Upload
scribd-government-docs
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
1/27
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 12- 2265
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,
Appel l ee,
v.
ANTHONY E. ALMEI DA I I I ,
Def endant , Appel l ant .
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE
[ Hon. D. Br ock Hor nby, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.
Henr y W. Gr i f f i n f or Appel l ant .Mar gar et D. McGaughey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h
whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t orney, was on br i ef ,f or Appel l ee.
Apr i l 4, 2014
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
2/27
STAHL, Circuit Judge. On J ul y 20, 2012, a j ur y convi ct ed
Ant hony Al mei da of possessi ng count er f ei t obl i gat i ons of t he Uni t ed
St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 472. The cour t sent enced
Al mei da t o f i f t y- one mont hs' i mpr i sonment . Al mei da t i mel y
appeal ed, chal l engi ng a number of evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs, t he
suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence t o sust ai n a convi ct i on, and hi s
sent ence. Fi ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed no er r or i n
t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, we af f i r m.
I. Facts & Background
On J ul y 5, 2011, Detect i ve Maur i ce Dr oui n was pur sui ng a
vehi cl e t hat was t r avel i ng wi t h a headl i ght out on Rout e 4 i n
Turner , Mai ne, when he not i ced a Chevr ol et Si l ver ado pi ckup t r uck
t hat f ai l ed t o yi el d t o hi s emer gency l i ght s. Al t hough Dr oui n
i ni t i al l y passed t he t r uck i n pur sui t of t he ot her vehi cl e, he
l at er l ocat ed t he t r uck and pul l ed i t over . A sear ch f or t he
t r uck' s l i cense pl at e number on Dr oui n' s mobi l e dat a t er mi nal
r eveal ed t hat t he t r uck was regi st er ed t o Maynar d Mar t i n. The
dr i ver pr ovi ded a t empor ar y Mai ne l i cense wi t h no phot ogr aph i ssued
t o J ohn Mart i n. The passenger gave hi s name as J oshua Al mei da. I n
f act , t he passenger was J ohn Mart i n and t he dr i ver was Ant hony
Al mei da, J oshua' s br ot her . 1
1 Thi s opi ni on wi l l r ef er t o Ant hony Al mei da as "Al mei da" andJ oshua Al mei da as " J oshua. "
-2-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
3/27
Dr oui n r et ur ned t o hi s cr ui ser and r an another sear ch on
t he dat a t er mi nal t hat showed Mar t i n' s l i cense was expi r ed and
J oshua' s was suspended. Dr oui n i nf or med t he men i n t he t r uck of
t he r esul t s of t he sear ch, i ssued a war ni ng, and l et t hem go. As
t he t r uck headed of f , Dr oui n r an a cross- agency check on J ohn
Mar t i n and J oshua Al mei da, r et r i evi ng phot ogr aphs of each. He
det er mi ned t hat t he passenger was act ual l y J ohn Mar t i n, and
( er r oneousl y) i dent i f i ed t he dr i ver as J oshua Al mei da. He al so
l ear ned t hat J oshua Al mei da had a hi st or y of dr ug possessi on and
t raf f i cki ng.
Dr oui n pur sued t he t r uck agai n, i nt endi ng t o ar r est bot h
t he dr i ver and t he passenger f or dr i vi ng i dent i t y of f enses. When
he st opped t he t r uck, t he t wo occupant s had swi t ched pl aces t he
r eal J ohn Mar t i n was dr i vi ng and Al mei da was i n t he passenger seat .
Dr oui n ar r est ed t hem both. When he handcuf f ed and pat t ed down
Al mei da, Dr oui n r et r i eved a wal l et f r om hi s back pocket . Dr oui n
opened t he wal l et and saw a l arge bundl e of cash wr apped i n rubber
bands, a manner of car r yi ng money t hat Dr oui n associ ated wi t h dr ug
t r af f i cker s. He put t he wal l et wi t h t he money back i n Al mei da' s
pocket .
Af t er t he ar r est s, Dr oui n' s par t ner ar r i ved on t he scene,
and t he t wo of f i cer s cal l ed f or a K- 9 dog t o sni f f t he ext er i or of
t he t r uck. The dog al er t ed t o t he pr esence of dr ugs i n t he t r uck,
and the dog' s handl er f ound a smal l bag of mar i j uana i n the
-3-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
4/27
passenger ' s si de door panel . On t hi s basi s, Dr oui n and t he ot her
of f i cer s pr esent conduct ed a f ul l sear ch of t he t r uck. 2
Dur i ng t he sear ch, t he of f i cer s f ound a l ar ge amount of
money wr apped i n r ubber bands i nsi de a Dor i t os bag and drug
par apher nal i a. Mar t i n st at ed t hat t he money i n t he Dor i t os bag
bel onged t o hi m. A dog sni f f of t he money i ndi cat ed t he pr esence
of dr ug r esi due on t he bi l l s. Dr oui n observed t hat t he money i n
t he Dor i t os bag was bundl ed i n t he same manner as t he money i n
Al mei da' s wal l et .
Pr i or t o t r anspor t i ng Mar t i n and Al mei da t o j ai l , Dr oui n
r emoved t he money f r om Al mei da' s wal l et . He count ed t he sei zed
money, pl aced i t i n a bag, and r et ai ned i t as evi dence. Dr oui n
l at er t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat he bel i eved he had pr obabl e cause t o
sei ze the cont ent s of Al mei da' s wal l et as pr oceeds of dr ug
t r af f i cki ng.
At t he Andr oscoggi n Count y J ai l , where Al mei da and Dr oui n
wer e hel d, t her e i s a pol i cy requi r i ng t he st af f member who admi t s
an i nmate t o conduct a pr el i mi nary sear ch f or weapons and
cont r aband. I f t he st af f member f i nds cont r aband, t he shi f t
super vi sor may tur n i t over t o t he or i gi nat i ng ar r est i ng agency f or
f ur t her acti on. I n t hi s i nst ance, j ai l of f i ci al s f ound cont r aband
on Mar t i n and t ur ned i t over t o Dr oui n. At some poi nt af t er Mar t i n
2 Al t hough t he magi st r at e j udge di scussed t he of f i cer s' useof t he K- 9 at l engt h, t hose det ai l s ar e not per t i nent t o t heout come of t hi s appeal , so we have omi t t ed t hemhere.
