United States v. Rodríguez-Milián, 820 F.3d 26

From 2005–2009 a Dominican Republic–Puerto Rico drug ring led by “Junior Cápsula” smuggled cocaine; in 2009 the ring shifted to air transport and cash flights.
Carlos E. Rodríguez‑Milián purchased and piloted a small aircraft used in the scheme, transported a ring leader to the Dominican Republic, and on August 22, 2009 flew with Jeffrey Núñez on a flight that delivered at least 50 kg of cocaine to Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
At Arecibo, others unloaded bags of cocaine into a waiting car while Rodríguez distracted airport personnel, lied about the landing, and departed before customs arrived.
A federal indictment charged Rodríguez in a narrower conspiracy count to import five or more kilograms of cocaine; he was convicted at trial and sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Rodríguez (with new counsel) raised sufficiency, prejudicial‑variance, various trial‑evidence (coconspirator statements) and sentencing claims; the district court had attempted a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 while the case was on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Gov’t proved beyond reasonable doubt Rodríguez intended to join and further the drug‑smuggling conspiracy	Rodríguez contends he was merely present and did not know bags contained cocaine	Conviction affirmed; jury reasonably inferred intent and knowledge from purchase/use of plane, transport, lies, and cover‑up conduct
Prejudicial variance between indictment and proof	Gov’t charged a specific August 22 conspiracy	Rodríguez claims government proved only the broader ring conspiracy	No variance; evidence directly supported the charged narrower conspiracy; no prejudice
Admissibility of coconspirator statements (Petrozziello/Rule 801(d)(2)(E))	Statements were admissible as made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy	Rodríguez argues failure to make Petrozziello findings and admission was improper	No plain error: defendant failed to preserve objections; record sufficiently showed conspiracy and statements in furtherance
Sentencing disparity & procedural explanation	Rodríguez argues sentence (235 mo.) excessive versus codefendant Núñez (120 mo.) and court failed to explain disparity	Gov’t/court note Núñez pled guilty and admitted responsibility; Rodríguez went to trial and supplied/flew the aircraft; court referenced personal history and sentencing goals	Sentence affirmed as procedurally and substantively reasonable; disparity justified by differing conduct and plea outcomes

Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (conspirator‑statement admissibility requires proof of conspiracy involving declarant and defendant)
Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (elements and intent required for conspiracy)
Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (procedure for Petrozziello determinations)
Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (trial‑court gatekeeping for coconspirator statements)
Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (preservation/waiver principles on appeal)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (procedure for §3582(c)(2) sentence reductions and substituting amended Guidelines range)
Cardoza, 790 F.3d 247 (district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce sentence while case on appeal)
Maldonado‑Rios, 790 F.3d 62 (same jurisdictional rule on §3582 reductions pending appeal)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural/substantive reasonableness framework for sentence review)
Burgos, 703 F.3d 1 (defendant must intend to join conspiracy and effectuate its objectives)