United States v. Fermin, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Fermin, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-fermin-1st-cir-2014 1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1108

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

CHARLES FERMI N,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Wi l l i am E. Smi t h, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udges.

Char l es W. Ranki n wi t h whom Audr ey M. Gr ace, Kerr y A.Haber l i n, and Ranki n & Sul t an wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Donal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or

appel l ee.

November 14, 2014



STAHL, Circuit Judge. Af t er a j ur y t r i al , Def endant -

Appel l ant Char l es Fer mi n was convi ct ed of possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e bot h mar i j uana and cocai ne, and acqui t t ed of possessi on

of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng of f ense. On

appeal , Fer mi n cont est s t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o suppr ess and

t he suf f i ci ency of t he t r i al evi dence, and al l eges er r or i n t he

j ury i nst r uct i ons and sent ence enhancement s i mposed. Fi ndi ng no

r ever si bl e er r or , we af f i r m Fer mi n' s convi ct i ons and sent ence.

I. Facts & Background

Because Fer mi n chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

on appeal , we set f or t h t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

t he j ur y ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Cl emens, 738 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) .

On J anuary 6, 2012, members of t he Hi gh I nt ensi t y Dr ug

Tr af f i cki ng Ar ea t ask f or ce ( "HI DTA t ask f or ce" ) , a uni t of t he

Rhode I sl and St at e Pol i ce, wer e conduct i ng sur vei l l ance near t he

Pr ovi dence Col l ege campus. Fer mi n was observed wal ki ng down

r esi dent i al Li ege St r eet empt y- handed, wear i ng a gar bage bag

under neat h a red sweat shi r t , bef or e di sappear i ng out of si ght

between t wo houses, 40 and 48- 50 Li ege St r eet . He emerged t hr ee t o

f our mi nut es l at er r ol l i ng a l ar ge bl ack sui t case.

Looki ng ar ound as i f t o check i f anyone was wal ki ng

behi nd hi m, Fer mi n wheel ed t he sui t case the same way he had j ust

come and ent ered a near by parki ng l ot . He made hi s way t o t he f ar

-2-



end of t he l ot , where he pl aced t he sui t case between a J eep and a

cement wal l . He t hen st epped away f r omt he sui t case and began t o

t al k on a cel l phone. Bet ween conver sat i ons, he sl i d t he sui t case

under t he J eep and r emoved t he sweat shi r t he was wear i ng. Several

mi nut es l at er , Fer mi n r et r i eved t he sui t case, t i ed hi s sweat shi r t

ar ound t he handl e, and exi t ed t he par ki ng l ot wi t h t he sui t case i n

t ow.

Pol i ce st opped Fer mi n on t he st r eet shor t l y t her eaf t er

and asked t o speak wi t h hi mabout t he sui t case. Fer mi n i mmedi atel y

dr opped hi s car go and sai d t hat i t was not hi s. He t ol d pol i ce

t hat he had been r unni ng at t he Pr ovi dence Col l ege t r ack when

someone t hr ew t he sui t case over t he f ence. 1 St andi ng next t o t he

sui t case, one det ect i ve di scer ned a " st r ong odor " of mar i j uana;

he unzi pped t he sui t case and saw t hat i t di d i n f act cont ai n a

l ar ge quant i t y of mar i j uana. Fer mi n was ar r est ed and t r anspor t ed

t o t he pol i ce bar r acks.

Whi l e bei ng i nt er vi ewed at t he bar r acks, Fer mi n

r ei t er at ed t hat he happened upon t he sui t case whi l e r unni ng at t he

Pr ovi dence Col l ege t r ack, af t er someone t hr ew i t over t he f ence.

Fer mi n al so vol unt eer ed t o the det ect i ve pr ocessi ng hi mt hat he and

hi s f r i end saw someone "dump" t he sui t case near t he Pr ovi dence

Col l ege t r ack; hi s f r i end had encour aged hi m t o t ake t he bag,

1 A Pr ovi dence Col l ege secur i t y guar d t est i f i ed at t r i al t hatt here i s no out door t r ack on campus.

-3-



bel i evi ng t her e mi ght be money i n i t . He decl i ned t o i dent i f y hi s

f r i end, st at i ng t hat t he f r i end was " a col l ege whi t e boy and you

know how t hey are. " The detect i ve l ater pr esent ed Fer mi n wi t h

sur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs t aken ear l i er t hat day, bot h bef or e and

af t er he had r et r i eved t he sui t case, whi ch depi ct ed hi m wal ki ng

down t he st r eet al one. Fer mi n became vi si bl y upset and sai d t hat

he di d not want t o ar gue.

