United States v. Adorno-Molina, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Adorno-Molina, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1065

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

MARVA ADORNO- MOLI NA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J uan Pr ez- Gi mnez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Sel ya, and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Raymond L. Sanchez Macei r a f or appel l ant .J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney,

wi t h whomRosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, andNel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 19, 2014


2/21

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Mar va Ador no- Mol i na

( "Ador no" ) was convi ct ed on dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy and money

l aunder i ng char ges r el at ed t o her i nvol vement i n a wi de- r angi ng

dr ug t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on l ed by Angel Ayal a- Vazquez ( "Ayal a" ) .

Ador no chal l enges her dr ug conspi r acy convi ct i on on suf f i ci ency

gr ounds. She al so ar gues t hat her money l aunder i ng convi ct i on

shoul d be vacat ed pur suant t o Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 553 U. S. 507

( 2008) , because t he government f ai l ed t o pr ove that t he moni es

l aunder ed wer e "net pr of i t s" of dr ug- t r af f i cki ng, not mer el y "gr oss

r evenues. " Addi t i onal l y, she cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed when i t gave a wi l l f ul bl i ndness i nst r uct i on t o t he j ur y, and

when i t r el i ed on t he money l aunder i ng pr oceeds t o est abl i sh a base

of f ense l evel at sent enci ng. We r ej ect Ador no' s ar gument s and

af f i r m t he convi ct i ons and sent ence.

I.

Because Ador no' s appeal f ol l ows t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng of

gui l t , and she chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence, we vi ew

t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . Uni t ed

St at es v. Rodr guez, 731 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Ayal a was t he l eader of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on

( "DTO") usi ng as i t s base t he J ose Cel so Bar bosa Publ i c Housi ng

Proj ect and t he Si err a Li nda Publ i c Housi ng Proj ect i n Bayamn,

-2-


3/21

Puer t o Ri co. 1 Ayal a' s DTO r equi r ed many vehi cl es t o t r anspor t

dr ugs and f i r ear ms, secur e pr oceeds f r om dr ug sal es, and el ude

aut hor i t i es. Al ber t o Mel ndez- Sez ( "Mel ndez" ) was i n char ge of

pr ocur i ng vehi cl es f or Ayal a' s DTO.

I n 2007, Adorno was a f i nanci ng manager f or Bel l a

I nt ernat i onal ' s Honda and Acur a deal ershi p on Kennedy Avenue i n San

J uan, Puer t o Ri co. Dur i ng her t i me at Bel l a I nter nat i onal , Ador no

bef r i ended Mel ndez and ass i st ed hi mwi t h pr ocur i ng many vehi cl es.

Mel ndez and Adorno woul d use " st r aw owners" t o conceal t he f act

t hat t he vehi cl es were bei ng pur chased f or Ayal a' s DTO. Adorno and

Mel ndez woul d r ecrui t pr ospect i ve st r aw owners by seeki ng out

i ndi vi dual s i n need of ext r a money. They woul d t el l t he st r aw

owner s t hat pr of essi onal s wi t h bad cr edi t r equi r ed assi st ance

pur chasi ng vehi cl es. Adorno and Mel ndez pai d t he st r aw owners

$2, 000 t o $5, 000 per vehi cl e once they si gned t he pur chase

document s and became the regi st ered owner of a vehi cl e.

For exampl e, one st r aw owner , Mar y Soto, t est i f i ed t hat

Ador no convi nced her t o act as a st r aw owner f or f i ve vehi cl es f r om

J ul y t o Sept ember 2007 by usi ng t he prof ess i onal s wi t h bad cr edi t

1 Ayal a was convi ct ed of mul t i pl e char ges r el at i ng t o hi sl eader shi p of t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on and i s ser vi ng al i f e sent ence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Vazquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 6( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-3-


4/21

r at i onal e. I n exchange f or si gni ng t he pur chase document s,

Mel ndez pai d Soto $4, 000 t o $5, 000 per vehi cl e.

Al t hough t he car s wer e t echni cal l y t i t l ed i n t he st r aw

owners' names, t hey never dr ove t he cars. I nst ead, Mel ndez or

i ndi vi dual s who wor ked wi t h hi mwoul d pi ck up t he vehi cl es di r ect l y

f r om t he deal er shi p l ot . Mel ndez and Ador no al so pai d f or al l

vehi cl e- r el at ed expenses, i ncl udi ng t he down payment , mont hl y l oan

payment s, and i nsur ance.

Mel ndez and Ador no pr ocur ed car s f r om bot h Bel l a

I nt er nat i onal and ot her deal er shi ps i n Puer t o Ri co. At Bel l a

I nt er nat i onal , t hey usual l y wor ked wi t h t he same sal esper son, Lui s

Mar t nez. Mart nez t est i f i ed t hat whenever Mel ndez want ed t o

pur chase a vehi cl e, t he t r ansact i on was "ver y easy" and was

"squared away" by Adorno and Mel ndez ahead of t i me. Al l Mar t nez

had t o do was f i nd t he r equest ed vehi cl e f r om t he deal er shi p l ot .