-4-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
5/27
and Al mei da wer e j ai l ed, Dr oui n l ear ned f r om a pr obat i on of f i cer
t hat Al mei da was Ant hony, not hi s brot her J oshua.
Dr oui n pl aced t he sei zed i t ems i nt o evi dence at t he
Andr oscoggi n Count y Sher i f f ' s Of f i ce ( "ACSO") . As he was count i ng
t he sei zed money, he not i ced bi l l s t hat wer e smal l er t han ot her s,
and bi l l s wi t h mat chi ng ser i al number s. Dr oui n suspect ed t hat some
of t he money was count er f ei t and cont acted t he Uni t ed St ates Secret
Ser vi ce. Lat er t hat day, he met wi t h Secr et Ser vi ce Speci al Agent
Mat t Fasul o, who exami ned t he sei zed money and concl uded that some
of i t was count er f ei t .
On J ul y 6, 2011, Al mei da pl aced t wo t el ephone cal l s t o
hi s wi f e f r omj ai l . These conver sat i ons wer e r ecor ded. The second
conver sat i on pr i mar i l y concer ned Al mei da' s ef f or t s t o secur e bai l
money, but Al mei da al so t ol d hi s wi f e, "Thr ow al l my shi t al l my
shi t needs t o be t hr own away. You know what I ' m sayi n? . . . My
sui t case al l t hat t hr own r i ght away okay?"
On J ul y 7, 2011, Dr oui n obt ai ned a war r ant t o sear ch t he
i mpounded t r uck f or addi t i onal evi dence r el at ed t o dr ug t r af f i cki ng
or count er f ei t i ng. The sear ch pur suant t o t he war r ant di d not
uncover any f ur t her evi dence. The t r uck r emai ned at ASCO, subj ect
t o asset f or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ngs i ni t i at ed by t he Secret Ser vi ce.
As par t of t hose pr oceedi ngs, Secr et Ser vi ce agent s Kel l ey Er ski ne
and J oshua Catel l a per f or med an i nvent or y sear ch of t he t r uck under
Fasul o' s di r ect i on. That sear ch yi el ded, among ot her i t ems, a
-5-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
6/27
Canon pr i nt er car t r i dge. An exper t t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat t he i nk
used t o pr oduce t he count er f ei t bi l l s was "consi st ent wi t h i nks
manuf act ur ed i n Canon i nkj et pr i nt er s and copi er s. "
Whi l e t he i nvest i gat i on was i n pr ogr ess, Det ect i ve Kel l y
Ruper t cont act ed Dr oui n t o i nf or m hi m about t he di scover y of
count er f ei t bi l l s al ong Oak Pond Road i n Skowhegan, Mai ne. On J une
28, 2011, Tr avi s Pece f ound $5, 950 i n l oose cur r ency i n a pi l e on
t he si de of t he r oad ( "Oak Pond bi l l s" ) . He t ur ned t hemi n t o t he
pol i ce, who determi ned t hat t he money was count er f ei t . Subsequent
i nvest i gat i on i dent i f i ed Al mei da' s f i nger pr i nt s on t wo of t he Oak
Pond bi l l s. The pol i ce al so det er mi ned t hat t he ser i al number s on
some of t he genui ne bi l l s i n Al mei da' s wal l et mat ched t he ser i al
number s on sever al of t he Oak Pond bi l l s, as wel l as some of t he
count er f ei t bi l l s f ound i n t he t r uck. Fasul o t est i f i ed at t r i al
t hat t hese genui ne bi l l s wer e "pat t er n not es" used t o manuf act ur e
t he mat chi ng count er f ei t bi l l s.
Al mei da was arr ai gned on August 16, 2011. He pl eaded not
gui l t y t o t he char ge of possessi ng count er f ei t obl i gat i ons of t he
Uni t ed St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 472. Af t er a j ur y t r i al
on J une 19 and 20, 2012, Al mei da was f ound gui l t y. On Oct ober 15,
2012, t he pr esi di ng j udge sent enced Al mei da to f i f t y- one mont hs'
i mpr i sonment . Thi s appeal f ol l owed.
-6-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
7/27
II. Analysis
On appeal , Al mei da chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s
deci si on t o admi t cer t ai n evi dence at t r i al . He al so chal l enges
t he cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on f or acqui t t al , ar gui ng t hat t her e
was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o pr ove t he count er f ei t i ng char ge.
Fi nal l y, Al mei da di sput es t he reasonabl eness of hi s sent ence.
A. Motion to Suppress
On Sept ember 6, 2011, Al mei da f i l ed a mot i on t o suppr ess
evi dence obt ai ned f r om t he of f i cer s' sear ch of t he t r uck and f r om
t he sei zur e of t he money i n Al mei da' s wal l et . Magi st r at e J udge
Ri ch hel d a hear i ng on the mot i on and i ssued a r ecommended deci si on
denyi ng t he mot i on on J anuary 9, 2012. On March 20, 2012, t he
di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he r ecommended deci si on. "We appl y a mi xed
st andar d of r evi ew t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on t o
suppr ess, r evi ewi ng f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear er r or and
concl usi ons of l aw . . . de novo. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bol t on, 520
F. 3d 80, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .
1. Search of the Truck
I n hi s mot i on t o suppr ess , Al mei da ar gued t hat t he
warr ant l ess sear ch of t he t r uck vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment ,
because "[ n] o exi gency exi st ed whi ch j ust i f i ed a war r ant l ess
sear ch. " He al so chal l enges t he admi ssi on of t he evi dence gat her ed
i n t he i nvent or y sear ch. These ar gument s f ai l at a t hr eshol d
-7-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
8/27
i ssue: whet her Al mei da had a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n
t he t r uck. We f i nd t hat he di d not .
