United States v. Nieves-Canales, 799 F.3d 134

Background

This appeal arises from a multi-defendant federal prosecution of a drug-trafficking conspiracy led by "Alfalfa" operating in multiple Puerto Rico housing projects; defendants Galán, Lanza, and Nieves were convicted after an 18-day jury trial and sentenced to lengthy terms.
Government proof included physical evidence (e.g., weapons, drug packaging, cash, a police scanner), extensive surveillance, and testimony from cooperating co-conspirators who tied each defendant to roles as owners, sellers, runners, or enforcers.
Galán’s apartment was searched pursuant to a warrant based on an affidavit by Agent Cedeño, who described observations (and inferences) tying Galán to drug activity at El Prado; items seized there were used at trial.
Defendants raised numerous claims on appeal; the court focused on five: (1) Franks challenge to Galán’s search warrant affidavit; (2) alleged judicial bias/intervention at trial; (3) alleged errors in jury instructions (including Alleyne-related argument); (4) sufficiency of the evidence and prejudicial variance for Nieves; and (5) Alleyne/Guidelines drug-quantity findings at sentencing.
The First Circuit affirmed on all counts, upholding the magistrate and district court credibility findings, rejecting claims of reversible judicial bias or prejudicial jury-charge error, finding sufficient evidence against Nieves, and ruling no Alleyne violation occurred with respect to Guidelines-based findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant (Franks)	Government: affidavit contained accurate observations and reasonable inferences supporting probable cause.	Galán: Cedeño knowingly/ recklessly misstated he saw defendants "enter/exit" apartment when the door was obstructed; suppression warranted.	No Franks violation: magistrate credibility findings upheld; officer made reasonable inference and no intentional falsehood shown.
Judicial conduct at trial	Government: judge acted within trial-governing role to manage proceedings.	Lanza/Galán: judge intervened repeatedly favoring prosecution and berated defense counsel, creating bias.	No reversible bias or prejudice: interventions largely justified by courtroom management, many remarks outside jury presence, and no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Jury instructions (conspiracy definition; Alleyne notice)	Government: instructions and special verdicts properly informed jury on conspiracy and drug-quantity findings.	Lanza/Galán: omitted language on conspiracy limiting inference; Galán: judge told jury sentencing is sole court function, alleged Alleyne error.	No plain error: omission harmless in context of full instructions; jury made drug-quantity findings beyond a reasonable doubt and special verdict form preserved Alleyne requirements.
Sufficiency and prejudicial variance (Nieves)	Government: testimony and physical evidence sufficiently tied Nieves to the conspiracy and to attributable drug quantities.	Nieves: evidence was minimal, general, and inconsistent; proof showed different drug/unit than indictment — prejudicial variance.	Conviction affirmed: co-conspirator testimony and physical evidence sufficient; variance was not material or prejudicial because charge was a broad conspiracy and notice was adequate.
Sentencing drug-quantity findings / Alleyne (Nieves)	Government: judge may rely on jury’s individualized special-verdict drug-quantity findings for Guidelines calculation.	Nieves: district court’s use of jury/conspiracy drug-quantity findings increased sentence in a way Alleyne forbids.	No Alleyne error: Guidelines factfinding that does not trigger a statutory mandatory minimum is permissible; jury had made individualized findings via special verdict form.

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes procedure to challenge warrant affidavit veracity)
United States v. Tzannos, 460 F.3d 128 (standard of review for Franks hearing determinations)
United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74 (recklessness inference in Franks context)
United States v. Castillo, 287 F.3d 21 (material omission as basis for Franks challenge)
United States v. D'Andrea, 648 F.3d 1 (upholding denial of Franks where inference was reasonable)
Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (judge’s authority to govern trial proceedings)
Logue v. Dore, 103 F.3d 1040 (judge’s active role in trial management)
United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (judicial intervention and prejudice framework)
United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 105 (definition of "serious prejudice" from judicial conduct)
United States v. Pennue, 770 F.3d 985 (assessing omitted jury instruction in context)
United States v. Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d 179 (use of jury’s individualized drug-quantity findings at sentencing)
United States v. Ramírez-Negrón, 751 F.3d 42 (Alleyne does not bar Guidelines factfinding that does not impose mandatory minimum)
United States v. Rodríguez, 525 F.3d 85 (prejudicial variance and notice analysis)