I nst ead of del i ver i ng t he vehi cl e t o the st r aw owner who si gned t he

pur chase document s, Mar t nez woul d gi ve t he car di r ect l y to

Mel ndez.

Mel ndez woul d vi si t Ador no at Bel l a I nt er nat i onal at

l east t hr ee t i mes per week. Ador no l i ked t o conduct busi ness wi t h

Mel ndez i n pr i vate. Whenever t hey woul d exchange money i n her

of f i ce, Ador no woul d ask Mar t nez t o l eave t hem al one.

Never t hel ess, at t i mes, Mar t nez saw Mel ndez del i ver cash to

Ador no, ei t her f r om hi s pocket s or i n a paper bag.

-4-


5/21

Top management at Bel l a I nter nat i onal became concer ned

about Ador no' s busi ness pr act i ces. The account s r ecei vabl e f or

many of her cl i ent s were not pai d on t i me, and many payment s were

mor e t han 30 days l at e. Bel l a I nt er nat i onal had di f f i cul t y when i t

t r i ed t o col l ect on t hose account s because t he document at i on

compl eted by Adorno cont ai ned i naccur ate i nf ormat i on. Her

super vi sor , J os Col on Ayal a, i nvest i gat ed her sal es and di scover ed

t hat many of Ador no and Mar t nez' s cl i ent s woul d pur chase mul t i pl e

car s i n a br i ef one- t o- t wo mont h per i od as st r aw owner s f or ot her

i ndi vi dual s. As a r esul t of t he i nvest i gat i on, Bel l a I nt er nat i onal

f i r ed bot h Ador no and Mar t nez i n Oct ober 2007. Af t er her

di smi ssal f r om Bel l a I nt er nat i onal , Ador no cont i nued t o hel p

Mel ndez pr ocur e car s f r om ot her deal er shi ps. For exampl e, i n

December 2007, she hel ped st r aw owner Agust n Trevi o pur chase f i ve

car s f r om t he Aut ocent r o, Aut oger mana, Lexus de San J uan, and

Tr i angl e Honda deal er shi ps.

Many of t he vehi cl es pur chased t hr ough Ador no and

Mel ndez' s scheme wer e l at er used i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y, some of

whi ch was l i nked t o Ayal a' s DTO. For exampl e, i n May 2009, a whi t e

BMW wi t h l i cense pl ate HFQ 548 was i nvol ved i n a mur der and

shoot out at Pj aros Par k. The same vehi cl e had been pur chased by

Tr evi o i n December 2007. Af t er t he shoot out , t he pol i ce st opped

t he whi t e BMW, ar r est ed i t s t hr ee occupant s, and sei zed t he vehi cl e

and f our Gl ock pi st ol s f ound i nsi de. Pol i ce Ser geant Benj am n

-5-


6/21

Bur gos- Del Tor o test i f i ed t hat member s of Ayal a' s DTO wer e i nvol ved

i n t he shoot out .

Ot her vehi cl es purchased t hr ough t he scheme were dr i ven

by member s of Ayal a' s DTO. On May 11, 2009, t he pol i ce st opped

Di ego Cardona whi l e he was dr i vi ng a whi t e Acura MDX wi t h l i cense

pl at e HAC 284. Ear l i er t hat mor ni ng, FBI Speci al Agent J oseph

Gonzl ez observed Ayal a hi msel f dr i vi ng t he same vehi cl e. The

Acura MDX had been pur chased at Bel l a I nt ernat i onal by st r aw owner

Ar enymar Or t z- Val l e under Ador no' s di r ect i on.

Some st r aw owners became concer ned when t hey l ear ned t hat

t he vehi cl es t hey had pur chased were connected t o cr i mi nal

act i vi t y. For exampl e, i n 2008, an agent f r om t he U. S. Dr ug

Enf or cement Admi ni st r at i on ( "DEA") cont act ed Trevi o af t er t he DEA

had conf i scat ed a bl ack Toyota Hi ghl ander he had pur chased.

Tr evi o subsequent l y cont act ed Ador no, who t ol d hi m t hat t he

vehi cl e was conf i scat ed because "[ t he dr i ver ] got st opped f or

somet hi ng . . . and t he person was car r yi ng I t hi nk mor e than

$10, 000. 00 and he coul dn' t pr ove that i t was f r om hi s busi ness. "

Ador no i nst r uct ed Tr evi o t o r et r i eve t he vehi cl e. She ar r anged

f or Trevi o t o meet wi t h an i ndi vi dual at Toyot a Cr edi t , wher e t he

DEA had t r ansf er r ed t he bl ack Hi ghl ander . The i ndi vi dual pai d

Toyota Cr edi t approxi mat el y $40, 000 t o pay of f t he r emai nder of t he

l oan amount and obt ai n t he vehi cl e.

