operation improperly coordinated/ financed by tobacco companies; sought discovery of ATF dealings with Phillip Morris and dismissal for outrageous government conduct | Affirmed: reverse-sting lawful absent shocking misconduct; defendant failed to show control by or prejudice from tobacco companies; no entitlement to additional discovery |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (knowledge that goods were stolen) | Record (recordings, price disparity, statements, cooperator testimony) established knowing participation in conspiracy to traffic in stolen goods | Denied knowledge; argued government needed proof based on an "official representation" as described in 18 U.S.C. §21 | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support knowing participation; §2314 does not require knowledge to be proved only via official representation and §21 is permissive, not mandatory |
| Forfeiture procedure under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 | Forfeiture notice was in the indictment and parties had negotiated amounts; court could enter money judgment at sentencing | District court erred by not entering a preliminary forfeiture order "as soon as practicable" after verdict; argues waiver or required joint-and-several liability with Valvo | Affirmed (harmless error): court erred in procedure but error harmless — defendant had notice of forfeiture and amount, opportunity to contest, and court limited forfeiture to defendant’s personal profit ($331,426) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (pre-indictment delay due-process framework)
- United States v. Italiano, 894 F.2d 1280 (11th Cir.) (timely indictment tolls statute for subsequent indictments that do not broaden charges)
- United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644 (11th Cir.) (sealing an indictment beyond limitations period can be proper)
- United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (elements and sufficiency standard for conspiracy)
- Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (Sup. Ct.) (limitations on private-party involvement in prosecutions; disinterested prosecutor principle)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecution’s obligation to disclose favorable evidence)
- United States v. Augustin, 661 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir.) (constructive amendment and charging document principles)