United States v. Diaz-Rosado
857 F.3d 89
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- August 2012: Vessel registered to José Díaz-Rosado seized off Puerto Rico carrying ~1,032 kg cocaine; Díaz had rented the dock and hired the crew but was not aboard.
- December 2012: Second vessel purchased by Díaz seized near St. Croix carrying ~1,157 kg cocaine; different two-man crew; this December seizure led to a one-count Florida indictment (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine). Díaz pleaded guilty in Florida.
- Florida sentencing relied on both seizures to attribute ~2,189 kg to Díaz and applied leadership and obstruction enhancements; Eleventh Circuit later vacated the sentence and remanded, resulting in a reduced sentence on remand.
- Five days after the Florida indictment, a two-count Puerto Rico indictment charged Díaz with (1) conspiracy to import >5 kg cocaine, and (2) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine (based on the August seizure).
- Díaz moved to dismiss the Puerto Rico indictment on double jeopardy grounds; the District Court held the motion in abeyance pending resolution of Florida proceedings, then adopted a magistrate judge’s report recommending denial as to both counts (Count One charged a different statutory offense; Count Two was a different conspiracy under the Laguna-Estela factors).
- Díaz appealed interlocutorily. The First Circuit held (assuming de novo review) that the Puerto Rico Count Two did not violate Double Jeopardy and affirmed; it also noted waiver concerns from Díaz’s failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Díaz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count One (import conspiracy) in Puerto Rico is barred by double jeopardy because Florida prosecution covered same conduct | Count One charges conduct already encompassed by Florida proceedings; prosecution duplicates prior charges | Count One charges a different statutory offense with different elements than Florida charge | Rejected — Count One charges a different offense and does not present double jeopardy problems |
| Whether Count Two (possession/distribution conspiracy) in Puerto Rico duplicates the Florida conspiracy | The two indictments are part of a single "overarching conspiracy" covering same conduct, evidence, personnel, and time | The Puerto Rico and Florida conspiracies are distinct based on different time frames, participants, and evidence (separate shipments) | Rejected — applying Laguna-Estela factors, conspiracies are separate; denial of dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Díaz waived appellate review by failing to object to the magistrate judge's report | Failure to object should not forfeit double jeopardy review because plea in Florida does not preclude challenge | Failure to object generally waives appellate review; even assuming not waived, claim fails on merits | Court noted possible waiver but reached merits anyway and affirmed dismissal denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (double jeopardy challenges to indictments are immediately reviewable)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (consideration of conduct at sentencing for another crime does not bar later prosecution for that conduct)
- Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (guilty pleas conceding multiple conspiracies may preclude later challenges that those conspiracies are one)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (failure to object to magistrate report may waive appellate review)
- Laguna-Estela, United States v., 394 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005) (set out multi-factor test for determining whether two conspiracies are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
- Toribio-Lugo, United States v., 376 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard for appellate review of double jeopardy dismissal denials)
- Fornia-Castillo, United States v., 408 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2005) (double jeopardy availability is a constitutional question reviewable de novo)
- Lugo Guerrero, United States v., 524 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (failure to object to magistrate recommendation waives appellate rights)
- Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1992) (unobjected-to magistrate findings preclude appellate review)
- Booth, United States v., 673 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1982) (defendant must present prima facie nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim)
- Stefanidakis, United States v., 678 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for claims not raised below)
- Catalán-Roman, United States v., 585 F.3d 453 (1st Cir. 2009) (double jeopardy claims not raised below are reviewed for plain error)
- Duarte, United States v., 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error test elements)