-6-


7/21

A f ew weeks l at er , Trevi o l ear ned f r om t he newspaper

t hat a gr ay Toyot a Hi ghl ander , si mi l ar t o one t hat he had pur chased

under Ador no' s di r ect i on, had been i nvol ved i n a cr i me. Tr evi o

agai n cont act ed Ador no, who i nst r uct ed hi m t o r epor t t he car as

st ol en. Tr evi o r ef used and asked Ador no t o r et ur n t o hi m al l of

t he vehi cl es he had pur chased. I n r esponse, Ador no sai d: " [ Y] ou

know what , i f I was you I woul d j ust be qui et because thi s t hi ng i s

bi gger t han what you t hi nk i t i s, and t her e i s a l ot of peopl e

i nvol ved i n t hi s. " Scar ed by Ador no' s war ni ng, Trevi o agr eed t o

be qui et and di d not br i ng up t he i ssue agai n.

I n addi t i on t o acqui r i ng vehi cl es, Ador no al so pr ocur ed

an apart ment used by Ayal a' s DTO. I n J une 2009, she hel ped obt ai n

a l ease on an apar t ment l ocat ed at t he Ast r al i s Condomi ni umcompl ex

i n I sl a Ver de. She per sonal l y pai d t he apar t ment ' s $2, 050 mont hl y

r ent f r omJ une t o Oct ober 2009. I n Febr uary 2010, t he DEA execut ed

a sear ch warr ant f or t he apart ment and f ound dr ug packi ng

mater i al s, l oaders f or semi aut omat i c weapons, ammuni t i on boxes, and

$240, 260 i n cash. The apar t ment al so cont ai ned several document s,

i ncl udi ng a DEA i nvest i gat i on r epor t about Ayal a' s DTO and a

vehi cl e r egi st r at i on f or a BMW M5 r egi st er ed i n Ador no' s name.

Ador no was arr est ed on Oct ober 2, 2009. She was char ged

wi t h conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed

subst ances i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 846 ( count one) and

conspi r acy t o l aunder money i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1956 ( count

-7-


8/21

ni ne) , as one of 65 def endant s i n a mul t i - def endant , el even- count

i ndi ctment r el at i ng t o Ayal a' s dr ug t r af f i cki ng acti vi t i es. Af t er

a t en- day t r i al , i n whi ch she was t r i ed al one, Ador no was f ound

gui l t y on bot h count s. The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Ador no t o 121

mont hs' i mpr i sonment as t o each count , t o be ser ved concur r ent l y.

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

Ador no r ai ses t hr ee chal l enges t o her convi ct i ons:

suf f i ci ency chal l enges t o t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng and money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy convi ct i ons as wel l as a cl ai m of i nst r uct i onal er r or .

We r evi ew each i n t ur n.

A. Drug Trafficking Conspiracy

We r evi ew pr eserved chal l enges t o t he suf f i ci ency of

evi dence de novo. Uni t ed St ates v. I henacho, 716 F. 3d 266, 279

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I n anal yzi ng such cl ai ms, we consi der " ' whet her

any r at i onal f act f i nder coul d have f ound t hat t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al , t oget her wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences, vi ewed

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o the gover nment , est abl i shed each

el ement of t he par t i cul ar of f ense beyond a reasonabl e doubt . ' "

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l son, 708 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Poul i n, 631 F. 3d 17, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

To sust ai n a conspi r acy convi ct i on under 846, " t he

evi dence must show t hat : ( 1) a conspi r acy exi st ed; ( 2) t he

def endant had knowl edge of t he conspi r acy; and (3) t he def endant

-8-


9/21

knowi ngl y and vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar yea, 704 F. 3d 55, 73 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . To pr ove t he

t hi r d el ement , t he government must est abl i sh " t hat t he def endant

bot h i nt ended t o j oi n t he conspi r acy char ged and i nt ended t o

ef f ect uat e t he obj ect s of t hat conspi r acy. " I d. The def endant ' s

speci f i c i nt ent "may be est abl i shed t hr ough ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

al one. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d 1, 15 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) .

Ador no concedes t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al was

suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy l ed by Ayal a,

and t hat Mel ndez par t i ci pat ed i n t he conspi r acy by pr ocur i ng car s

t hr ough st r aw owners. Adorno al so admi t s that t he government

est abl i shed t hat she knew or was wi l l f ul l y bl i nd " t hat somet hi ng

i l l egal was af oot " i n her scheme f or pr ocur i ng vehi cl es. However ,

Adorno argues t hat t he government f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat she

knowi ngl y par t i ci pat ed i n the conspi r acy because t he evi dence di d

not show t hat she was aware t hat t he cars she hel ped Mel ndez

acqui r e were bei ng used f or Ayal a' s DTO.