Pol i ce r ecover ed t hi r t y- t hr ee pounds of mar i j uana f r om

t he sui t case, st or ed i n t hi r t y- ei ght gal l on- si zed cl ear pl ast i c

bags; 2 t hi r t y- one gr ams of cocai ne; a bot t l e of powder ed caf f ei ne; 3

t hr ee di gi t al scal es; and a box of pl ast i c bags l i ke t he ones

f i l l ed wi t h mar i j uana. I n addi t i on, t he sui t case cont ai ned a . 357

r evol ver l oaded wi t h si x rounds of ammuni t i on i nsi de a r ol l ed- up

pai r of sweat pant s.

A t hr ee- count i ndi ct ment i ssued agai nst Fer mi n, char gi ng

hi m wi t h possessi on of mar i j uana wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e,

possessi on of cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, and possessi on of

a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of t hose cr i mes. Fer mi n unsuccessf ul l y

moved t o suppr ess al l evi dence sei zed by l aw enf orcement personnel

2 Twent y- one f i nger pr i nt s wer e f ound on t he bags of mar i j uana.Nei t her of t he t wo pr i nt s t hat coul d be t r aced t o a speci f i c per sonbel onged t o Fer mi n.

3 A det ect i ve t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat nar cot i cs t r af f i cker suse caf f ei ne t o cut and add bul k to cocai ne, i n or der t o sel l mor eof t he dr ug.

-4-



on J anuar y 6, 2012, as wel l as al l st at ement s he made t o pol i ce

t hat day.

Af t er a t hr ee- day t r i al , Fer mi n was convi ct ed of t he t wo

dr ug char ges but acqui t t ed of t he f i r ear m char ge. 4 Appl yi ng

sent ence enhancement s f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce and possessi on of

a f i r ear m dur i ng t he commi ssi on of t he cr i mes, t he di st r i ct cour t

sent enced Fer mi n t o f or t y- one mont hs i n pr i son. Thi s appeal

f ol l owed.

II. Analysis

A. Mot i on t o suppr ess

1. Evi dence at t he mot i on hear i ng and di st r i ct cour t ' srul i ng

The di st r i ct cour t hel d a hear i ng on t he mot i on t o

suppr ess, at whi ch Fer mi n and t wo detect i ves, Al l en and Demers,

t est i f i ed. The det ect i ves' t est i mony at t he hear i ng concer ni ng

t hei r J anuar y 6 sur vei l l ance of Fer mi n t r acked t hei r event ual t r i alt est i mony. However , Det ect i ve Al l en al so gave det ai l s, not pl aced

bef or e t he j ur y, of a t i p r ecei ved f r om a r el i abl e conf i dent i al

i nf or mant t wo days pr i or t o Fer mi n' s st op. The i nf or mant t ol d

pol i ce t hat 40 Li ege St r eet was bei ng used as a "st ash house" f or

l arge amount s of mar i j uana, appr oxi matel y 1000 or 1500 pounds, and

t hat t he st ash was t o be r el ocat ed soon. Act i ng on t he t i p, t ask

4 Def ense counsel moved f or a j udgment of acqui t t al , ar gui ngt hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o convi ct on al l count s. Thedi st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on.

-5-



f orce members conduct ed survei l l ance of t he ar ea on J anuary 4 and

5. They observed vehi cl es pul l i ng up i n f r ont of 40 Li ege St r eet

and one or more peopl e ent er i ng t he house at a t i me, l eavi ng a

shor t t i me l at er . Such act i vi t y, Det ect i ve Al l en bel i eved, was

consi st ent wi t h nar cot i cs t r af f i cki ng.

