United States v. Javier Perez
962 F.3d 420
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- CLCS (Columbia Lil Cycos), an 18th Street clique in Westlake, LA, ran a narcotics and extortion enterprise supervised by incarcerated Eme leaders; many co‑conspirators cooperated with the government.
- In Sept. 2007 a stray bullet killed 21‑day‑old Luis Angel Garcia; thereafter CLCS members plotted retaliation; Giovanni Macedo was kidnapped in LA and nearly killed in Mexico by Murillo and Perez but survived and testified.
- A fourth superseding federal indictment charged numerous RICO, VICAR, narcotics, kidnapping, murder, and related counts; four defendants (Eduardo Hernandez, Leonidas Iraheta, Vladimir Iraheta, Javier Perez) were tried together in 2012.
- Jury convicted Hernandez and the Iraheta brothers of RICO and narcotics conspiracy; convicted Perez of RICO and several VICAR/kidnap counts but acquitted or hung on others; all four received life sentences (Vladimir does not contest sentence).
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed convictions for Hernandez, Leonidas, and Vladimir; affirmed in part and reversed in part for Perez (vacating Count 18, VICAR attempted murder), vacated/resentenced Perez on remand; it resolved evidentiary, instruction, sufficiency, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access to sealed third‑party in‑camera filing / Brady | United States defended non‑disclosure; filing not Brady material | Hernandez & Leonidas sought access for impeachment material | Denial of counsel access not abuse of discretion; filing contained no Brady material; seal upheld |
| Rule 701—law‑enforcement lay testimony vs expert testimony | Officers’ opinions were based on direct investigative perceptions and thus admissible lay testimony | Defendants: testimony invaded expert terrain and violated Rule 701 | District court properly policed line; most testimony admissible; any errors were not plain or were harmless; convictions stand |
| VICAR extraterritorial jury instruction | Government argued VICAR can reach foreign conduct tied to enterprise | Perez: instruction permitting conviction without U.S. nexus misstated law and violated due process | Instruction was erroneous (VICAR reaches extraterritorial acts only if predicate allows it); error constitutional; harmless beyond reasonable doubt as to Count 16 (conspiracy to murder) but not as to Count 18 (attempted murder) — Count 18 vacated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for narcotics and conspiracy convictions | Government: abundant testimony (cooperators, agents) showed enterprise, roles, and Perez’s joining of conspiracy | Defendants contested credibility of cooperators and argued insufficient proof of participation or joining in U.S. | Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed (except Perez Count 18) |
| Firearm enhancement at sentencing (Hernandez) | Government: enhancement justified by nexus to enterprise and weapons evidence | Hernandez: no proof he possessed or exercised dominion/control over any firearm related to drug offense | Application to Hernandez was error (lack of nexus/possession) but harmless because Guidelines range and life sentence unchanged; enhancement properly applied to Leonidas |
| Other sentencing challenges (drug‑weight calc, threat enhancement, obstruction/manager role, Rule 32) | Government: district court correctly used multiplier method, enhancements, and addressed §3553(a) | Defendants: misapplied quantities, enhancements, Rule 32 not followed, Fifth/Sixth Amendment limits on judicial fact‑finding | Court’s drug weight, threat, obstruction, managerial‑role findings, and §3553(a) explanation upheld; Rule 32 claim fails (no disputed factual PSR item); constitutional challenge rejected as sentence did not exceed statutory maxima |
Key Cases Cited
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (two‑step extraterritoriality test and limits on statute applying abroad)
- United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2014) (Rule 701 principles for law‑enforcement lay testimony)
- United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2007) (permitting officers to interpret ambiguous statements based on investigation)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless‑error analysis when an element is omitted or instruction erroneous)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional errors subject to harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- United States v. Sleugh, 896 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing denial of unsealing requests)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (effect of incorrect Guidelines range on likelihood of different outcome)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find facts that increase statutory maximum)