Ador no' s ar gument i s unavai l i ng. The r ecor d cont ai ns

ampl e ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o demonst r ate t hat Adorno knew she

was assi st i ng Ayal a' s DTO t hr ough her act i ons. Fi r st , Ador no had

a cl ose wor ki ng r el at i onshi p wi t h Mel ndez, who vi si t ed her at

l east t hr ee t i mes per week at Bel l a I nt er nat i onal t o pur chase car s

t hr ough st r aw owner s f or Ayal a' s DTO. Because of t hei r cl ose

-9-


10/21

wor ki ng r el at i onshi p i nvol vi ng mat t er s essent i al t o t he oper at i ons

of t he DTO, t he j ur y coul d, i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case,

r easonabl y i nf er t hat Ador no knew t hat t he vehi cl es she obt ai ned

wi t h Mel ndez - - an Ayal a associ at e - - wer e i n f ur t her ance of a

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy l ed by Ayal a. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d 59, 64- 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( f i ndi ng t hat a j ur y

coul d i nf er t hat def endant knew t hat dr ugs wer e i nsi de hi s

br i ef case because of hi s cl ose r el at i onshi p wi t h dr ug t r af f i cker ) .

The f act t hat Mel ndez ent r ust ed Ador no t o f aci l i t at e t he

acqui si t i on of vehi cl es f or Ayal a' s DTO f ur t her suppor t s t hi s

concl usi on. See i d. at 65 ( " [ D] r ug or gani zat i ons do not usual l y

t ake unnecessar y ri sks by tr ust i ng cri t i cal t r ansact i ons t o

out si der s. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Second, vehi cl es obt ai ned t hr ough Adorno were

subsequent l y i nvol ved i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y l i nked t o Ayal a' s DTO

and were seen dr i ven by Ayal a and hi s associ ates. When st r aw owner

Agust n Tr evi o cont act ed Ador no af t er di scover i ng t hat a gr ay

Toyota Hi ghl ander he had pur chased was i nvol ved i n a cr i me, she

war ned hi m t o be qui et because "t hi s t hi ng i s bi gger t han what you

t hi nk i t i s, and t her e i s a l ot of peopl e i nvol ved i n t hi s. "

Ador no' s st at ement cr eat es a reasonabl e i nf er ence t hat she not onl y

knew " t hat somet hi ng i l l egal was af oot " but al so the speci f i c

nat ur e of t he under l yi ng cr i mi nal act i vi t y, a wi de- r angi ng dr ug

t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy i nvol vi ng Ayal a, Mel ndez, and ot her s.

-10-


11/21

Fi nal l y, Ador no obt ai ned a l ease on an apar t ment at t he

Ast r al i s Condomi ni um compl ex used by Ayal a' s DTO. The apar t ment

di r ect l y connect s Ador no t o t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy. She

pai d f or t he apar t ment ever y mont h unt i l her ar r est i n Oct ober

2009. When DEA agent s sear ched t he apar t ment , t hey f ound drug

packi ng mat er i al s, weapons, $240, 260 i n cash, a car r egi st r at i on

document i n Adorno' s name, and a DEA i nvest i gat i on r epor t about

Ayal a' s DTO. Ador no' s r el at i onshi p wi t h Mel ndez, t he vehi cl es'

i nvol vement i n cr i mes l i nked t o Ayal a' s DTO, and Ador no' s

connect i on t o t he Ast r al i s Condomi ni um apar t ment ar e suf f i ci ent

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o per mi t a r easonabl e j ur y t o concl ude

t hat Adorno knew she was ass i st i ng Ayal a' s DTO wi t h her act i ons. 2

B. Money Laundering Conspiracy

Ador no chal l enges her convi ct i on f or money l aunder i ng i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1956 on t he gr ound that t he gover nment di d

not pr ove t hat t he money she l aundered was t he "net pr of i t s" of

2 Ador no al so cont ends t hat t he t r i al evi dence r egar di ng herdr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy convi ct i on pr ej udi ci al l y var i ed f r omt he al l egat i ons i n her i ndi ct ment . Whi l e t he government may havepr oven a conspi r acy between Adorno and Mel ndez, she ar gues t hat i tf ai l ed t o connect Ador no t o Ayal a' s DTO. The par t i es di sput ewhet her Ador no pr oper l y pr eserved t hi s ar gument i n t he di st r i ctcour t and whet her we shoul d appl y de novo or a more def erent i alst andar d of r evi ew. We do not need t o r esol ve t hi s di sput e

because, even under de novo revi ew, Adorno' s ar gument has no mer i t .Adorno' s var i ance ar gument si mpl y rehashes her suf f i ci ency ar gumentand f ai l s f or t he same r easons. See Mar yea, 704 F. 3d at 73( r ej ect i ng "[ a] cl ai m t hat t he Gover nment s pr oof var i edi mper mi ssi bl y f r om t he char ges cont ai ned i n t he i ndi ct ment " wher ei t "i s essent i al l y a chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence"( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

