United States v. Monteiro
871 F.3d 99
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Monteiro and accomplices robbed fellow traffickers Stanley and Joshua Gonsalves of ~$225,000; Monteiro kept most proceeds. He was charged with Hobbs Act robbery and related firearm count.
- Afterward Monteiro sold heroin to Joseph Guarneri (50–100 g batches); in early 2013 Guarneri became a DEA informant and cooperated against Monteiro.
- DEA-controlled buys and recorded calls produced evidence linking Monteiro to heroin sales and to coordinating sales with co-defendant Manuel Lopes; police seized heroin envelopes at both residences bearing the same identifying mark.
- A federal jury convicted Monteiro of the drug conspiracy and possession-with-intent counts and of the Hobbs Act robbery (acquitted on the 924(c) count); district court sentenced him to 250 months.
- On appeal Monteiro raised six main claims: improper joinder/severance, insufficiency of evidence on Count 3, admission of prejudicial evidence (including tapes and testimony about stealing DEA money), limits on redirect of a defense witness, aiding-and-abetting jury instructions, and Guidelines enhancements at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of robbery and drug counts (Rule 8) | Government: offenses part of a common scheme; Guarneri ties both crimes; joinder appropriate | Monteiro: crimes two years apart and distinct; should not be joined | Affirmed: generous Rule 8 standard allows joinder because scheme/overlapping evidence and Guarneri connected both enterprises |
| Motion to sever (Rule 14/Fifth Amendment) | N/A (government opposed severance) | Monteiro: wanted to testify on robbery but invoke Fifth on drugs; pretrial proffer requirement to show prejudice violates Fifth | Denied: defendant failed to proffer testimony; precedent permits proffer requirement and court did not err; severance not required |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 3 (aiding and abetting possession w/ intent) | N/A (government relied on aiding-and-abetting theory against Monteiro) | Monteiro: no proof he aided Lopes on or about March 1; jury inconsistent on quantity; inferences too speculative | Affirmed: evidence (recordings, transactions, matching packaging, attempts to arrange sales) sufficient for reasonable jury to find aiding and abetting beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admission of prior/related bad-acts and tapes (Rules 404(b) & 403) | Government: evidence intrinsic to charged conspiracy; tapes probative to link Monteiro to drug deals | Monteiro: testimony that he stole DEA money and inflammatory tapes were unfairly prejudicial and 404(b) barred | Affirmed: evidence was intrinsic (not extrinsic 404(b) evidence) and probative value outweighed prejudice; admission within district court’s discretion |
| Limitation on redirect of defense witness Joshua Gonsalves | N/A | Monteiro: court curtailed redirect that would reinforce Joshua was not victim of May 13 robbery | Harmless error if any: transcript showed Joshua already testified he was not victim; limiting redirect not reversible error given overwhelming evidence |
| Jury instructions on aiding and abetting | N/A | Monteiro: requested alternative wording; later objected to court’s mid-deliberation answer and sought his wording | Affirmed: court’s adoption of circuit pattern instruction and answers to jury were correct; aiding-and-abetting properly explained and could support conviction |
| Sentencing — drug-quantity and leadership enhancements | Government: district court’s preponderance findings supported >1 kg for Guidelines and role enhancement | Monteiro: Alleyne requires jury verdict for facts increasing Guidelines range; role enhancement and quantity findings erroneous | Affirmed: Alleyne does not apply to discretionary Guidelines factfinding; mandatory-minimum quantity was jury-proven; role-in-offense enhancement supported by record and Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Manor, 633 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Boulanger, 444 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (Rule 8 and Rule 14 joinder/severance framework)
- United States v. Meléndez, 301 F.3d 27 (1st Cir.) (joinder analysis)
- United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir.) (presumption in favor of joinder)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (elements of testimonial Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (protections for compelled testimony used to establish Fourth Amendment standing)
- United States v. Alejandro-Montañez, 778 F.3d 352 (1st Cir.) (sufficiency review standard)
- United States v. Negrón-Sostre, 790 F.3d 295 (1st Cir.) (elements of aiding and abetting)
- United States v. Campbell, 732 F.2d 1017 (1st Cir.) (“on or about” date pleading and reasonable variance)
- United States v. Vizcarrondo-Casanova, 763 F.3d 89 (1st Cir.) (inconsistent verdicts doctrine)
- United States v. Villarman-Oviedo, 325 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing intrinsic vs. extrinsic evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Roszkowski, 700 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (Rule 404(b) framework)
- United States v. Mare, 668 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.) (Rule 403 deference to trial judge)
- United States v. Millan, 230 F.3d 431 (1st Cir.) (scope of redirect examination)
- United States v. Catano, 65 F.3d 219 (1st Cir.) (redirect scope reversible only for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Roberson, 459 F.3d 39 (1st Cir.) (answering jury questions mid-deliberation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (jury requirement for facts that increase mandatory minimums)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory after Booker)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process)
- United States v. Ford, 821 F.3d 63 (1st Cir.) (mens rea clarification in aiding-and-abetting instruction)