United States v. Christian Borda
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Borda and Alvaran were convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to distribute >=5 kg of cocaine knowing/intending it would be unlawfully imported into the United States (21 U.S.C. §§ 959, 960, 963). They conceded trafficking but disputed knowledge/intent to import.
- The Government’s theory rested on three transactions: Palm Oil #1 (≈1,553 kg shipped Cartagena→Puerto Progreso→Monterrey), a planned Palm Oil #2 (not completed), and the El Chino load (attempted maritime shipment discarded at sea).
- Key trial evidence: cooperating witnesses (Junior as DEA informant before his disappearance; Suarez; Montoya) who testified drugs were moved toward/into the U.S. (Suarez testified at least 200 kg reached New York), ledgers showing receipts in U.S. dollars, and recordings/transactions showing border-related difficulties and discussions of receiving money in Monterrey.
- Defendants raised multiple procedural and evidentiary challenges (Brady/Napue, exclusion/admission of documents and prior conviction, co‑conspirator statements, prosecutor closing remarks, jury‑instruction/stricken‑evidence procedure).
- District Court sentenced Alvaran to 180 months (below Guidelines after applying a 3‑point managerial enhancement); Borda received 300 months (not appealed). On appeal, convictions were affirmed; case remanded for resentencing of Alvaran only to permit consideration of retroactive Guidelines amendment (Amendment 782).
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Government/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendants knew/intended importation | Borda & Alvaran: evidence insufficient to show knowledge/intention that cocaine would be brought into U.S. | Government: Suarez’s testimony + geography (Monterrey near U.S.), U.S. currency receipts, and other circumstantial evidence support inference of intent/knowledge | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find intent/knowledge beyond reasonable doubt (Jackson standard) |
| Exclusion/admission of various evidence (2006 e‑mail; NY property record; FL license; prior conviction; co‑conspirator statements) | Appellants: District Court erred in admitting or excluding these items and suffered prejudice | Government: any errors were non‑prejudicial or evidence was cumulative/contextual; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice | Harmless or not prejudicial; no reversible error even assuming some rulings were mistaken |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (misstatements and bees metaphor) | Appellants: misstatements about transport fees, characterization of money exchange, and metaphor prejudiced the jury and warrant new trial | Government: misstatements were minor, evidence on topics was ample, metaphor non‑prejudicial; trial court cured where needed | No substantial prejudice; denial of new trial affirmed (Darden/Watson standards) |
| Brady / Napue and alleged suppression of exculpatory or impeaching material | Appellants: Government delayed/withheld DEA reports and a draft agent report (Skidmore notes) and failed to correct witness per Napue | Government: materials were disclosed before trial or not material; post‑trial hearings showed draft would not have supported defense claim; no known false testimony | No Brady or Napue violation; withheld/delayed materials were not material in the Kyles/Bagley sense; post‑trial testimony contradicted defense reading of draft report |
| Limits on defense closing argument (inviting juror to speculate about DEA debriefs) | Alvaran: court prevented him from arguing insufficiency and impaired balance of closing | Government: defense sought to argue facts not in the record (inadmissible hearsay/speculation) | Court properly limited closing to record evidence; no abuse of discretion (Hoffman distinction) |
| Sentencing: quantity attribution and managerial enhancement for Alvaran; failure to consider mitigation; remand request | Alvaran: district court erred in quantity attribution and §3B1.1 manager/supervisor enhancement; asked for resentencing or lower term to account for age/health | Government: findings supported by Suarez’s testimony and conduct; enhancement and reasoning were fact‑based; but Government agrees remand appropriate under retroactive Amendment 782 | Substantive sentencing rulings affirmed (no clear error); remand granted solely to permit Alvaran to seek reduction under retroactive Guidelines amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (harmless‑error/prejudice inquiry)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error/substantial‑rights standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (false testimony and prosecutorial knowledge)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial misconduct due process standard)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady elements explained)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality/reasonable probability in Brady claims)
- United States v. Bryant, 523 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir. standard on viewing evidence in light most favorable to Government)
- United States v. Washington, 12 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. sufficiency review principles)
- United States v. Seiler, 348 F.3d 265 (relevant‑conduct for Guidelines calculations)