-11-


12/21

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng i n accor dance wi t h Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 553

U. S. 507 ( 2008) . The gover nment ar gues t hat , pr oper l y r ead, Sant os

onl y r equi r es i t t o demonst r at e t hat t he l aunder ed f unds wer e

"gr oss r evenues" f r om t he sal e of i l l i ci t dr ugs. We r evi ew t hi s

pr eserved quest i on of l aw de novo. See Uni t ed St at es v. Troy, 618

F. 3d 27, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Sect i on 1956 makes i t a cr i me t o engage i n a " f i nanci al

t r ansact i on" i nvol vi ng " t he pr oceeds of speci f i ed unl awf ul

act i vi t y" wi t h t he i nt ent ei t her t o "pr omot e t he car r yi ng on" of

t hat act i vi t y, or t o "conceal or di sgui se" t he pr oceeds of t hat

act i vi t y. 18 U. S. C. 1956. I n Sant os, t he Supr eme Cour t had t o

determi ne whether "pr oceeds" shoul d be i nt erpr eted br oadl y t o mean

"r ecei pt s" of speci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y or nar r owl y t o i ncl ude

onl y t he "pr of i t s" of such act i vi t y. 553 U. S. at 509. Sant os had

been convi ct ed of oper at i ng an i l l egal l ot t er y i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1955, as wel l as conspi r acy to l aunder money and money

l aunder i ng i nvol vi ng f unds der i ved f r om t he l ot t er y. I d. at

50910. The t r ansact i ons under l yi ng Sant os' s money l aunder i ng

convi ct i on i nvol ved hi s payment s t o empl oyees who col l ected bets

f r om gambl er s, as wel l as payment s t o t he l ot t er y wi nner s. I d.

Appl yi ng t he r ul e of l eni t y, a f our - J ust i ce pl ur al i t y hel d t hat t he

wor d "proceeds" i n 1956 means " pr of i t s. "3 I d. at 51014. The

3 I n r esponse t o t he pl ur al i t y' s opi ni on i n Sant os, Congr essamended 1956 i n 2009 t o def i ne "pr oceeds" as "gr oss r ecei pt s" i nal l cases. See Fr aud Enf orcement and Recover y Act of 2009, Pub. L.

-12-


13/21

pl ur al i t y was concer ned t hat "[ i ] f ' pr oceeds' meant ' r ecei pt s, '

near l y ever y vi ol at i on of t he i l l egal - l ot t er y st at ut e woul d al so be

a vi ol at i on of t he money l aunder i ng st at ut e. " I d. at 515. That

woul d be so because "payi ng a wi nni ng bet t or i s a t r ansact i on

i nvol vi ng r ecei pt s t hat t he def endant i nt ends t o pr omot e t he

car r yi ng on of t he l ot t er y. " I d. Thi s woul d cr eat e a "mer ger "

pr obl em - - pr osecut or s coul d char ge money- l aunder i ng, wi t h i t s

t went y- year maxi mumsent ence, i n any l ot t ery case, even t hough t he

l ot t er y st at ut e car r i ed a maxi mum of f i ve year s. I d. at 516.

J ust i ce Stevens del i ver ed t he t i e- breaki ng vot e. He

concur r ed i n t he j udgment t hat "pr oceeds" means "pr of i t s" where t he

speci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y i s i l l egal gambl i ng because t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of 1956 was si l ent as t o t hi s t ype of

acti vi t y, and, t her ef or e, t he r ul e of l eni t y shoul d appl y. I d. at

52428 ( St evens, J . , concur r i ng) . However , J ust i ce St evens

r easoned t hat t he def i ni t i on of "pr oceeds" coul d var y dependi ng on

whi ch unl awf ul act i vi t y f or med t he pr edi cat e f or t he money

l aunder i ng char ge. I d. at 525. J ust i ce St evens agr eed wi t h t he

f our di ssent i ng J ust i ces t hat "t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of 1956

makes i t cl ear t hat Congr ess i nt ended t he t er m ' pr oceeds' t o

i ncl ude gr oss r evenues f r om t he sal e of cont r aband and t he

No. 11121, 2( f ) ( 1) , 123 St at . 1617, 1618 ( 2009) ( codi f i ed at 18U. S. C. 1956( c) ( 9) ) . The amendment i s not r et r oact i ve and,t her ef or e, has no ef f ect on t hi s case because Ador no' s char ges st emf r om her conduct i n 2007 and 2008. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gr asso,724 F. 3d 1077, 1092 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) .

