United States v. Garcia-Sierra
994 F.3d 17
| 1st Cir. | 2021Background
- García was tried for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to import cocaine into the U.S. (Aug 2012–Jun 2014). A jury convicted him; he received ~224 months' imprisonment.
- December 2012: García and another man were rescued at sea; their implausible shipwreck story led to FBI attention. García's boatmate later became a cooperating informant.
- October 2013: Law enforcement seized over 200 kg of bundled cocaine in Guayanilla Bay after surveillance and tips from the informant.
- The government introduced May 2011 seizure evidence (separate incident) via three witnesses and a 2011 informant under Rule 404(b) to prove knowledge/intent.
- At trial the government presented ‘‘overview’’ testimony by FBI Agent De Jesús describing the smuggling organization; García objected on appeal. He also challenged a two-level §3B1.1(c) supervisory-role enhancement at sentencing and alleged unwarranted sentence disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Agent De Jesús "overview" testimony | Gov't: Agent's testimony properly set investigatory context and anticipated later firsthand witnesses. | García: Testimony impermissibly vouched/endorsed informant and opined on guilt (overview testimony). | Court: Testimony was erroneous as overview evidence but, reviewed for plain error, any error was harmless; convictions affirmed. |
| Admission of May 2011 Rule 404(b) evidence | Gov't: Prior act evidence admissible to prove knowledge/intent (relevance to contested knowledge). | García: Evidence was propensity evidence, confusing and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. | Court: Step-one relevance satisfied (knowledge), but Rule 403 balancing was abused — admission was erroneous; error was harmless given strong independent evidence. |
| Cumulative error claim | Gov't: Any individual errors were harmless; cumulatively no prejudice. | García: Combined errors deprived him of fair trial; require new trial. | Court: No cumulative prejudice; convictions affirmed. |
| Sentencing: §3B1.1(c) role enhancement and disparity | Gov't: Record supports enhancement; sentence within Guidelines. | García: No evidence he exercised authority over others; upward role enhancement improper; sentence disparate from codefendants. | Court: Role-enhancement finding clearly erroneous (insufficient proof of supervisory control) — sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing; disparity claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (limits on law-enforcement "overview" testimony)
- United States v. Flores-De-Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (overview testimony risks vouching and impermissible endorsement)
- United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (concerns about government-agent overview testimony and jury weight)
- United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000) (propensity danger of similar prior acts and Rule 403 analysis)
- United States v. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (two-step Rule 404(b) analysis: special relevance then Rule 403)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error standard in criminal cases)
- United States v. Kilmartin, 944 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 2019) (harmless-error evaluation in criminal appeals)
- United States v. Al-Rikabi, 606 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2010) (government burden to prove role-in-offense enhancement by preponderance)
- United States v. Catano, 65 F.3d 219 (1st Cir. 1995) (need for adequate sentencing findings to permit appellate review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (importance of articulating sentencing reasons)