Fer mi n' s account of t he ensui ng st op on J anuar y 6

cont r adi ct ed t hat of t he det ect i ves. Fer mi n t est i f i ed t hat he was

j oggi ng i n t he ar ea when he f ound t he sui t case next t o a r ecycl i ng

bi n i n someone' s backyar d. Pi cki ng i t up and not i ng i t s

subst ant i al wei ght , Fer mi n became cur i ous as t o i t s cont ent s, but

di d not want t o open i t whi l e on t he pot ent i al owner ' s pr oper t y.

He deci ded t o take the sui t case t o the Chad Br own housi ng pr oj ect ,

wher e "peopl e mi nd t hei r busi ness, " r esol vi ng t o t hr ow i t out t her e

i f i t cont ai ned not hi ng of val ue.

Accordi ng t o Fer mi n, he was wheel i ng the sui t case down

t he st r eet when a car sped by and abrupt l y came t o a st op ahead of

hi m. An of f i cer emerged, poi nt i ng a gun at hi m, and commanded hi m

t o st op. Fer mi n i mmedi at el y l et go of t he sui t case. Anot her

of f i cer exi t ed a di f f er ent car , al so wi t h her gun dr awn; t he t wo

conver ged on Fer mi n as a t hi r d of f i cer appr oached hi m wi t h

handcuf f s. I n r esponse t o t hei r quest i oni ng about t he sui t case,

-6-



Fer mi n t ol d pol i ce that he had j ust f ound i t i n someone' s yar d and

t hat i t di d not bel ong t o hi m. 5

Det ect i ve Demer s t est i f i ed t hat he parked on t he st r eet

next t o Fermi n and di spl ayed hi s badge — but not hi s gun — as he

exi t ed t he vehi cl e, st at i ng, "St at e Pol i ce. St at e Pol i ce t ask

f or ce. We want t o t al k t o you r egar di ng t he sui t case you' r e

car r yi ng. " I n r esponse, Fer mi n put hi s hands up and dr opped t he

sui t case, decl ar i ng t hat i t was not hi s and t hat he had f ound i t

whi l e r unni ng at t he Pr ovi dence Col l ege t r ack. I mmedi at el y

t her eaf t er , Det ect i ve Al l en ar r i ved on t he scene and par ked hi s

car , wi t h t he f r ont of hi s car f aci ng bot h Det ect i ve Demer s and

Fer mi n. Two ot her of f i cer s al so ar r i ved and st ood behi nd Fer mi n.

Det ect i ve Al l en asked quest i ons of Fer mi n i n what he

descr i bed as a "conver sat i onal " t one of voi ce; he deni ed gi vi ng any

commands or dr awi ng hi s gun. Al l en pl aced Fermi n i n handcuf f s once

mar i j uana was di scover ed i n t he sui t case and t r anspor t ed hi mt o the

pol i ce bar r acks.

Cr edi t i ng t he det ect i ves' ver si on of event s over

Fer mi n' s, t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat t he encount er was a

consensual one t hat di d not i mpl i cate t he Four t h Amendment .

Fur t her , t he war r ant l ess sear ch of t he sui t case was pr oper , as

5 Fer mi n t est i f i ed t hat he t ol d pol i ce t hat he had beenr unni ng on t he Pr ovi dence Col l ege campus, but t hat when pol i ceasked hi m whet her he was r unni ng on t he t r ack, he tol d t hem t hatt here was no t r ack t here.

-7-



Fer mi n had di scl ai med owner shi p of i t and t hus f or f ei t ed a cl ai mof

pr i vacy. See Uni t ed St at es v. De Los Sant os Fer r er , 999 F. 2d 7,

9–10 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . The cour t hel d i n t he al t er nat i ve t hat , even

i f t he encount er const i t ut ed a sei zur e f or Four t h Amendment

pur poses, pol i ce had r easonabl e suspi ci on, suppor t ed by ar t i cul abl e

f act s, t hat cr i mi nal act i vi t y mi ght have been af oot . The cour t

t her ef or e deni ed Fer mi n' s mot i on t o suppr ess.