"The Four t h Amendment ' s pr otect i on agai nst unr easonabl e
sear ches may onl y be cl ai med wher e a def endant demonst r at es t hat he
or she per sonal l y has a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he
pl ace sear ched. " Uni t ed St at es v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st
Ci r . 2012) . I n t he cont ext of a vehi cl e sear ch, a def endant must
show "a pr oper t y [ or ] a possessory i nt er est i n t he aut omobi l e" i n
or der t o est abl i sh a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy. 3 I d.
We have hel d a person who i s "merel y a passenger " does
not have a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n a vehi cl e, i d.
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) , but i n some
ci r cumst ances, a person who borr ows a vehi cl e wi t h t he owner ' s
permi ss i on may have a r easonabl e expectat i on of pr i vacy, see Uni t ed
St at es v. Sugar , 322 F. Supp. 2d 85, 94 ( D. Mass. 2004) ( ci t i ng
cases) . The f act s of t hi s case f al l somewher e i n bet ween. Al mei da
was dr i vi ng t he t r uck dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op, appar ent l y wi t h
Mar t i n' s per mi ssi on, but dur i ng t he second st op Mar t i n was dr i vi ng
and Al mei da was t he passenger .
3 The Four t h Amendment may al so appl y when t he def endantshows "an i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y sei zed, " Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3dat 19, but her e Al mei da never cl ai med an i nt er est i n t hecount er f ei t bi l l s or any ot her evi dence sei zed f r om t he t r uck.
-8-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
9/27
No br i ght - l i ne r ul e det er mi nes whet her a per son has a
r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n a vehi cl e; i nst ead t he cour t
consi der s a number of f act or s:
owner shi p, possessi on, and/ or cont r ol ; hi st or i cal use oft he pr oper t y sear ched or t he t hi ng sei zed; abi l i t y tor egul at e access; t he t ot al i t y of t he sur r oundi ngci r cumst ances; t he exi st ence or nonexi st ence of asubj ect i ve ant i ci pat i on of pr i vacy; and t he obj ect i ver easonabl eness of such an expectancy under t he f act s ofa gi ven case. We l ook, i n shor t , t o whet her or not t hei ndi vi dual t hought of t he pl ace ( or t he ar t i cl e) as apr i vat e one, and t r eat ed i t as such.
Uni t ed St at es v. Agui r r e, 839 F. 2d 854, 856- 57 ( 1st Ci r . 1988)
( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n appl yi ng t hese f actor s t o t he f act s bef or e
us, we take gui dance f r omour deci si ons i n Uni t ed St at es v. Lochan,
674 F. 2d 960 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) , and Uni t ed St at es v. Sanchez, 943
F. 2d 110 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .
I n Lochan, as i n t hi s case at l east par t of t he t i me, t he
def endant was dr i vi ng t he car whi l e t he owner of t he car was i n t he
passenger seat . 4 674 F. 2d at 965. The cour t i n Lochan f ur t her
not ed t hat t he def endant had t he car ' s r egi st r at i on i n hi s pocket
and t hat he was on a l ong t r i p, whi ch mi ght "engender a sl i ght l y
gr eat er pr i vacy expect at i on t han woul d a shor t t r i p. " I d.
Never t hel ess, t he cour t f ound t hat other f act or s wei ghed mor e
heavi l y i n f avor of f i ndi ng no expect at i on of pr i vacy. The cour t
not ed, f or exampl e, t hat t he def endant "di d not own t he car , nor
4 Her e, t he t r uck was act ual l y regi st er ed t o Mar t i n' s f at her ,but i n t hi s case t hat di st i nct i on does not af f ect our anal ysi s.
-9-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
10/27
was t here evi dence that he had used t he car on other occasi ons.
Ther e was no evi dence as t o t he r esponsi bi l i t y or cont r ol [ t he
def endant ] had over t he aut omobi l e ot her t han t he f act t hat he was
dr i vi ng i t when st opped. " I d. Accor di ngl y, t he cour t f ound t hat
t he def endant " f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den of pr oof of a pr i vacy
expectat i on. " I d.
I n Sanchez, t he def endant was dr i vi ng t he vehi cl e wi t h
t he appar ent per mi ssi on of i t s owner ( al t hough t he cour t expr essed
some doubt on t hat poi nt ) . 943 F. 2d at 11314. The cour t
observed, however , t hat t he def endant "had onl y a casual possessi on
of t he car . He di d not own i t , nor , as t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved,
was t here evi dence that he had used t he car on other occasi ons. "
I d. The cour t expl ai ned t hat "a hi st or y of r egul ar use of t he
[ car ] " or a "pat t er n of per mi ssi on, t oget her wi t h hi s sol e cont r ol
on a l ong t r i p, woul d have mi ni mi zed t he i nf ormal and t emporary
nat ur e of t hi s speci f i c acqui si t i on of t he car . " I d. at 114. But
i n t he absence of t hose ci r cumst ances, t he cour t hel d t hat t he
def endant had not met hi s bur den of pr oof . I d.
I n t hi s case, al t hough Al mei da was dr i vi ng par t of t he
t i me, appar ent l y wi t h Mar t i n' s per mi ssi on, he had "onl y a casual
possessi on" of t he t r uck. I d. at 113. He di d not own i t , and he
has shown no pat t er n of r epeat ed use or cont r ol over t he t r uck t hat
woul d al l ow us t o concl ude t hat hi s possess i on of t he t r uck was
anythi ng mor e t han " i nf or mal and t empor ar y. " I d. at 114. Al mei da
-10-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
11/27
ar gues t hat we shoul d i nf er an expect at i on of pr i vacy f r omt he f act
t hat t her e was i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence i n t he t r uck: "Consi der i ng
t hat t he cont ent s of t he t r uck . . . f or med much of t he
condemnat or y evi dence pr oduced at t r i al , i t i s l ogi cal t hat
[ Al mei da] bor e a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy wi t h r espect t o
t he area sear ched and t he i t ems sei zed. " Thi s ar gument goes
nowher e. The exi st ence of i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence does not by
i t sel f creat e a r easonabl e expectat i on of pr i vacy. I f i t di d, t he
Four t h Amendment woul d appl y t o any sear ch t he r eveal s
i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence. That i s obvi ousl y not the case. See
Uni t ed St at es v. Her shenow, 680 F. 2d 847, 855 ( 1st Ci r . 1982) ( " [ A]
l egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy means mor e t han a subj ect i ve
expect at i on of keepi ng i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence hi dden. " )
Consi der i ng t he r el evant f act or s as appl i ed i n Sanchez
and Lochan, we concl ude t hat Al mei da has f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den
of pr oof est abl i shi ng t hat he had a reasonabl e expect at i on of
pr i vacy i n t he t r uck. Thus, he cannot br i ng a chal l enge under t he
Four t h Amendment t o t he evi dence r ecover ed f r omt he t r uck, ei t her
i n t he cour se of Dr oui n' s war r ant l ess sear ch or t he subsequent
i nvent or y sear ch. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der
denyi ng t he mot i on t o suppr ess wi t h r espect t o t hi s i ssue.
