United States v. Miguel Zelaya
908 F.3d 920
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Four MS-13 members (Zelaya, Ordonez-Vega, Sosa, Gavidia) were tried and convicted of participating in a RICO conspiracy; Zelaya, Ordonez-Vega, and Sosa were also convicted under VICAR (18 U.S.C. § 1959) and § 924 for specific shootings.
- Evidence included expert testimony on MS-13’s national structure and local activity, cooperating witnesses who tied each appellant to gang membership and to specific violent incidents, ballistics and a confession tying Zelaya to a murder, and eyewitness testimony tying Ordonez-Vega to a separate murder.
- Sosa shot into a car after a bar dispute (no fatalities); evidence included his retrieval of an assault rifle and an associate’s post-shooting flight from town.
- Gavidia participated in multiple gang-related altercations, aided others in firearms-related incidents, and engaged in drug sales and extortion for his clique.
- District court denied motions to sever, motions for acquittal, and mistrial requests; Gavidia received a below-guidelines 216-month sentence and appealed his conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO convictions (Zelaya, Gavidia) | Gov: Expert and cooperating-witness testimony established MS-13 as an enterprise and each defendant’s participation in multiple racketeering acts | Zelaya/Gavidia: Evidence insufficient to prove enterprise or their agreement to commit multiple racketeering acts | Affirmed: Substantial evidence supported existence of enterprise and defendants’ membership and overt acts |
| Sufficiency of evidence for VICAR and §924 (Zelaya, Ordonez-Vega, Sosa) | Gov: Circumstances and membership permit inference that killings/shooting were to maintain/increase position in enterprise | Defendants: Insufficient proof that violent acts were committed to maintain/increase position in MS-13 | Affirmed for Zelaya and Ordonez-Vega; affirmed for Sosa by majority (concurrence/dissent: judge Floyd would reverse Sosa) |
| Admission of prior gang-related encounters (Ordonez-Vega) | Gov: Prior NY police testimony shows membership, a substantive element of RICO/VICAR | Ordonez-Vega: Testimony is improper 404(b) "bad acts" evidence | Affirmed: Evidence admitted to prove element (membership), not subject to Rule 404(b) exclusion |
| Severance / mistrial requests (Sosa, Gavidia) | Sosa/Gavidia: Joint trial caused prejudice because of differing culpability and spillover of uncharged acts | Gov: Joint trial appropriate; limiting instructions and focused presentation avoided prejudice | Affirmed: No clear prejudice shown; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Sentence reasonableness (Gavidia) | Gavidia: Sentence excessive; challenges guideline calculations and role adjustment | Gov: Below-guidelines variance supported by §3553(a) factors; guidelines properly applied | Affirmed: 216-month sentence reasonable and procedurally sound |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616 (4th Cir.) (RICO elements and interstate-commerce sufficiency)
- United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (no managerial role required for RICO liability)
- United States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d 234 (4th Cir.) (admissibility of gang-expert testimony; MS-13 as racketeering enterprise)
- United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997 (4th Cir.) (VICAR elements, including purpose element)
- United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (4th Cir.) (VICAR: acts can further enterprise even if private motive predominates)
- United States v. Umana, 750 F.3d 320 (4th Cir.) (VICAR purpose satisfied where defendant boasted to fellow gang members)
- United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358 (4th Cir.) (standard for severance; clear prejudice required)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.) (standard and presumption of reasonableness for appellate review of sentences)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joinder and severance principles; prejudice standard)