2. Di scussi on

"When r evi ewi ng a chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess, we vi ew t he f act s i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he mot i on, and we

r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act and credi bi l i t y

det er mi nat i ons f or cl ear err or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Camacho, 661

F. 3d 718, 723 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) . However , we r evi ew concl usi ons of l aw de novo,

gi vi ng pl enar y r evi ew t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of l aw t o

f act s, r easonabl e- suspi ci on det er mi nat i ons, and ul t i mat e deci si on

t o deny t he mot i on. I d. at 724.

The quest i on whet her t he encounter at i ssue was

consensual , or i nst ead a sei zur e wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Four t h

Amendment , i s not f r ee f r om doubt . The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat

i t was "undi sput ed t hat t her e wer e . . . at l east f our , i f not f i ve

of f i cer s present i n some f or mat i on ar ound [ Fer mi n] i n a ver y shor t

per i od of t i me af t er he was conf r ont ed, " and t hat pol i ce t ol d

-8-



Fer mi n that t hey want ed t o speak wi t h hi mabout t he cont ent s of t he

sui t case. I t i s not cl ear t hat a r easonabl e per son, sur r ounded by

f i ve pol i ce of f i cer s, woul d bel i eve t hat he was f r ee t o l eave. See

Cal i f or ni a v. Hodar i D. , 499 U. S. 621, 627–28 ( 1991) . I ndeed,

Fer mi n di d not l eave but r at her submi t t ed t o pol i ce aut hor i t y by

answer i ng quest i ons about t he sui t case. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Hol l oway, 499 F. 3d 114, 117 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( ci t i zen' s submi ssi on

t o show of pol i ce aut hor i t y i s a pr er equi si t e f or a f i ndi ng of

sei zur e) .

We need not deci de t he quest i on, however , because

Fer mi n' s st op was suppor t ed by r easonabl e suspi ci on i n any event .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Espi noza, 490 F. 3d 41, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( br i ef i nvest i gat or y st ops can be gr ounded on r easonabl e suspi ci on,

as opposed t o pr obabl e cause) . Pol i ce had "a par t i cul ar i zed and

obj ect i ve basi s f or suspect i ng [ Fer mi n] of cri mi nal act i vi t y. "

Or nel as v. Uni t ed St at es, 517 U. S. 690, 696 ( 1996) ( al t er at i on,

ci t at i ons, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Act i ng on a t i p f r om a conf i dent i al i nf or mant t hat t he

house at 40 Li ege St r eet was a r eposi t ory f or a l arge amount of

mar i j uana, pol i ce obser ved comi ngs and goi ngs f r om t he house

consi st ent wi t h dr ug t r af f i cki ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 700

F. 3d 615, 621 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( " I nf or mat i on pr ovi ded t o pol i ce by

t hi r d par t i es may cr eat e r easonabl e suspi ci on i f t he i nf or mat i on

cont ai ns suf f i ci ent ' i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y. ' " ( quot i ng Al abama v.

-9-



Whi t e, 496 U. S. 325, 328 ( 1990) ) ) . Thi s i s not a case wher e t he

det ect i ves' suspi ci on was based on Fer mi n' s mere pr esence i n a

hi gh- cr i me ar ea known f or dr ug act i vi t y. Cf . , e. g. , Camacho, 661

F. 3d at 726–27. The t i p and survei l l ance, combi ned wi t h Fer mi n' s

del i ber at e pat h t owar d 40 Li ege St r eet , hi s di sappear ance bet ween

houses and r eemer gence wi t h t he sui t case shor t l y t her eaf t er , and

subsequent at t empt t o keep t he sui t case out of si ght by hi di ng i t

under a J eep, t oget her const i t ut ed "speci f i c and ar t i cul abl e f act s"

j ust i f yi ng t he bel i ef t hat Fer mi n was engaged i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y.

Uni t ed St at es v. Rabbi a, 699 F. 3d 85, 89–90 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Br ake, 666 F. 3d 800, 804 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Vel ez- Sal dana, 252 F. 3d 49, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( pol i ce had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o st op def endant af t er seei ng hi m

emergi ng f r omarea where l arge shi pment of dr ugs r ecent l y had been

sei zed) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Moor e, 235 F. 3d 700, 703–04 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) ( of f i cer s had r easonabl e suspi ci on t o conduct st op af t er

def endant r an out of apar t ment i n bui l di ng wher e they "had j ust

obser ved si gni f i cant f oot t r af f i c suggest i ng ongoi ng dr ug sal es, "

and def endant at t empt ed t o hi de somet hi ng f r omof f i cer s) . The st op

was t hus per mi ssi bl e, as was t he sear ch of t he sui t case f ol l owi ng

Fer mi n' s di scl ai mer of owner shi p. See De Los Sant os Fer r er , 999

F. 2d at 9–10. The di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y deni ed t he mot i on t o

suppr ess.

