United States v. Paz-Alvarez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14717

Background

In 2009 Irizarry and Retamar organized maritime cocaine smuggling using vessels Sheymarie and Such Is Life; they commissioned Paz and his assistant Marrero to build sophisticated hidden compartments ("clavos") to conceal large quantities of cocaine.
Paz and Marrero attended planning meetings, built clavos on both boats, and were told the compartments would hold large drug loads; one meeting was recorded by an informant.
Law enforcement later seized the Such Is Life during a sting and discovered sophisticated clavos containing 150 kg of cocaine; Retamar cooperated with the government.
A grand jury indicted Paz and Marrero for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to import cocaine; a jury convicted both and found the conspiracy involved more than 5 kg.
Paz was sentenced using a Guidelines base offense level reflecting >150 kg and received a two-level enhancement for using a "special skill;" Marrero received a reduced Guidelines range but a statutory 120-month mandatory minimum triggered by the jury finding >5 kg.
Both defendants appealed: joint challenges to jury instructions (mens rea for conspiracy and whether drug-quantity finding required proof beyond a reasonable doubt); Paz also challenged sufficiency of the evidence and the special-skill enhancement; Marrero raised an as-applied vagueness challenge, hearsay/Petrozziello issues and variance, and cumulative error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of intent (mens rea) jury instruction for conspiracy	Gov't: instruction correctly required knowing, willful participation and intent that the conspiracy succeed	Paz & Marrero: instruction failed to state explicitly the two-pronged intent (intent to join AND intent to further conspiracy), permitting conviction on knowledge alone	Court: instruction substantially covered the two-pronged intent ("willfully joined" and "specific intent that the conspiracy be successful"); no reversible error
Whether drug-quantity finding was required to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt	Gov't: overall instructions conveyed reasonable-doubt standard and jury returned quantity finding during initial verdict deliberations	Defs: court failed to tie drug-quantity question explicitly to reasonable doubt when reading the verdict form, violating Alleyne/Apprendi	Court: reviewing instructions as a whole, reasonable-doubt standard was sufficiently emphasized and the quantity question was part of the original deliberation; no constitutional error
Sufficiency of evidence that Paz knowingly joined and intended to further the conspiracy	Gov't: meetings, building of multiple clavos for drug-smuggling boats, and secret-keeping conduct show intent to join and further conspiracy	Paz: he was a contractor performing limited work orders, indifferent to success, not a conspirator	Court: circumstantial evidence (planning meetings, sophisticated concealment, guarding secrets) supports a rational jury finding Paz knowingly joined and intended to further the conspiracy; conviction affirmed
Application of U.S.S.G. §3B1.3 (special skill) to Paz	Gov't: Paz's workmanship (carpentry, electrical/hydraulics, custom mechanism) required skills beyond lay public and materially concealed contraband	Paz: construction was limited (covering cavities) and not a "special skill" as meant by the Guidelines	Court: factual finding not clearly erroneous—clavo mechanisms were sophisticated and concealed contraband; two-level enhancement affirmed
Marrero's as-applied vagueness/fair-warning challenge to conspiracy statutes	Gov't: statutes and controlling case law (defining knowing, voluntary participation) provided fair notice	Marrero: building compartments for illegal use did not clearly put him on notice he could be a conspirator	Court: statutes, read with precedent, give fair warning that knowingly providing services with intent to further a drug conspiracy can incur criminal liability; challenge fails
Admission of co-conspirator hearsay and alleged variance/spillover	Gov't: Petrozziello ruling was supported by preponderance evidence of a single conspiracy; contested statement was in furtherance	Marrero: admission included hearsay about unrelated conspiracies and produced prejudicial variance	Court: co-conspirator statement admission was supported; evidence showed a single ongoing conspiracy (common goal, participant overlap, interdependence); no prejudicial variance; objection reviewed for clear error and failed
Cumulative error claim	Gov't: arguments were not properly preserved or developed	Marrero: incorporates multiple motions by reference and alleges cumulative error	Court: incorporation by reference is insufficient; arguments undeveloped and waived; no cumulative-error relief

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Rodríguez-Soler, 773 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2011) (elements of conspiracy explained)
United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (intent-to-join requirement discussion)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element from jury instruction is not structural error)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (review of jury instructions requires assessing reasonable likelihood of misapplication)
United States v. Burgos, 703 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (distinguishing indifference from membership in a conspiracy)
United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014) (instructional error where quantity decision occurred after initial verdict)
United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2012) (Petrozziello standard; preponderance for co-conspirator statements)
United States v. García-Torres, 280 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (peripheral services can support conspiracy liability)