United States v. Celaya Valenzuela
849 F.3d 477
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- FBI sting (Operation Dark Water) posed as an organized-crime buyer seeking long-term cocaine supply from the Sinaloa Cartel; undercover leader "El Viejo."
- Rafael Celaya, a lawyer/financial planner with ties to El Chapo, attended meetings (Florida, Boston, Portsmouth NH) negotiating logistics and money‑laundering; he later met El Chapo in Mexico and admitted conspiring with the FBI operation.
- The cartel shipped 346 kg of cocaine from Brazil to Spain (bypassing U.S. ports); the cartel also arranged a June 2012 delivery of heroin/methamphetamine to Detroit to maintain the FBI relationship.
- Celaya was indicted in the District of New Hampshire for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841), convicted after a jury trial, and sentenced to 210 months.
- On appeal Celaya challenged (1) lack of a required jurisdictional nexus to the U.S., (2) improper/"manufactured" venue in New Hampshire, and (3) substantive unreasonableness of his sentence (including denial of a minor-role adjustment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional nexus under §846 | Government: conspiracy intended to distribute in U.S. and used U.S. seaports; meetings and Detroit shipment establish nexus. | Celaya: conspiracy was purely extraterritorial (supply to Europe); he lacked knowledge that U.S. distribution was an object. | Held: Sufficient nexus. Combined facts (NH meeting, port discussions, Detroit shipment, agent statements, Celaya's conduct) supported jury finding of U.S. intent; failure to timely raise the novel nexus argument limited review. |
| Venue in District of New Hampshire | Government: Portsmouth meeting was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy; venue proven by preponderance. | Celaya: venue was "manufactured" because an FBI agent drove co‑conspirator Guzman from Boston to Portsmouth to create venue. | Held: Venue proper. Meeting in Portsmouth was an overt act by a co‑conspirator; Court rejects manufactured‑venue doctrine and finds no extreme misconduct here. |
| Jury instruction on nexus/venue | Government: instructions not required beyond evidence supporting elements. | Celaya: district court erred by not instructing jury specifically on jurisdictional nexus and manufactured venue. | Held: No error. Sufficient evidence supported nexus and venue; no need for special instruction. |
| Sentence reasonableness / minor‑role reduction | Government: guidelines and §3553(a) factors properly applied; Celaya was a leading negotiator and met with El Chapo. | Celaya: should have received minor/minimal role reduction and sentence closer to co‑defendants (who pleaded guilty); disparity unjustified. | Held: Sentence reasonable. District court did not plainly err denying a minor‑role reduction; disparity explained by Celaya’s trial (no acceptance‑of‑responsibility) and his central role. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hayes, 653 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1981) (§841 does not cover purely extraterritorial crimes)
- United States v. McKenzie, 818 F.2d 115 (1st Cir. 1987) (§841 triggered if defendant intended distribution in U.S. even absent actual distribution)
- United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120 (1st Cir. 1987) (defendants can be liable for conspiratorial distribution plans articulated by government agents if they do not object)
- United States v. Santiago, 83 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1996) (venue proper where an act in furtherance of conspiracy occurred, even if particular defendant was absent)
- United States v. Lopez‑Vanegas, 493 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2007) (meetings in U.S. insufficient for nexus where conspiracy object was solely foreign distribution)
- United States v. Marston, 694 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2012) (untimely or unpreserved Rule 29 arguments reviewed for clear and gross injustice)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (framework for extraterritoriality analysis)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality; two‑step test)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (limitations on extraterritorial application)