United States v. Garavito-Garcia, 827 F.3d 242

Background

Garavito-Garcia was indicted in S.D.N.Y. on four counts: narcoterrorism conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 960a), cocaine-importation conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 963), conspiracy to provide material support to the FARC (18 U.S.C. § 2339B), and conspiracy to acquire/transfer anti-aircraft missiles (18 U.S.C. § 2332g).
The Government’s theory rested on Garavito‑Garcia brokering large-scale cocaine shipments from FARC-controlled supply through Guinea‑Bissau and facilitating FARC attempts to acquire military-grade, anti‑aircraft weapons via contacts in Guinea‑Bissau; key interactions involved DEA confidential sources.
He was arrested in Colombia, Colombia ordered extradition, health concerns (stroke) delayed physical transfer, Colombian authorities ultimately approved and transported him to the U.S. on a medical aircraft in July 2014.
At trial the Government presented recorded meetings and statements showing Garavito‑Garcia discussing weapons and drug shipments and assuring payment and logistics support; jury convicted on all counts; judgment entered July 22, 2015.
On appeal Garavito‑Garcia raised four issues: dismissal for alleged treaty/Article 511 violation in Colombia; insufficiency of evidence of knowing participation; impropriety of a supplemental jury instruction responding to a jury note about mere presence; and that Count Three (§ 2339B) was multiplicitous of Count One (§ 960a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment should be dismissed for Colombia’s alleged violation of its extradition treaty/Article 511	U.S.: Colombia validly extradited; no standing to challenge and Colombia found no treaty violation	Garavito: Colombia violated Article 511 (30‑day rule) and treaty; thus U.S. court lacks jurisdiction/dismiss is required	Court: Rejects defendant — defendant lacks standing (no Colombian protest) and U.S. courts must defer to Colombian authorities’ determination; no dismissal
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant knowingly joined conspiracies (weapons, narcotics importation)	U.S.: Record (recordings, meetings, travel, assurances) permits rational juror to infer knowing participation	Garavito: Record lacks proof he assented to weapons scheme or narcotics importation to U.S.	Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (statements, presence at negotiations, transatlantic brokerage) sufficient for a rational juror
Whether supplemental jury instruction on "mere presence" was improper	U.S.: District Court’s supplemental instruction properly answered jurors’ note and reiterated burden on Government	Garavito: Initial instruction caused confusion; supplement failed to clarify whether acquiescence counts absent explicit dissent or leaving	Court: Affirmed — supplemental instruction directly addressed jurors’ question and correctly explained mere presence is insufficient
Whether Count Three (§ 2339B) is multiplicitous of Count One (§ 960a) (double jeopardy)	U.S.: The statutes have distinct elements; each requires proof the other does not	Garavito: Conviction on both duplicates punishment for the same offense	Court: Affirmed — Blockburger satisfied because § 960a and § 2339B each require at least one distinct element (terrorist-activity requirement vs. FTO designation)

Key Cases Cited

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 758 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2014) (treaty interpretation reviewed de novo and standing requirements discussed)
Suarez v. United States, 791 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 2015) (standing to invoke treaty rights; private enforcement presumption)
Bout v. United States, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) (courts may not second‑guess a foreign state’s grant of extradition)
Campbell v. United States, 300 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2002) (deference to foreign executive branch decisions in extradition contexts)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties do not ordinarily create privately enforceable domestic causes of action)