United States v. Laureano-Perez, 797 F.3d 45

Background

Defendants Juan Laureano-Pérez, Cummings, and Christopher Laureano-Pérez were part of a large drug organization in the Housing Project in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, distributing heroin, crack, powder cocaine, and marijuana.
Christopher was the alleged leader; Juan was an enforcer; Cummings was also an enforcer who sometimes delivered drugs; all carried firearms in connection with the conspiracy.
Initial indictment in May 2012 and a superseding indictment in November 2012 charged multiple narcotics and weapon offenses, including conspiracy counts against numerous co-conspirators.
Trial began June 5, 2013; all three were convicted on all counts; Juan and Christopher received life sentences; Cummings received 480 months; Christopher challenged his sentence on appeal.
Pretrial issues included Cummings's motion to retain Armenteros as counsel amid a third-party funding conflict, which the district court disqualified; the district court also handled Speedy Trial Act calculations.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the convictions for all defendants and Cummings's sentence, but vacated Christopher's sentence and remanded for individual sentencing on each count.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the attorney disqualification for conflict of interest an abuse of discretion?	Cummings contends conflict justified disqualification and failure to allow waiver prejudiced him.	Court improperly disqualified counsel, violating Sixth Amendment right to chosen counsel; waiver ineffective.	No abuse of discretion; disqualification affirmed.
Did the Speedy Trial Act run afoul in delaying the proceedings so charges could be included in a superseding indictment?	Act was violated by delays before the superseding indictment, invalidating prior charges.	Any delays were properly excludable; remaining time did not exceed 70 days.	Act not violated; excludable time valid, total nonexcludable days within limits.
Are Counts Five, Two, and Seven of the superseding indictment defective for notice or DePierre-based interpretation of cocaine base?	Count Five's machinegun notice; Counts Two/Seven impermissibly rely on 'crack' cocaine after DePierre.	Indictment failed to charge machinegun knowledge; DePierre undermines ‘cocaine base’ scope.	Count Five adequate; Counts Two/Seven properly charged cocaine base; DePierre discussed and distinguished.
Was admissible co-conspirator recorded communications and other evidence properly admitted without unduly prejudicing defendants?	Evidence including Diaz, Rivas, Vázquez, and two MDC calls supported conspiracy and leadership.	Evidence was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and some testimony was improper overview.	Evidence admitted; any errors were harmless; overall probative value outweighed prejudice.
Did partial courtroom closures and courtroom conduct violate Christopher's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial?	Closure needed to protect witness; wife/children removal justified to prevent intimidation.	Closure was broader than necessary and discriminated against defendant; violated public trial rights.	Partial closures satisfied due process; no Sixth Amendment violation; Christopher's wife properly excluded; issue as to children waived.

Key Cases Cited

Lanoue v. United States, 137 F.3d 656 (1st Cir. 1998) (conflict-of-interest disqualification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (Sixth Amendment conflict waivers and protection of effective counsel)
Urutyan v. United States, 564 F.3d 679 (4th Cir. 2009) (conflict-of-interest findings when third party funds defense)
Elwell v. United States, 984 F.2d 1289 (1st Cir. 1993) (ongoing conspiracy evidence and evidentiary standards)
Ciresi v. United States, 697 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (co-conspirator statements and hearsay challenges; plain error review)
Azubike I, 504 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2007) (knowledge and foreseeability in drug-conspiracy cases)
Azubike II, 564 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2009) (knowledge of weapons and conspiracy leadership context)
DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2231 (U.S. 2011) (definition of cocaine base and DePierre interpretation)