United States v. Rodriguez-Milian
820 F.3d 26
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Beginning in 2005, a drug ring led by "Junior Cápsula" smuggled cocaine into Puerto Rico; by 2009 the group sought to use aircraft for shipments.
- Carlos E. Rodríguez‑Milián purchased a small plane, transported a ring leader to the Dominican Republic, and on August 22, 2009 flew with coconspirator Jeffrey Núñez to Puerto Rico with at least 50 kg of cocaine.
- At Arecibo Airport the plane landed at an unauthorized port of entry; others unloaded bags of cocaine into a waiting car while Rodríguez‑Milián distracted an airport guard and misled a customs agent; Rodríguez‑Milián and Núñez then departed before customs arrived.
- A jury convicted Rodríguez‑Milián of conspiracy to import 5+ kg of cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 963); he was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment and appealed.
- On appeal the First Circuit addressed insufficiency of the evidence, alleged variance, admission of coconspirator statements, sentencing challenges (including disparity with Núñez), and a district‑court order granting a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 while appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (intent to join conspiracy) | Government: circumstantial proof (purchase/flight/actions/ lies) supports knowing participation | Rodríguez‑Milián: mere presence; no proof he knew bags contained cocaine | Court: Conviction upheld; jury could infer intent and knowledge from conduct and context |
| Prejudicial variance between indictment and proof | Government: proved the narrower conspiracy charged against Rodríguez‑Milián | Rodríguez‑Milián: government proved only broader conspiracy, not the charged narrower one | Court: No variance; evidence matched charged conspiracy and any overlap caused no prejudice |
| Admission of coconspirator statements (Rule 801(d)(2)(E) / Petrozziello procedure) | Government: statements admissible where conspiracy and membership shown by preponderance | Rodríguez‑Milián: trial court failed to make Petrozziello finding; some statements inadmissible hearsay | Court: Plain‑error review fails; ample independent evidence established conspiracy and statements were in furtherance |
| Sentencing challenges (failure to explain disparity; substantive unreasonableness) | Rodríguez‑Milián: sentence longer than Núñez and court didn't explain disparity | Government: Núñez pleaded guilty; not similarly situated; appellant furnished and flew plane; sentence within guideline range | Court: No plain or substantive error; 235 months at low end of guideline range justified; disparity explained by differences in pleas and roles. Also: district court's interim order reducing sentence under Amendment 782 was invalid while appeal pending, so remand for reconsideration when jurisdiction returns |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maldonado‑García, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard for viewing trial‑record facts in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency challenges not preserved below)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (preponderance standard for admitting coconspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
- United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977) (procedure for making pretrial/predictive determinations of coconspirator statements' admissibility)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (elements of conspiracy and proof by circumstantial evidence)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (instruction on how district courts must apply amended Guidelines ranges on §3582(c)(2) resentencing)