United States v. Roberth Rojas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1396
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Four Colombian defendants (Cabalcante, Piñeda, Moya, Rojas) tried after a multi-defendant indictment alleging a conspiracy to import large quantities of cocaine into the U.S.; jury convicted all on various counts under 21 U.S.C. §§ 959, 960 and § 963 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
- Major transactions at trial: the December 2007 HP1607 airplane deal (brokered by Cabalcante; plane destroyed before cocaine left Colombia) and several 2008 shipments tied to Rojas and others (one truck seizure; one later seizure of a parked truck).
- Evidence included wiretapped Colombian conversations, cooperating coconspirator testimony, DEA agent and law-enforcement expert testimony about routes, pricing (U.S. dollar payments), and typical trafficking patterns to the U.S.–Mexico border.
- Defendants raised multiple appeals: extraterritorial application and constitutionality of §§ 959/963; venue (Guantanamo Bay stop); suppression of Colombian wiretaps (Fourth Amendment/joint‑venture); sufficiency of evidence as to intent to import to the U.S.; and several sentencing challenges.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in all respects, upholding extraterritorial application, rejecting suppression and venue challenges, finding sufficient evidence of intent/knowledge, and affirming sentence calculations and enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraterritoriality and constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959 & 963 | Govt: statutes apply extraterritorially and are constitutional under Commerce/treaty powers | Cabalcante/Piñeda: statutes exceed Congress’s power and do not reach extraterritorial acts | Statutes valid under Commerce/treaty powers; extraterritoriality overcome by statutory text and precedent; application consistent with international‑law principles (protective/territorial) and due process. |
| Venue (stop at Guantanamo Bay before transfer to Texas) | Govt: ‘‘enter the United States’’ for §959(c) refers to point of judicial entry (first U.S. judicial district entered) | Cabalcante/Rojas/Moya: Guantanamo Bay is part of the United States so venue lies only in D.C. | ‘‘United States’’ for §959(c) construed as within a judicial district; no federal district exists at Guantanamo Bay, so venue in Eastern District of Texas was proper. |
| Suppression of Colombian wiretaps (Fourth Amendment/joint‑venture) | Defendants: Colombian taps were part of joint venture with DEA so Fourth Amendment applies and evidence must be suppressed | Govt: taps were Colombian actions; no DEA participation; defendants are foreign non‑residents without significant U.S. ties | Verdugo‑Urquidez controls for nonresident aliens; no Fourth Amendment protection here and no joint‑venture proven; suppression denied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intent/knowledge to import to U.S. | Defendants: evidence only shows plans within Latin America; cocaine never reached the U.S. so no proof of intent to import to U.S. | Govt: expert testimony, pricing in U.S. dollars, routing through Central America/Mexico, coconspirator admissions show intended U.S. destination | Viewing evidence in Government’s favor, a rational jury could infer defendants intended or knew drugs were destined for the U.S.; convictions upheld. |
| Admission of extrinsic act (Avante seizure) under Rule 404(b) | Cabalcante: post‑indictment/other‑act evidence prejudicial and inadmissible | Govt: evidence shows similar conduct and intent, probative of intent to import to U.S. | Court admitted as intrinsic/404(b) similar‑act evidence; probative value on intent outweighed prejudice. |
| Sentencing enhancements (special skill, pilot, drug quantity) | Defendants challenged specific enhancements and quantity attributions | Govt: enhancements supported by trial record and PSR; quantity attributable via relevant conduct/estimates | Enhancements and drug‑quantity findings supported (clear error/ plain error standards applied appropriately); sentences reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., 569 U.S. 108 (overcoming presumption against extraterritoriality requires clear indication)
- United States v. Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386 (5th Cir.) (extraterritorial application and protective/territorial principles; due‑process nexus)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review framework)
- United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (Fourth Amendment does not apply to nonresident aliens lacking significant voluntary U.S. contacts)
- United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867 (5th Cir.) (conspiracy mens rea can be proven circumstantially)
- United States v. Perez‑Herrera, 610 F.2d 289 (5th Cir.) (Comprehensive Drug Act as Commerce Clause exercise; extraterritorial import attempt reaches U.S.)