-13-


14/21

oper at i on of or gani zed cr i me syndi cat es i nvol vi ng such sal es. " I d.

at 52526; see al so i d. at 532 n. 1 ( Al i t o, J . ,

di ssent i ng) ( "not [ i ng] t hat f i ve J ust i ces agr ee wi t h t he posi t i on

t aken by J ust i ce St evens on [ t hi s] mat t er " ) .

J ust i ce Stevens' s concur r ence i s t he cont r ol l i ng l aw.

See Sant os, 553 U. S. at 523 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( "Si nce [ J ust i ce

St evens' s] vot e i s necessar y to our j udgment , and si nce hi s opi ni on

r est s upon t he nar r ower gr ound, t he Cour t ' s hol di ng i s l i mi t ed

accor di ngl y. " ) ; see al so Mar ks v. Uni t ed St at es, 430 U. S. 188, 193

( 1977) ( "When a f r agment ed Cour t deci des a case and no si ngl e

r at i onal e expl ai ni ng t he r esul t enj oys t he assent of f i ve J ust i ces,

t he hol di ng of t he Cour t may be vi ewed as t hat posi t i on t aken by

t hose Member s who concur r ed i n t he j udgment s on the nar r owest

gr ounds. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

I n Sant os, a maj or i t y of t he Supr eme Cour t ( J ust i ce

St evens and t he f our di ssent i ng J ust i ces) r easoned t hat "pr oceeds"

means "gr oss r evenues" - - not "pr of i t s" - - when t he pr edi cat e

of f ense i nvol ves t he "sal e of cont r aband and t he oper at i on of

or gani zed cr i me syndi cat es i nvol vi ng such sal es. " 553 U. S. at 526.

Dr ug t r af f i cki ng i s one such of f ense. Ther ef or e, Ador no' s ar gument

f ai l s because t he government needed t o pr ove onl y t hat t he

l aundered f unds were gr oss r evenues of Ayal a' s DTO, whi ch Adorno

concedes t hat i t di d. Our s i st er ci r cui t s have uni f or ml y come t o

t he same concl usi on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ri char dson, 658

-14-


15/21

F. 3d 333, 340 ( 3d Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat " ' pr oceeds' means gr oss

r ecei pt s" i n dr ug t r af f i cki ng case) ; Wi l son v. Roy, 643 F. 3d 433,

436- 37 ( 5t h Ci r . 2011) ( f i ndi ng t hat "when t he l aunder ed money i s

der i ved f r omt he sal e of dr ugs and ot her cont r aband, Congr ess used

' pr oceeds' i n 1956 t o mean r ecei pt s r at her t han pr of i t s" because

" f i ve J ust i ces agr ee wi t h t he posi t i on t aken by J ust i ce St evens on

t he mat t er " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Qui nones, 635 F. 3d 590, 600 ( 2d Ci r .

2011) ( hol di ng t hat " ' pr oceeds' under 18 U. S. C. 1956 ar e not

l i mi t ed t o ' pr of i t s' at l east wher e, as her e, t he pr edi cat e of f ense

i nvol ves t he sal e of cont r aband") ; Br ace v. Uni t ed St at es, 634 F. 3d

1167, 1170 n. 3 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011) ( "Sant os does not hol d t hat

' pr oceeds' means ' pr of i t s' i n t he cont ext of dr ug sal es. J ust i ce

St evens, t he cri t i cal f i f t h vot e i n Sant os, expl i ci t l y depar t ed

f r omt he pl ur al i t y' s concl usi on t hat ' pr oceeds' means ' pr of i t s' i n

t he cont ext of dr ug sal es. ") ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Webst er , 623 F. 3d 901, 906 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( "We . . . r ead

Sant os as hol di ng t hat where, as here, a money l aunder i ng count i s

based on t r ansf er s among co- conspi r at or s of money f r omt he sal e of

dr ugs, ' pr oceeds' i ncl udes al l ' r ecei pt s ' f r om such sal es. ") ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 601 F. 3d 530, 544 ( 6t h Ci r . 2010) ( "As

J ust i ce Stevens made cl ear i n hi s concur r i ng opi ni on i n Sant os, t he

pr edi cat e of f ense of conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cocai ne does not f al l

wi t hi n the cat egor y of of f enses f or whi ch ' pr oceeds' means

' pr of i t s. ' ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spencer , 592 F. 3d 866, 879 ( 8t h Ci r .

-15-


16/21

2010) ( " [ T] hi s cour t agr ees . . . t hat Sant os does not appl y i n t he

dr ug cont ext . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Demar est , 570 F. 3d 1232, 1242

( 11t h Ci r . 2009) ( concl udi ng t hat " t he nar r ow hol di ng i n Sant os"

does not appl y when " t he l aundered f unds were t he pr oceeds of an

ent er pr i se engaged i n i l l egal dr ug t r af f i cki ng") .