2. Seizure of Bills from Almeida's Wallet
Al mei da' s mot i on t o suppr ess al so chal l enged Dr oui n' s
sei zur e of money f r om hi s wal l et pr i or t o Al mei da' s t r ansf er t o
-11-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
12/27
j ai l . The Magi st r at e J udge r ecommended denyi ng t he mot i on on t wo
al t er nat e gr ounds, t he "pl ai n vi ew" except i on and t he " i nevi t abl e
di scover y" except i on, and t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he deci si on.
We af f i r m on t he basi s of t he i nevi t abl e di scover y except i on.
The appl i cat i on of t he i nevi t abl e di scover y except i on
i nvol ves t hr ee quest i ons:
f i r st , whet her t he l egal means by whi ch t he evi dencewoul d have been di scovered was t r ul y i ndependent ; second,whether t he use of t he l egal means woul d have i nevi t abl yl ed t o t he di scover y of t he evi dence; and t hi r d, whet herappl yi ng t he i nevi t abl e di scover y rul e woul d ei t herpr ovi de an i ncent i ve f or pol i ce mi sconduct orsi gni f i cant l y weaken const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons.
Uni t ed St at es v. Al mei da, 434 F. 3d 25, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . 5 Her e,
Dr oui n ar r est ed Al mei da and Mar t i n f or pr esent i ng hi m wi t h f al se
i dent i f i cat i on dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op. Andr oscoggi n Count y J ai l ,
where Al mei da was booked, has a pol i cy mandat i ng t hat ar r est ees be
f ul l y sear ched and t hei r pr oper t y r emoved. I f t he sear ch uncover s
cont r aband, t he j ai l r out i nel y t ur ns i t over t o t he ar r est i ng
of f i cer . Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat
" t he cont ent s of t he wal l et i nevi t abl y woul d have been di scover ed
and sei zed by an i ndependent , l awf ul means when Al mei da was
pr ocessed at t he J ai l . " Al mei da pr esent s us wi t h no per suasi ve
r eason t o di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on.
Turni ng t o t he f i r st quest i on i nvol ved i n t hi s anal ysi s,
t he l egal means of di scover y i n t hi s case wer e " t r ul y i ndependent , "
5 The 2006 Al mei da case i s unr el ated t o t he pr esent case.
-12-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
13/27
because Dr oui n had pr obabl e cause t o ar r est Al mei da f or pr esent i ng
f al se i dent i f i cat i on ( and i n f act di d ar r est hi m on t hat basi s) ,
r egar dl ess of whet her he sei zed t he cash. Ther ef or e t he ar r est and
subsequent sei zur e of cash dur i ng t he booki ng pr ocess at t he j ai l
woul d have occur r ed i ndependent l y of t he chal l enged sei zur e.
Second, t he sear ch at t he j ai l woul d have i nevi t abl y
r esul t ed i n t he sei zur e of t he cash, because i t was t he j ai l ' s
pol i cy t o remove an ar r est ee' s proper t y dur i ng t he booki ng pr ocess.
Al mei da does not di sput e t he exi st ence of t he pol i cy, or cl ai mt hat
t he pol i cy was not r egul ar l y f ol l owed. I nst ead, he ar gues that
t her e i s "not hi ng ' i nevi t abl e' about t he j ai l s [ si c] di scover y of
t he bi l l s i n t he wal l et t hat i ni t i al l y f ool ed a t r ai ned det ect i ve. "
Thi s ar gument t akes t he name of t he except i on t oo l i t er al l y.
I t i s possi bl e, of cour se, t hat t he j ai l of f i ci al mi ght
have mi ssed what Dr oui n not i ced, t he i r r egul ar si ze and mat chi ng
ser i al number s of t he count er f ei t bi l l s. But we ar e not l ooki ng
f or met aphysi cal cer t ai nt y. The except i on i s appl i cabl e i f t her e
i s a "hi gh degr ee of pr obabi l i t y[ ] t hat t he evi dence woul d have
been di scover ed. " Al mei da, 434 F. 3d at 29; see al so Uni t ed St at es
v. Roger s, 102 F. 3d 641, 646 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( "The t er m
' i nevi t abl e' . . . i s somet hi ng of an over st at ement . ") . Ther e i s
no quest i on t he bi l l s woul d have been sei zed at t he j ai l . The
count er f ei t bi l l s mi ght have " f ool ed" Dr oui n i n t he mi dst of
conduct i ng an ar r est , but when he had the oppor t uni t y t o l ook at
-13-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
14/27
t he bi l l s wi t hout di st r act i on, he r ecogni zed t hemas f ake. We have
no t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat t her e i s a hi gh degr ee of pr obabi l i t y
t hat t he r esul t woul d have been t he same i f a j ai l of f i ci al had
i nspected t he bi l l s.