-10-



B. Suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

At t r i al , t he gover nment pr oceeded on al t er nat i ve

t heor i es i n suppor t of Fer mi n' s gui l t , ar gui ng t hat he ei t her had

act ual knowl edge of what was i n t he sui t case, or el se pur posel y

avoi ded l ear ni ng of t he cont ent s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on,

695 F. 3d 44, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng t hat t heor i es of act ual

knowl edge and wi l l f ul bl i ndness " can coexi st " ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Gr i f f i n, 524 F. 3d 71, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) ) . Over def ense

counsel ' s obj ect i on, t he di st r i ct cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y t hat

t hey coul d i nf er t hat Fer mi n act ed knowi ngl y i f i t f ound " t hat he

del i ber at el y cl osed hi s eyes t o a f act t hat ot her wi se woul d have

been obvi ous t o hi m. "

Fer mi n ar gues on appeal t hat t he wi l l f ul - bl i ndness

i nst r uct i on was unwar r ant ed wher e ther e wer e no "f act s suggest [ i ng]

a consci ous cour se of del i ber at e i gnor ance. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d 59, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . He f ur t her cont ends t hat

t he evi dence at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent , under ei t her t heor y, t o

est abl i sh that he knew t hat t he sui t case cont ai ned dr ugs.

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

evi dence de novo. " I d. at 64. " I n assessi ng suf f i ci ency, we

exami ne the evi dence, bot h di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al , i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on . . . , i ncl udi ng al l pl ausi bl e

i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cr uz- Rodr í guez, 541

F. 3d 19, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . "I f , i n t hi s l i ght , any r easonabl e

-11-



j ury coul d f i nd al l t he el ements of t he cr i me beyond a r easonabl e

doubt , we must uphol d t he convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Li zar do,

445 F. 3d 73, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

We consi der f i r st whet her t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence

t hat Fer mi n act ual l y knew of t he dr ugs i n t he sui t case. I t i s

wor t h not i ng at t he out set t hat key evi dence t endi ng t o est abl i sh

Fer mi n' s mens r ea was not bef or e t he j ur y, namel y, t he t i p t hat 40

Li ege St r eet was a dr ug "st ash house" and t he detect i ves'

subsequent sur vei l l ance of t he ar ea. Wi t hout t hi s evi dence, t he

case agai nst Fer mi n i s a cl oser one. However , af t er a f ul l r evi ew

of t he t r anscr i pt , we concl ude that t her e was nonet hel ess

suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t Fer mi n' s convi ct i ons on a t heor y of

act ual knowl edge.

Ther e was evi dence bef or e t he j ury of Fer mi n' s pur posef ul

behavi or i n r et r i evi ng t he sui t case f r omt he 40 Li ege St r eet ar ea.

Fermi n wal ked, empt y- handed, t owards t he rear of 40 and 48- 50 Li ege

St r eet . Wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat he emer ged wi t h a "bul gi ng"

sui t case thr ee t o f our mi nut es l ater and wal ked back t he way he had

come, l ooki ng over hi s shoul der "as [ i f ] t o check i f anyone was

wal ki ng behi nd hi m. " Fer mi n t hen t r i ed t o hi de t he sui t case next

t o and under a J eep whi l e he t al ked on hi s cel l phone. Cf . Uni t ed

St at es v. Or t i z, 23 F. 3d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( def endant ' s ent r y

i nt o a condomi ni um compl ex empt y- handed, emergence wi t h a bl ack

bag, and pl aci ng of t he bag i nt o car t r unk suppor t ed a rat i onal

-12-



i nf er ence that def endant knew t hat t he bag cont ai ned cocai ne) .

