United States v. Ramon Cobena Duenas
891 F.3d 1330
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- At Miami airport, agents found $632,300 in counterfeit $100 bills sewn into luggage carried by Jose Uceda; Uceda agreed to cooperate with Secret Service to recover the money's recipients.
- Uceda arranged an April 11 handoff in Miami; Milton Cabeza (co-conspirator) coordinated and bought airline tickets and a rental car for himself and Ramon Cobena Duenas.
- Between April 9–11, Cabeza and Cobena Duenas exchanged 61 calls (39 on April 11); Cobena Duenas sent a text referring to a “special work.”
- At the restaurant meeting, Cobena Duenas displayed and later delivered $5,000 (courier fee) from his person, told agents to count it, and urged them to hurry; he met the undercover courier alone and was to return counterfeit bills to Cabeza’s car across the street.
- Cobena Duenas was tried and convicted of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and dealing in counterfeit currency (18 U.S.C. § 473); on appeal he argued the government failed to prove he knew the money was counterfeit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Cobena Duenas knew the conspiracy’s unlawful object (counterfeit currency) | Govt: circumstantial evidence (calls, travel, role in transaction, exclusive control of $5,000, texts) supports inference of knowledge | Cobena Duenas: role amounted to mere presence/association; precedent shows presence alone insufficient | The court affirmed: a reasonable juror could infer knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feliciano, 761 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir. 1985) (insufficient evidence where defendant’s knowledge of crime’s object was unclear)
- United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2014) (knowledge is required to convict under 18 U.S.C. § 473)
- United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1985) (prudent smuggler doctrine: entrusting valuable contraband implies the entrusted party’s knowledge)
- United States v. Louis, 861 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2017) (presence at scene and flight alone insufficient to prove knowledge)