C. Willful Blindness Instruction

Ador no cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t

gave a wi l l f ul bl i ndness i nst r uct i on t o t he j ur y on t he money

l aunder i ng count . She has pr eser ved her chal l enge t o t he gi vi ng of

t he i nst r uct i on. Al t hough " [ w] e have not def i ni t i vel y r esol ved

what st andar d of r evi ew we appl y to t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on

t o gi ve a wi l l f ul bl i ndness i nst r uct i on, " Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on,

695 F. 3d 44, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) , we do

not need t o r esol ve t hat i ssue her e because Ador no' s cl ai m f ai l s

even under de novo r evi ew.

A wi l l f ul bl i ndness i nstr uct i on i s appr opr i at e i f "( 1) a

def endant cl ai ms a l ack of knowl edge, ( 2) t he f act s suggest a

consci ous cour se of del i ber at e i gnor ance, and ( 3) t he i nst r uct i on,

t aken as a whol e, cannot be mi sunderst ood as mandat i ng an i nf erence

of knowl edge. " Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d at 66. Ador no ar gues that t he

f acts pr esent ed at her t r i al wer e i nsuf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y t he

i nst r uct i on. Speci f i cal l y, she cont ends t hat t he t r i al evi dence

coul d not pr ove t hat Ador no knew or was wi l l f ul l y bl i nd t o t he f act

-16-


17/21

t hat t he money she l aundered t hr ough car sal es came f r om Ayal a' s

DTO.

The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n gi vi ng t he wi l l f ul

bl i ndness i nst r uct i on. As demonst r at ed above, see Par t I I . A supr a,

t her e was suf f i ci ent ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat Ador no ei t her

knew or del i ber at el y i gnor ed t hat t he l aunder ed pr oceeds or i gi nat ed

f r om Ayal a' s DTO. The i nst r uct i on was war r ant ed because " t he

r ecor d evi dence r eveal s ' f l ags' of suspi ci on t hat , uni nvest i gat ed,

suggest wi l l f ul bl i ndness. " Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d at 66 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Epst ei n, 426 F. 3d 431, 440 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) . The

use of st r aw owner s t o pur chase vehi cl es, t he f r equent cash

t r ansf ers between Adorno and Mel ndez, and the vehi cl es'

i nvol vement i n cr i mes l i nked t o Ayal a' s DTO wer e "suf f i ci ent

war ni ng si gns [ t o Ador no] t hat cal l out f or i nvest i gat i on or

evi dence of [ her] del i berate avoi dance of knowl edge" of t he money

l aunder i ng conspi r acy. I d.

III.

Adorno al so chal l enges her 121- mont h sentence. She

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t r el i ed on t he money

l aunder i ng pr oceeds t o est abl i sh a base of f ense l evel at

sent enci ng. Ador no' s ar gument has t wo par t s. Fi r st , she cont ends

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o gi ve advance not i ce under Feder al

Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 32( h) t hat i t i nt ended t o use the val ue

of t he l aunder ed f unds - - i nst ead of t he quant i t y of dr ugs - - t o

-17-


18/21

cal cul at e a base of f ense l evel under t he advi sory Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes. Second, she cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

cal cul at i on of $1, 153, 137. 30 i n l aunder ed f unds was i naccur at e.

Bot h cont ent i ons f ai l .

Because Adorno di d not r ai se t hese sent enci ng chal l enges

i n t he di st r i ct cour t , we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Fer nndez- Her nndez, 652 F. 3d 56, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( "When a def endant f ai l s t o pr eserve an obj ect i on bel ow, t he pl ai n

er r or st andar d suppl ant s t he cust omar y st andar d of r evi ew. "

( al t er at i on omi t t ed) ) . To succeed on pl ai n er r or r evi ew, Ador no

must show: " ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or

obvi ous and whi ch not onl y ( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al

r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or

publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Ahr endt , 560 F. 3d 69, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n t he sent enci ng cont ext , a def endant must

demonst r at e t hat , but f or t he er r or , t her e i s a r easonabl e

pr obabi l i t y t hat t he cour t woul d have i mposed a mor e f avor abl e

sent ence. See i d. at n. 5.

A. Notice Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h)

Pr i or t o Ador no' s sent enci ng, t he pr obat i on of f i cer

pr epar ed a pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ( "PSR") t hat cal cul at ed

Ador no' s base of f ense l evel usi ng t he quant i t y of dr ugs under l yi ng

her dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy convi ct i on. Ador no chal l enged t he

-18-


19/21

pr obat i on of f i cer ' s det er mi nat i on on t he gr ound t hat t he gover nment

f ai l ed t o pr ove t he exact quant i t y of dr ugs t hat was at t r i but abl e

t o, or f oreseeabl e by, Ador no. See Fer nndez- Her nndez, 652 F. 3d

at 71; Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103- 04 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) . At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not r esol ve t he

di sput e. The cour t i gnor ed t he pr obat i on of f i cer ' s recommendat i on

t o det er mi ne Ador no' s base of f ense l evel usi ng t he quant i t y of

dr ugs, and i nst ead r el i ed on the amount of l aundered f unds, whi ch

i t cal cul at ed t o be $1, 153, 137. 30.