Thi r d, gi ven t he par t i cul ar f act s of t hi s case, t he
appl i cat i on of t hi s except i on wi l l not "provi de an i ncent i ve f or
pol i ce mi sconduct or si gni f i cant l y weaken const i t ut i onal
pr ot ect i ons. " Al mei da, 434 F. 3d at 28. Dr oui n ar r est ed Al mei da
f or r easons unr el ated t o t he sei zed money. At t he t i me of t he
ar r est , Dr oui n was f ul l y awar e t hat t he j ai l woul d t ake Al emi da' s
money and other pr oper t y when he was booked he t est i f i ed t hat t he
money "woul d have went t o t he j ai l wi t h hi m and I pr obabl y woul d
have j ust t aken i t f r om hi s pr oper t y t her e. " Under t hese
ci r cumst ances, appl i cat i on of t he except i on wi l l not i ncent i vi ze
unconst i t ut i onal behavi or , because t he sei zur e of t he money gave
t he pol i ce no par t i cul ar i nvest i gat i ve advant age. See i d. at 29.
Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat t he i nevi t abl e di scover y
except i on appl i es t o Dr oui n' s sei zur e of t he money i n Al mei da' s
wal l et and af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Al mei da' s mot i on
t o suppr ess wi t h r espect t o t hat i ssue.
B. Motions in Limine
Pr i or t o t r i al , t he gover nment f i l ed a mot i on i n l i mi ne
seeki ng the admi ssi on of evi dence rel at ed t o t he Oak Pond bi l l s,
whi ch Al mei da opposed. Al mei da f i l ed a mot i on i n l i mi ne t o excl ude
-14-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
15/27
evi dence t hat he f al sel y i dent i f i ed hi msel f t o Dr oui n as J oshua
Al mei da dur i ng t he i ni t i al st op. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he
government ' s mot i on and deni ed Al mei da' s.
We r evi ew t hese rul i ngs f or pl ai n er r or , because Al mei da
di d not r enew hi s obj ect i on t o t he chal l enged evi dence at t r i al .
As we have expl ai ned:
[ i ] f an i n l i mi ne r ul i ng excl udes evi denceuncondi t i onal l y, t he adver sel y- af f ect ed par t y need t akeno addi t i onal st eps t o pr eser ve t he i ssue f or appeal ,whi ch means abuse- of - di scr et i on r evi ew wi l l cont r ol . Buti f t he r ul i ng i s mer el y t ent at i ve and cl ear l y i nvi t es t hepar t y to of f er t he evi dence at t r i al under t he r ul i ng' st er ms, t hat par t y must f ol l ow up on t he i nvi t at i on orel se pl ai n- er r or r evi ew wi l l hol d sway.
Rodr guez v. Seor Frog' s de l a I sl a, I nc. , 642 F. 3d 28, 35 ( 1st
Ci r . 2011) ( al t er at i ons, ci t at i ons, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) . Her e, whi l e t he r ul i ngs i n l i mi ne admi t t ed t he
chal l enged evi dence, Al mei da has not ar gued that t hose r ul i ngs wer e
f i nal r at her t han t ent at i ve, so Al mei da' s f ai l ur e t o r enew hi s
obj ect i on at t r i al t r i gger s pl ai n er r or r evi ew on appeal . "To
est abl i sh pl ai n er r or , a par t y must show t hat t her e was er r or , t hat
i t was pl ai n, and t hat i t af f ected t he par t y' s subst ant i al r i ght s;
an appel l at e cour t may then not i ce t he er r or onl y i f i t ser i ousl y
af f ect[ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of
j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " Long v. Fai r bank Reconst r uct i on Cor p. , 701
F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( per cur i am) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) . Al mei da has not met t hi s hi gh st andar d.
-15-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
16/27
1. The Oak Pond Bills
Al mei da cl ai ms t hat evi dence rel ated t o t he Oak Pond
bi l l s was pr opensi t y evi dence i nadmi ssi bl e under Feder al Rul e of
Evi dence 404( b) . Accor di ng t o Al mei da, t he evi dence onl y t ends t o
pr ove t hat "si nce he apparent l y possessed count er f ei t money on a
pr i or occasi on, he must have possessed i t on t he occasi on of hi s
ar r est . " He ar gues f ur t her t hat " [ e] ven i f such evi dence suggest ed
i nt ent . . . [ i t ] i ncl uded ' bad char acter or pr opensi t y as a
necessary l i nk i n t he i nf er ent i al chai n' and any pr obat i ve val ue
was subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he danger of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "
The di st r i ct cour t quest i oned whet her evi dence of t he Oak
Pond bi l l s was pr opensi t y evi dence at al l , suggest i ng t hat "[ i ] t ' s
ar guabl y par t of t he r es gest ae of t he t r ansact i on i n t er ms of t he
def endant ' s al l eged use of cer t ai n pat t er n bi l l s i n r el at i onshi p t o
what was f ound i n t he t wo l ocat i ons. " I t deci ded, however , t hat
even "[ i ] f i t i s Rul e 404( b) evi dence, . . . i t does come i n under
404( b) ( 2) because i t can be used t o show evi dence of [ absence of ]
mi st ake or l ack of acci dent , knowl edge of what was goi ng on[ , ] and
I don' t f i nd any unf ai r pr ej udi ce under Rul e 403. " We see no er r or
at al l i n t hi s deci si on, much l ess pl ai n er r or .
Thi s ci r cui t uses a t wo- par t t est t o eval uat e t he
admi ssi bi l i t y of evi dence under Rul e 404( b) . Uni t ed St at es v.
Appol on, 715 F. 3d 362, 373 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We det er mi ne f i r st
whet her t he pr of f er ed evi dence has " speci al r el evance, such as
-16-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
17/27
pr ovi ng mot i ve, oppor t uni t y, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, knowl edge,
i dent i t y, absence of mi st ake, or l ack of acci dent . " I d. at 37273
( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "I f i t does, we
t hen appl y Rul e 403 t o ascer t ai n whet her t he evi dence' s probat i ve
val ue i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by t he danger of unf ai r
pr ej udi ce. " I d. at 373.