Thi s evi dence i s probat i ve of Fer mi n' s del i berat e conduct and

di st i ngui shes t he case f r om ot her s i nvol vi ng def endant s who

happened t o be i n t he wr ong pl ace at t he wr ong t i me. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Val er i o, 48 F. 3d 58, 64–65 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( evi dence i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t convi ct i on of knowi ng possessi on

of cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e wher e dr ugs wer e f ound i n

l i ni ng of chai r i n apar t ment of whi ch def endant was shor t - t er m

occupant ) .

Fur t her , t he j ur y coul d i nf er Fer mi n' s knowl edge of hi s

car go f r om hi s ner vous behavi or and at t empt s t o conceal t he

sui t case, as wel l as f r omt he odor of mar i j uana emanat i ng f r omt he

sui t case. See Uni t ed St at es v. De J esús- Vi er a, 655 F. 3d 52, 60

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Test i mony r egar di ng [ t he def endant ' s] ner vous

behavi or . . . was al so suppor t i ng evi dence of gui l t . ") ; Azubi ke,

564 F. 3d at 65 ( "at t empt s at secrecy" demonst r at i ve of def endant ' s

knowl edge t hat br i ef case wi t h whi ch he was ent r ust ed cont ai ned

her oi n) ; Uni t ed St at es v. de Leon Davi s, 914 F. 2d 340, 342 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) ( st r ong odor of gl ue emanat i ng f r om sui t case, used t o

avoi d det ect i on of dr ugs, suppor t ed i nf er ence of knowi ng

par t i ci pat i on i n dr ug t r af f i cki ng) .

The j ury al so coul d have f ound t hat Fer mi n gave mor e t han

one demonst r abl y f al se account of how he f ound t he sui t case,

expl ai ni ng f i r st t hat someone thr ew i t over t he f ence whi l e he was

-13-



r unni ng at t he Pr ovi dence Col l ege t r ack, and l at er t hat he and hi s

f r i end had f ound i t t oget her and t hat t he f r i end had encour aged hi m

t o t ake i t . Unf or t unat el y f or Fer mi n, a l i eut enant at t he school ' s

Of f i ce of Saf et y and Secur i t y t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat t her e i s no

out door t r ack on campus; survei l l ance phot ogr aphs al so depi ct ed

Fer mi n al one — on a r esi dent i al st r eet , not on t he col l ege campus

—bot h i mmedi at el y bef or e and af t er r et r i evi ng t he sui t case. Thus,

Fer mi n' s " knowi ngl y f al se st at ement [ s wer e] pr obat i ve of [ hi s]

consci ousness of gui l t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Li t t l ef i el d, 840 F. 2d

143, 149 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

Fi nal l y, t her e was t est i mony at t r i al t hat t he whol esal e

val ue of t he dr ugs i n t he "heavi l y packed" sui t case was up t o

$51, 200, wi t h t he r et ai l val ue bei ng doubl e t hat amount . The

quant i t y of dr ugs possessed pr ovi des a basi s f r om whi ch t o i nf er

knowl edge. See De J esús- Vi er a, 655 F. 3d at 60; Azubi ke, 564 F. 3d

at 65; Uni t ed St at es v. Ayal a- Tapi a, 520 F. 3d 66, 68 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . Thus, vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

t he gover nment , a reasonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd that Fer mi n had act ual

knowl edge of t he cont ent s of t he sui t case. 6

6 Al t hough Fer mi n t akes i ssue onl y wi t h t he government ' sevi dence as t o t he knowl edge el ement , we note t hat t her e wassuf f i ci ent evi dence of hi s i nt ent t o di st r i but e, t oo. Such i nt entcoul d be i nf er r ed f r omt he quant i t y of dr ugs possessed, as wel l asf r om t he possessi on of dr ug par apher nal i a such as di gi t al scal esand pl ast i c baggi es. Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t és- Cabán, 691 F. 3d 1,35–36 & nn. 37, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

-14-



Gi ven t hi s concl usi on, we need not r each t he quest i on

"whet her 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, " such t hat t he wi l l f ul -

bl i ndness i nst r uct i on was war r ant ed. Uni t ed St at es v. Epst ei n, 426

