United States v. Cuadrado (Cedeño), 437 F. App'x 8

In April 28, 2009, a month-long jury trial resulted in convictions of Jorge Cedeño, Angel Diaz, and Rafael Rodriguez for conspiracy, kidnapping, armed robbery, and related offenses; Victor Diaz pled guilty.
Co-defendant Victor Diaz appealed his conviction while the remaining defendants challenged various pretrial and trial errors and their sentences.
Cedeño challenged the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence of uncharged acts and conduct by co-conspirators.
Cedeño also challenged a sentencing enhancement based on an uncharged Pennsylvania robbery under Robles, arguing constitutional concerns.
Rodriguez challenged suppression rulings: evidence from a car trunk and a firearm-related vest were improperly obtained due to a Terry stop; district court rulings were affirmed.
Angel Diaz challenged a jury instruction treating a gun as a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); the panel held any error harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 404(b) evidence	Cedeño argues improper admission of uncharged acts and co-conspirator conduct.	Cedeño contends the evidence was prejudicial and not probative.	No reversible error; evidence admitted for non-propensity purposes with limiting instructions.
Sentencing enhancement based on uncharged conduct	Cedeño contends enhancement violates guidelines when based on uncharged acts.	Robles framework permits such enhancement given jury verdict and proof beyond reasonable doubt.	Affirmed under Robles; enhancement valid with general verdict, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and within statutory maximum.
Suppression of trunk evidence and Terry stop	Rodriguez argues trunk evidence arose from an illegal stop and the stop itself was unlawful.	Government contends no unlawful stop; any stop was justified by reasonable suspicion.	Evidence suppression denied; no illegal stop occurred; any stop justified.
Jury instruction on 924(c) firearm definition	Angel argues the instruction misdefined firearm, potentially altering elements.	Defense asserts error in definition.	Harmless error; overwhelming evidence supported conviction.
New counsel request and sentencing findings (Victor Diaz)	Victor Diaz claims denial of request for new counsel.	Court adequately addressed concerns; no fundamental disagreement.	No abuse of discretion; no violation in handling counsel and sentencing findings.

United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework; proper purpose and balancing of probative value vs. prejudice; limiting instruction)
United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) (Non-propensity purposes for act-related evidence; connection to conspiracy)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (No traffic stop occurred; baseline framework for stop analysis)
United States v. Villegas, 928 F.2d 512 (2d Cir. 1991) (Reasonable suspicion basis for Terry stops; ongoing investigation context)
United States v. Robles, 562 F.3d 451 (2d Cir. 2009) (Constitutional/Guidelines framework for sentencing enhancements based on uncharged conduct)
United States v. Vasquez, 389 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2004) (De novo review of Guidelines application for sentencing issues)
United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (Harmless-error standard for trial-court errors involving jury instructions)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (Plain-error standard for unpreserved objections; review)
United States v. Rosa, 507 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2007) (Clarification that not all guns are firearms; limits to firearm definition in § 924(c))
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (En banc standard for factual findings at sentencing; review for clear error)