The evi dence of t he Oak Pond bi l l s easi l y sat i sf i es bot h
par t s of t he t est . The exi st ence of count er f ei t bi l l s at a
separ at e l ocat i on, bear i ng Al mei da' s f i nger pr i nt s and ser i al
number s mat chi ng pat t er n bi l l s f ound i n Al mei da' s wal l et , i s
pr obat i ve of Al mei da' s knowl edge and i nt ent r egar di ng t he
count er f ei t money f ound i n t he t r uck t he j ur y coul d deci de that
t hi s evi dence wei ghed agai nst t he concl usi on t hat Al mei da' s
possessi on of count er f ei t bi l l s i n t he t r uck was unknowi ng or
uni nt ent i onal . Thus, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hi s
evi dence has "speci al r el evance. " I d.
We al so agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hi s evi dence
i s not unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . As we have observed numer ous t i mes,
"al l evi dence i s meant t o be pr ej udi ci al ; i t i s onl y unf ai r
pr ej udi ce whi ch must be avoi ded. " I d. The t er m" unf ai r pr ej udi ce"
usual l y r ef er s t o "evi dence t hat i nvi t es t he j ur y t o r ender a
ver di ct on an i mpr oper emot i onal basi s. " Uni t ed St at es v.
Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d 113, 122 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Al mei da has not
-17-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
18/27
shown anythi ng of t he sort her e. I n sum, we f i nd no er r or i n t he
di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t evi dence of t he Oak Pond bi l l s.
2. False Identification
Al mei da al so rai ses a Rul e 404( b) chal l enge t o t he
evi dence r el at ed t o hi s f al se i dent i f i cat i on. He ar gues t hat he
"was char ged wi t h a cr i me sat ur at ed i n t he concept of decei t . To
al l ow t est i mony regar di ng hi s pr ovi si on of decei t f ul i nf or mat i on
. . . r egar di ng ul t i mat el y unchar ged conduct was a cl ear i nvi t at i on
t o t he j ur y t o reach a concl usi on based on i nappr opr i at e char act er
evi dence. "
Rel yi ng on Uni t ed St ates v. Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d 15 ( 1st
Ci r . 2006) , t he di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he evi dence as " pr obat i ve
of a gui l t y [ consci ence] or consci ousness of gui l t . " I t f ur t her
expl ai ned t hat t o t he extent t he evi dence f el l under Rul e 404( b) ,
" i t woul d be admi ssi bl e under 404( b) ( 2) because i t does go t o pr oof
of i nt ent and knowl edge and I don' t f i nd unf ai r pr ej udi ce under
Rul e 403. " We see no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on.
On appeal , Al mei da cl ai ms t hat " t he ' consci ousness of
gui l t ' r ef er r ed t o by t he t r i al cour t was consci ousness of [ an]
uncharged motor vehi cl e of f ense and not t he event ual f ederal
charges t hat were not bei ng i nvest i gated at t he t i me he was
ar r est ed. " But Wal l ace f or ecl oses t hi s ar gument . I n t hat case,
"we r ej ected a br oad r ul e t hat woul d bar al i as evi dence whenever a
def endant commi t s more t han one cr i me, " because "such a rul e woul d
-18-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
19/27
i gnor e t he subst ant i al possi bi l i t y t hat t he def endant i s usi ng t he
al i as t o evade det ect i on f or al l hi s cr i mes, i ncl udi ng t he one
char ged. " Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d at 26 ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal
quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .
Ther e was no r eason i n t hi s case f or t he di st r i ct cour t
t o pr event t he j ur y f r om consi der i ng whet her t he f al se
i dent i f i cat i on r eveal ed a consci ousness of gui l t of count er f ei t i ng,
even i f Al mei da was engaged i n ot her cr i mi nal act i vi t y at t he same
t i me. Whi l e we have warned t hat such evi dence " i s cont r oversi al
and must be handl ed wi t h car e, " i d. at 25 ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , t he di st r i ct cour t was wel l awar e of our
admoni t i on and of f er ed t he def ense a caut i onar y i nst r uct i on f or t he
j ury.
Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r
i n hol di ng t hat t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent l y pr obat i ve t o be
admi ssi bl e under Rul e 404( b) . Nei t her di d i t er r i n f i ndi ng no
unf ai r pr ej udi ce under Rul e 403. As wi t h t he evi dence of t he Oak
Pond bi l l s, Al mei da has f ai l ed t o poi nt out any unf ai r ness beyond
t he or di nar y pr ej udi ce i nher ent i n al l evi dence. We t her ef or e
af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Al mei da' s mot i on i n l i mi ne
seeki ng t he excl usi on of evi dence r el at ed t o hi s f al se
i dent i f i cat i on.
-19-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
20/27
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence
At t r i al , af t er t he cl ose of t he gover nment ' s case,
Al mei da made an or al mot i on f or acqui t t al , ar gui ng t hat t he
government had f ai l ed t o meet i t s bur den t o pr ove Al mei da' s i nt ent
t o def r aud as requi r ed by 18 U. S. C. 472. The di st r i ct cour t
deci ded t here was enough evi dence of i nt ent t o go to t he j ur y and
deni ed t he mot i on. On appeal , Al mei da r enews hi s argument t hat t he
evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove i nt ent . We
di sagr ee.
We r evi ew cl ai ms of i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence de novo,
"consi der i ng whet her t he evi dence, vi ewed i n t he l i ght most
f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, woul d al l ow a r at i onal j ur y t o f i nd
al l t he el ement s of t he cr i me beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed
St at es v. Mousl i , 511 F. 3d 7, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Hal l , 434 F. 3d
42, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . "The r equi si t e f r audul ent i nt ent r equi r ed
by . . . 18 U. S. C. 472[ ] may be i nf er r ed f r om sur r oundi ng
ci r cumst ances or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and thus need not be
pr oven di r ect l y. Cour t s may l ook t o sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances t o
suppl y i nf er ences of knowl edge whi ch adequat el y pr ove i nt ent . "
Mousl i , 511 F. 3d at 16 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es
v. Si l va, 742 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .
