United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60

Background

November 29, 2014 armed robbery of Banco Popular in Bayamón, Puerto Rico; robbers used construction disguises, dye packs, and planted fake bombs as distractions.
José Padilla‑Galarza (appellant) was alleged mastermind: recruited crew, planned scheme, supplied disguises; evidence included surveillance, receipts, cell‑tower data, and items seized from his home.
Indicted on five counts (conspiracy, armed bank robbery, Hobbs Act counts, and §924(c)); codefendant Hernández made incriminating statements to FBI; several coconspirators cooperated and testified.
Trial was turbulent: appellant removed for disruptive conduct, returned briefly and outburst before jury; mistrial motion denied; jury convicted on all counts; sentence aggregated to 228 months and restitution of $64,000.
Appellant appealed raising numerous claims (severance/Bruton, protective orders/Jencks access, evidentiary rulings, instructional errors, prosecutorial vouching, sentencing issues, restitution, and ineffective‑assistance claims).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance / Bruton redaction	Gov't: will elicit Hernández statements via agent testimony with redactions to avoid naming Padilla	Padilla: redaction still permitted jury to infer he was the unnamed person; severance required	Denied — Padilla waived Bruton challenge by counsel's assent; any inferential link was non‑Bruton (Richardson standard)
Protective order re Jencks materials	Gov't: good cause due to witness safety concerns; allow counsel review but not leave copies with inmate	Padilla: order prevented meaningful participation in defense	Affirmed — court had good cause; defense had pretrial access and opportunity to review; no Sixth Amendment violation
Production of agent notes (Jencks)	Padilla: government withheld agent interview notes of cooperating witness	Gov't: no such notes exist	Denied — district court investigated, credited agent testimony that no notes existed; no abuse of discretion
Mistrial for courtroom outburst	Padilla: outburst prejudiced jury and amounted to admission; mistrial required	Gov't: defendant caused disruption; court's cure (instruction) sufficient	Denied — defendant's misconduct caused the incident; prompt, clear curative instruction obviated mistrial; abuse of discretion not shown
Prosecutorial / judicial vouching	Padilla: prosecutor/judge vouched for cooperator's credibility	Gov't: statements merely referenced plea agreement/cooperator status in evidence	Plain‑error review failed — comments were permissible restatement of record and balanced judicial caution
Instruction on defendant's credibility	Padilla: instruction treated his testimony like any interested witness and unfairly highlighted motive to lie	Gov't: instruction proper and customary	No plain error — instruction consistent with precedent and was not egregiously phrased
Omitted limiting instruction for Hernández confession	Padilla: court should have instructed jury that Hernández's confession not to be used against Padilla	Gov't: no request made at trial; omission harmless given strong independent evidence	Plain error found (failure to instruct was error) but harmless — overwhelming evidence made outcome unaffected
Cumulative error	Padilla: aggregation of alleged errors requires reversal	Gov't: errors are insubstantial/harmless	Denied — only one non‑prejudicial error existed; cumulative doctrine inapplicable
Sentencing — concurrency with separate sentence (relevant conduct)	Padilla: earlier ammunition conviction arose from same course of conduct and warranted concurrent sentences	Gov't: not raised at sentencing; defendant waived argument	Denied — appellant knowingly waived relevant‑conduct argument at sentencing
Sentencing — Dean (consideration of mandatory minimum)	Padilla: court should have reduced other counts because §924(c) mandatory minimum already applied	Gov't: sentencing court has discretion; relied on §3553(a) factors	Denied — court properly exercised discretion not to discount under Dean; no error shown
Sentencing — hearsay evidence of institutional praise	Padilla: court erred by excluding evaluator’s report about BOP praise	Gov't: court found report unreliable double‑hearsay	Denied — court acted within discretion to exclude as insufficiently trustworthy for sentencing
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Padilla: 228 months is effectively life and excessive	Gov't: sentence justified by role, record, danger, and §3553(a) factors	Denied — sentence within Guidelines and supported by plausible, defensible rationale
Restitution amount ($64,000)	Padilla: amount exceeded actual loss because some money recovered/damaged and FDIC insurance could cover loss	Gov't: victim loss proven; insurance not a basis for offset under MVRA	Affirmed — government proved loss; damaged/destroyed money not offset; FDIC compensation not deductible
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Padilla: trial counsel Carrillo was ineffective	Gov't: claim not squarely raised below; record undeveloped	Dismissed without prejudice — procedural default; claim must be raised in §2255 unless record is fully developed (it is not)

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (bars admission of non‑testifying codefendant’s confession that directly incriminates defendant)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction can cure Bruton problem if it eliminates direct reference)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (improper or clumsy redaction may still violate Bruton)
Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (sentencing court may consider a mandatory minimum on one count when sentencing other counts)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of known right)
Sepulveda v. United States, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (cumulative‑error doctrine framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)