F. 3d 431, 440 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Al t hough t he war ni ng si gns of cr i mi nal act i vi t y wer e per haps l ess

conspi cuous t han i n ot her cases wher e such an i nst r uct i on pr oper l y

was gi ven, e. g. , Li zar do, 445 F. 3d at 85, any er r or i n t he deci si on

t o gi ve t he i nst r uct i on was har ml ess i n l i ght of t he ampl e evi dence

of Fer mi n' s act ual knowl edge. Uni t ed St at es v. Gar cí a- Past r ana,

584 F. 3d 351, 379 n. 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( er r or i n gi vi ng wi l l f ul -

bl i ndness i nst r uct i on har ml ess wher e evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o

suppor t def endant ' s di r ect knowl edge of cr i mi nal act i vi t y) .

Mor eover , because the cour t ' s " i nst r uct i on, t aken as a

whol e, [ coul d not ] be mi sunderst ood as mandat i ng an i nf erence of

knowl edge, " Azubi ke, F. 3d at 66, t her e was no danger t hat t he j ur y

convi ct ed based on an i mper mi ssi bl y l ow st andar d, see Uni t ed St at es

v. Br andon, 17 F. 3d 409, 453 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . The di st r i ct cour t

caut i oned t he j ur y,

I t i s ent i r el y up t o you t o det er mi ne whet her[ Fer mi n] del i ber at el y cl osed hi s eyes t o [ a]f act and, i f so, what i nf er ence i f any shoul d

be dr awn f r om t hat f act . However , i t i si mport ant t o bear i n mi nd t hat mere negl i genceor mi st ake or i gnor ance i n f ai l i ng t o l ear n af act i s not suf f i ci ent . Ther e must be adel i ber at e ef f or t t o r emai n i gnor ant of t hef act . I f af t er cons i der i ng al l of theevi dence you have a r easonabl e doubt t hat

-15-



[ Fer mi n] act ed wi t h t he r equi si t e cul pabl est at e of mi nd, t hen you must f i nd [ Fer mi n] notgui l t y.

Cf . Li t t l ef i el d, 840 F. 2d at 148 ( cour t ' s i nst r ucti on di d not

mandate i nf erence of knowl edge where i t expl ai ned t o j ur y that

def endant ' s mer e negl i gence woul d be i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh

gui l t ) . "Thus, t her e was l i t t l e r i sk t hat t he j ur y was conf used

i nt o convi ct i ng a def endant who merel y shoul d have known about t he

cr i mi nal vent ur e. " Br andon, 17 F. 3d at 454.

C. J ur y i nst r ucti ons

Fer mi n next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur y

i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he consi der at i on of exper t t est i mony was

er r oneous. I n par t i cul ar , he t akes i ssue wi t h t he cour t ' s

admoni t i on t hat , due t o exper t wi t nesses' "speci al i zed knowl edge, "

t hei r opi ni ons shoul d be "car ef ul l y consi der [ ed] " and "shoul d not

be di sr egar ded l i ght l y. " Fer mi n asser t s t hat t hi s i nst r uct i on

ef f ect i vel y di r ect ed t he j ur y t o def er t o Det ect i ve Al l en, who

opi ned t hat t he quant i t i es of mar i j uana and cocai ne f ound i n t he

sui t case wer e consi st ent wi t h di st r i but i ve i nt ent , r at her t han

personal use. 7

7 To t he ext ent t hat Det ect i ve Al l en t est i f i ed based on hi sexper i ence handl i ng hundr eds of nar cot i cs i nvest i gat i ons and dr ug

sei zur es over t went y- t hr ee year s, hi s t est i mony appear s t o haveconst i t ut ed "speci al i zed knowl edge" wi t hi n t he meani ng of Feder alRul e of Evi dence 702, whi ch gover ns exper t wi t nesses. Cf . Uni t edSt at es v. Gar cí a- Mor al es, 382 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( wher eagent had "par t i ci pat ed i n bet ween 20 t o 40 nar cot i c i nvest i gat i onsand 40 to 60 dr ug sei zur es, " hi s "pr of essi onal backgr ound pr ovi dedhi m wi t h suf f i ci ent exper i ence t o expl ai n t he st r uctur e and