Ther e i s no need t o cat al ogue every pi ece of evi dence
pr esent ed at t r i al ; t wo key poi nt s wi l l suf f i ce. The gover nment
-20-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
21/27
pr esent ed evi dence t hat Al mei da possessed f our t een pat t ern notes
t hat mat ched numer ous count er f ei t bi l l s f ound i n t he t r uck and
al ong Oak Pond Road. The j ur y coul d easi l y i nf er f r omt he "number
and var i et y of bi l l s" t hat Al mei da' s possessi on of t hem was not
unwi t t i ng or coi nci dent al ; r at her he "was engaged i n an ongoi ng
ef f or t t o pr oduce . . . f ake cur r ency wi t h t he i nt ent of usi ng i t . "
Mousl i , 511 F. 3d at 16. The j ur y al so hear d evi dence t hat t wel ve
count er f ei t bi l l s wi t h ser i al number s mat chi ng t he pat t er n bi l l s
wer e put i nt o ci r cul at i on i n ar eas near wher e Al mei da l i ved and
vacat i oned. That evi dence "suppor t [ s] an i nf er ence t hat [ Al mei da]
had pr evi ousl y passed t he bi l l s i n commer ci al t r ansact i ons. "
Si l va, 742 F. 3d at 10. These f act s pr ovi de suf f i ci ent
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of i nt ent t o sust ai n a convi ct i on under 18
U. S. C. 472.
Al mei da' s suggest i on t hat t he count er f ei t bi l l s wer e of
such poor qual i t y t hat he coul d not have i nt ended t o use them t o
def r aud i s unper suasi ve. Fi r st , i t di r ectl y cont r adi cts hi s
ar gument t hat t he di scover y of t he count er f ei t bi l l s at t he j ai l
was not i nevi t abl e because the bi l l s l ooked aut hent i c enough t o
f ool Of f i cer Dr oui n at t he scene of t he ar r est . But even set t i ng
t hat cont r adi ct i on asi de, t her e was ampl e evi dence t hat t he bi l l s
wer e of suf f i ci ent qual i t y f or a r easonabl e j ur y t o i nf er Al mei da' s
i nt ent t o def r aud. Twel ve count er f ei t bi l l s mat chi ng t he pat t er n
bi l l s f ound i n Al mei da' s possessi on wer e successf ul l y passed ar ound
-21-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
22/27
t he t i me of Al mei da' s ar r est and were di scover ed onl y when t he
peopl e who had accept ed t hemi n good f ai t h pr esent ed t hemt o banks.
Moreover , even were there not "evi dence [ of ] a hi gh degr ee of
l i keness" bet ween t he count er f ei t bi l l s and t he r eal ones, t hat
woul d not "pr event pr oof by ot her means of i nt ent t o def r aud. "
Mousl i 511 F. 3d at 16. Here, t he government pr esent ed enough
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t o al l ow a j ur y t o i nf er Al mei da' s i nt ent
t o def r aud. Thus, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he
mot i on f or acqui t t al .
D. Sentencing
Al mei da at t acks hi s f i f t y- one- mont h sent ence on t hr ee
f r ont s: t he cal cul at i on of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y (" CHC") ,
t he appl i cat i on of sent enci ng gui del i ne enhancement s t o hi s base
of f ense l evel ( "BOL") , and t he di spar i t y bet ween hi s sent ence and
t hat of hi s co- def endant , Mar t i n. He has f ai l ed t o i dent i f y any
er r or s, however , and we t her ef or e af f i r m t he sent ence as handed
down by t he di st r i ct cour t .
1. Criminal History Category
Wi t h respect t o hi s CHC, Al mei da does not cont end that
t he di st r i ct cour t made any f act ual er r or s i n t he cal cul at i on.
Rather , he argues t hat a downward depart ur e was appr opr i ate i n t hi s
case because t he CHC "si gni f i cant l y over - r epr esent s hi s cr i mi nal
hi st or y. " The di st r i ct cour t consi der ed t hi s ar gument at t he
sent enci ng hear i ng and came to the opposi t e concl usi on: " I f i nd
-22-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
23/27
t hat t he cr i mi nal hi st or y her e does not over r epr esent i n l i ght of
t he def endant ' s hi st or y of r ecur r ent cr i mi nal l aw vi ol at i ons,
despi t e sent ences t hat have been i mposed whi ch i nvol ve cust ody of
ei t her smal l amount s or l ar ge amount s. "
We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on whet her t o depar t
f r omt he CHC f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 93
F. 3d 10, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not
commi t an er r or of any sor t ; i t si mpl y di sagr eed wi t h Al mei da about
t he ser i ousness of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y. A di sagr eement of t hat
nat ur e does not appr oach an abuse of di scr et i on. Accor di ngl y, i t
i s not gr ounds f or r ever sal on appeal .
2. Sentencing Guideline Enhancements
Al mei da cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n appl yi ng
enhancement s t o hi s BOL f or l oss i n excess of $10, 000 under
U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) , t he manuf act ur e or pr oduct i on of
count er f ei t obl i gat i ons under U. S. S. G. 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) , and
obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1. "As a gener al
mat t er , we r evi ew a sent enci ng cour t ' s l egal det er mi nat i ons of t he
Sent enci ng Gui del i nes' meani ng and scope de novo and i t s f act ual
det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Br yant , 571 F. 3d
147, 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d
217, 235 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I t i s t he gover nment ' s bur den at
sent enci ng to pr ove sent enci ng enhancement f actors by a
pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, and a di st r i ct cour t may base i t s
-23-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
24/27
det er mi nat i ons on "any evi dence t hat i t r easonabl y f i nds t o be
r el i abl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 232 ( 1st Ci r .
2011) .
Sect i on 2B1. 1 i ncr eases a def endant ' s BOL f or var i ous
f or ms of t hef t and f r aud, i ncl udi ng count er f ei t i ng, based on t he
amount of l oss caused by t he def endant . U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1; Uni t ed
St at es v. Appol l on, 695 F. 3d 44, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . As a gener al
r ul e, we measur e l oss under 2B1. 1 as " t he gr eat er of act ual l oss
or i nt ended l oss. " Appol l on, 695 F. 3d at 66. " I nt ended l oss i s
t he l oss t hat t he def endant coul d have r easonabl y expected t o occur
at t he t i me he or she per pet uat ed t he f r aud. " I d. at 67.
Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a f our - l evel enhancement
under 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) f or a l oss gr eat er t han $10, 000. I t f ound
as a f act ual mat t er t hat Al mei da was r esponsi bl e f or t he
count er f ei t money i n t he t r uck as wel l as t he Oak Pond bi l l s,
t ot al i ng $10, 270, based on hi s possessi on of t he pat t er n bi l l s and
hi s f i nger pr i nt s on t he Oak Pond bi l l s. These f act s ar e a
suf f i ci ent basi s f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o i nf er by a pr eponder ance
of t he evi dence that Al mei da was r esponsi bl e f or pr oduci ng over
$10, 000 i n count er f ei t bi l l s. I t f ol l ows t hat Al mei da coul d
r easonabl y expect over $10, 000 i n l oss t o r esul t . Ther ef or e t he
cour t di d not er r i n appl yi ng 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( C) .
Sect i on 2B5. 1 pr ovi des f or a t wo- l evel enhancement " i f
t he def endant . . . manuf act ur ed or pr oduced any count er f ei t
-24-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
25/27
obl i gat i on or secur i t y of t he Uni t ed St at es, or possessed or had
cust ody of or cont r ol over a count er f ei t i ng devi ce or mat er i al s
used f or count er f ei t i ng. " U. S. S. G. 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) ( A) . On appeal ,
Al mei da ar gues pr i mar i l y t hat pat t er n not es are not "a
count er f ei t i ng devi ce or mat er i al s used f or count er f ei t i ng. " The
di st r i ct cour t st at ed qui t e cl ear l y, however , t hat i t was "not
goi ng t o r el y on t he possessi on of mat er i al used f or
count er f ei t i ng, but i nst ead t hat t he def endant di d manuf act ur e or
pr oduce count er f ei t obl i gat i ons. " I t based t hi s concl usi on on
Al mei da' s possessi on of t he pat t er n not es and t he count er f ei t bi l l s
t hat wer e pr oduced wi t h t hem. Agai n, we f i nd t hi s concl usi on
suf f i ci ent l y suppor t ed by t he evi dence. Thus, Al mei da' s chal l enge
t o t he appl i cat i on of 2B5. 1( b) ( 2) ( A) f ai l s.
The t hi r d enhancement i mposed by t he cour t was t wo l evel s
f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under 3C1. 1. That enhancement was
based on t he cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he phone cal l s Al mei da made
t o hi s wi f e f r om j ai l , i n whi ch he t ol d her "al l my shi t needs t o
be t hr own away. " The di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y i nt er pr et ed t hi s
st at ement as an i nst r uct i on t o di spose of evi dence. Havi ng
r evi ewed t he t r anscri pt of t he cal l s, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct
cour t ' s under st andi ng of Al mei da' s st at ement i s mor e pl ausi bl e t han
t he i nt er pr et at i on Al mei da of f er s on appeal t hat he was r ef er r i ng
t o a sui t case f ul l of cl ot hes t hat he br ought wi t h hi mon vacat i on.
-25-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
26/27
Al mei da al so argues t hat he coul d not have been
obst r uct i ng t he i nvest i gat i on of t he count er f ei t i ng char ge, because
at t he t i me of t he cal l s he was onl y f aci ng t he f al se
i dent i f i cat i on char ge. But dur i ng t he cal l r ecor ded at 4: 39 on
J ul y 6, 2011, pr i or t o t he cal l wher e Al mei da t ol d hi s wi f e t o
di spose of hi s t hi ngs, hi s wi f e st at ed t hat " t hey had t he Secr et
Ser vi ce l ooki ng i nt o ever yt hi ng and st uf f l i ke t hat . " The di st r i ct
cour t coul d i nf er f r omt hat st at ement t hat Al mei da was awar e of t he
count er f ei t i ng i nvest i gat i on at t hat t i me. I n sum, t he di st r i ct
cour t di d not er r i n appl yi ng a two- l evel enhancement f or
obst r uct i on of j ust i ce under 3C1. 1.
3. Sentencing Disparity
Fi nal l y, Al mei da poi nt s t o t he di spar i t y bet ween hi s
sent ence of f i f t y- one mont hs and Mar t i n' s sent ence of onl y si x
mont hs. He cl ai ms t hat " [ t ] o del i ver a sent ence t hat i s
pot ent i al l y t en t i mes t he sent ence of a co- def endant i s si mpl y not
r easonabl e. " He does not f ul l y devel op an ar gument on t hi s poi nt ,
but we const r ue i t as a chal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness
of t he sent ence. We r evi ew subst ant i ve r easonabl eness f or abuse of
di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 232 ( 1st Ci r .
2011) . " [ T] he l i nchpi n of a r easonabl e sent ence i s a pl ausi bl e
sent enci ng r at i onal e and a def ensi bl e r esul t . " Uni t ed St at es v.
Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .
-26-
7/26/2019 United States v. Almeida, III, 1st Cir. (2014)
27/27
Her e, Al mei da f ai l s t o of f er any expl anat i on as t o why
t he sent ences of t he t wo co- def endant s shoul d be l ess di spar at e.
Mer el y poi nt i ng out t he di spar i t y i s pl ai nl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o
est abl i sh unr easonabl eness. There are many val i d r easons why t wo
co- def endant s mi ght r ecei ve dr amat i cal l y di f f er ent sent ences, and
t he di st r i ct cour t expr essl y i dent i f i ed t he r easons appl i cabl e i n
t hi s case. Mar t i n accept ed r esponsi bi l i t y; he was not connect ed t o
t he Oak Pond bi l l s; and he di d not engage i n obst r uct i on. Under
t hese ci r cumst ances, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s
di scr et i on i n sent enci ng Al mei da t o a much har sher penal t y t han
Mar t i n.
III. Conclusion
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, weAFFIRM Al mei da' s convi ct i on
and sent ence.
-27-