United States v. Guevara
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1924
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Guevara was convicted on drug charges stemming from a reverse sting in Massachusetts.
- Informant Lecaros-Velasquez, a paid government informant in Peru, met Guevara in Peru and discussed drugs indirectly via coded language.
- A second informant, Pedro, was another government agent; Victor Jaramillo-Arezia was Guevara's purported partner.
- Guevara and Victor discussed a cocaine importation scheme, including a quoted price of $24,000 per kilogram and handling logistics.
- DEA agents executed a reverse sting in February 2009, culminating in a setup at a Home Depot where cash and bags of ‘cocaine’ were observed during surveillance.
- Guevara, Lopera, and Victor were arrested; all faced conspiracy and attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conspiracy instruction properly defined agreement | Guevara argues insufficient to show meeting of minds. | Guevara contends instruction allowed convinction on negotiatons alone. | Conspiracy instruction adequate; negotiations distinguished from agreement. |
| Withdrawal as a defense to conspiracy | Guevara asserts withdrawal instruction required. | Withdrawal would negate conspiracy liability. | Withdrawal instruction not required; not a valid defense to conspiracy here. |
| Entitlement to an entrapment instruction | Guevara argues entrapment defense should have been given sua sponte. | Government overreaching inducement occurred; entrapment should apply. | No plain error; record lacks inducement and predisposition showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sampson, 486 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (instructions need not be in exact form; substantial coverage ok)
- United States v. Beltran, 761 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985) (form of instruction; not reversible if covered adequately)
- United States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1990) (refusal to adopt proposed language not reversible when covered)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for review of jury instruction abuses)
- United States v. Jadlowe, 628 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (instruction adequacy and avoiding confusion)
- United States v. Ramos-Paulino, 488 F.3d 459 (1st Cir. 2007) (mere solicitation or creation of opportunities not entrapment)
- United States v. Dávila-Nieves, 670 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (entrapment framework; inducement and predisposition requirements)
- United States v. Vasco, 564 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (inducement elements and government overreaching)
- United States v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955 (1st Cir. 1994) (non-criminal motivation not sufficient inducement)
- United States v. Juodakis, 834 F.2d 1099 (1st Cir. 1987) (withdrawal requires affirmative steps to disavow conspiratorial goals)