Ador no does not di sput e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was

per mi t t ed t o r el y on t he val ue of t he l aunder ed f unds t o cal cul at e

her base of f ense l evel under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. 4 See

U. S. S. G. 2S1. 1( a) ( 2) . However , she ar gues that t he cour t shoul d

have gi ven her advance not i ce under Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( h) t hat i t

was pl anni ng t o do so. Rul e 32( h) st at es t hat " [ b] ef or e t he cour t

may depart f r om t he appl i cabl e sent enci ng r ange on a gr ound not

i dent i f i ed f or depar t ur e ei t her i n t he pr esent ence r epor t or i n a

par t y' s pr ehear i ng submi ssi on, t he cour t must gi ve t he par t i es

r easonabl e not i ce t hat i t i s cont empl at i ng such a depar t ur e. " I n

I r i zar r y v. Uni t ed St at es, t he Supr eme Cour t i nt er pr et ed Rul e 32( h)

4 Sect i on 2S1. 1( a) of t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes st at es t hatwhen an def endant i s convi ct ed of money l aunder i ng, t he baseof f ense l evel can ei t her be est abl i shed usi ng " [ t ] he of f ense l evelf or t he under l yi ng of f ense f r om whi ch t he l aunder ed f unds wer eder i ved" - - i n t hi s case, t he quant i t y of dr ugs under l yi ng Ador no' sdr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy convi ct i on - - or "t he number of of f ensel evel s . . . cor r espondi ng t o t he val ue of t he l aunder ed f unds. "

-19-


20/21

nar r owl y, hol di ng t hat t he r ul e appl i es onl y t o aut hor i zed

"depar t ur es" under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes and not t o

"var i ances, " non- Gui del i nes sent ences t hat r esul t f r om t he

sent enci ng j udge' s consi der at i on of f act or s under 18 U. S. C. 3553.

See 553 U. S. 708, 714 ( 2008) ( hol di ng t hat Rul e 32( h) "does not

appl y t o 18 U. S. C. 3553 var i ances by i t s t er ms. ' Depar t ur e' i s

a t er m of ar t under t he Gui del i nes and r ef er s onl y t o

non- Gui del i nes sent ences i mposed under t he f r amework set out i n t he

Gui del i nes. ") . I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced Ador no

t o 121 mont hs, whi ch was wi t hi n the Gui del i ne range of 121 to 151

mont hs. Ther ef or e, Rul e 32( h) i s i nappl i cabl e t o Ador no' s

sentence.

B. Amount of Laundered Funds

I n a money l aunder i ng conspi r acy, t he amount of l aundered

f unds at t r i but abl e t o a def endant " i ncl udes not onl y t hat whi ch he

handl ed but al so t he amount he coul d reasonabl y have f oreseen woul d

be l aunder ed t hr ough t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 318 F. 3d 268, 273 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng

U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3( a) ( 1) ) . When cal cul at i ng t he amount of l oss t o

det er mi ne an of f ense l evel f or sent enci ng pur poses, a di st r i ct

cour t "need onl y make a r easonabl e est i mat e of t he l oss . "I henacho, 716 F. 3d at 278 ( ci t i ng U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1, cmt . n. 3( C) ) .

The cour t ' s cal cul at i on i s ent i t l ed t o def er ence because i t " i s i n

-20-


21/21

a uni que posi t i on t o assess t he evi dence and est i mat e t he l oss

based upon t hat evi dence. " U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1, cmt . n. 3( C) .

Ador no ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

cal cul at i ng t he amount of l aunder ed f unds at t r i but ed t o her as

$1, 153, 137. 30, pr oduci ng a base of f ense l evel of 24. See i d.

2S1. 1( b) & 2B1. 1. However , she has not of f er ed an al t ernat i ve t o

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t al l y. Al t hough t he cour t di d not pr ovi de

any expl anat i on f or i t s cal cul at i on, t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he

t r i al r ecor d shows t went y car pur chases, ei ght een car i nsur ance

payment s, and t wo cash deposi t s at t r i but abl e t o Ador no, whi ch

t ot al ed $1, 155, 948. 91. The gover nment ' s f i gur e woul d al so have

est abl i shed a base of f ense l evel of 24. See i d.

Based upon our own detai l ed r evi ew of t he r ecor d, t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s cal cul at i on appear s t o be a "r easonabl e est i mat e"

of t he amount of l aunder ed f unds at t r i but abl e t o Ador no. I d.

2B1. 1, cmt . n. 3( C) . Ther ef or e, t her e was no pl ai n er r or .

Af f i r med.

-21-

Documents

United States v. Adorno-Molina, 1st Cir. (2014)