-16-



Because Fer mi n di d not obj ect t o t hi s i nst r uct i on, our

r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 30( d) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Medi na- Mar t i nez, 396 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . "When

appl yi ng t he pl ai n er r or st andar d i n t he cont ext of j ur y

i nst r uct i ons, we l ook at t he i nst r uct i ons as a whol e t o ascer t ai n

t he extent t o whi ch they adequatel y expl ai n the l aw wi t hout

conf usi ng or mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 669

F. 3d 10, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I t i s t he pr ovi nce of t he j ur y to det er mi ne t he pr oper

wei ght t o assi gn t o exper t t est i mony. Uni t ed St at es v. Shel t on,

490 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Test i mony i s not ent i t l ed t o

def er ence si mpl y because i t der i ves f r om an exper t . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . I ndeed, j ur or s

of t en ar e r emi nded t o "consi der t he f act or s t hat gener al l y bear

upon t he cr edi bi l i t y of a wi t ness" when wei ghi ng exper t t est i mony.

Pat t er n Cr i mi nal J ur y I nst r uct i ons f or t he Di st r i ct Cour t s of t he

Fi r st Ci r cui t § 2. 07. 8

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t er r ant l y advi sed t he j ur y

t hat exper t t est i mony "shoul d not be di sr egar ded l i ght l y, " t he

i nst r ucti on i n i t s ent i r et y appr i sed t he j ur y of i t s pr oper r ol e

vi s- à- vi s exper t wi t nesses. The cour t t ol d t he j ur y t hat i t was

oper at i on of a t ypi cal dr ug conspi r acy. ") .

8 We not e, however , t hat t he pat t er n i nst r uct i ons are"pr ecat ory, not mandatory. " Uni t ed St ates v. Gomez, 255 F. 3d 31,39 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

-17-



not r equi r ed t o accept an opi ni on j ust because a wi t ness has

speci al i zed knowl edge, t hat i t shoul d measur e t he cr edi bi l i t y of

expert wi t nesses by the same st andard appl i cabl e t o other

wi t nesses, and t hat exper t opi ni ons " ar e not necessari l y

det er mi nat i ve or concl usi ve. " 9 Separ at el y, t he cour t al so

caut i oned agai nst gi vi ng speci al wei ght t o l aw- enf or cement

t est i mony. These mul t i pl e war ni ngs wer e suf f i ci ent t o of f set any

pot ent i al conf usi on, and t he i nst r uct i on as a whol e was not pl ai nl y

er r oneous. Cf . Br own, 669 F. 3d at 30 ( al t hough cer t ai n l anguage i n

i nst r uct i on was "ambi guous i n t he abst r act , t he r est of t he j ur y

9 The di st r i ct cour t i nst r ucted t he j ur y as f ol l ows:

Dur i ng t he t r i al , you hear d t est i mony f r om sever alwi t nesses who cl ai m t o have speci al i zed knowl edge i n at echni cal f i el d. These wi t nesses ar e somet i mes r ef er r edt o as exper t wi t nesses. And because of t hei r speci al i zedknowl edge, t hey ar e per mi t t ed to expr ess opi ni ons whi chmay be hel pf ul t o you i n det er mi ni ng t he f act s.

Si nce they do have speci al i zed knowl edge, t heopi ni ons of exper t wi t nesses, whet her expr essedpersonal l y or i n document s whi ch have been admi t t ed i nt oevi dence, shoul d not be di sr egar ded l i ght l y. On t heot her hand, you ar e not r equi r ed t o accept such opi ni ons j ust because t he wi t ness has speci al i zed knowl edge.

I n det er mi ni ng t he wei ght t o gi ve t o t he t est i monyof a so- cal l ed exper t wi t ness, you shoul d appl y t he samet est s of credi bi l i t y t hat appl y t o t he t est i mony of anyot her wi t ness. That i s, t he oppor t uni t y t o obser ve t hef act s about whi ch he t est i f i ed, hi s appar ent candor orl ack of candor , and you may t ake i nt o account t he

wi t ness' s qual i f i cat i ons, especi al l y i n compar i son t o anyqual i f i cat i ons of any exper t wi t ness who expr essedcont r ar y opi ni ons, and t he accur acy of t he f act s uponwhi ch t he wi t ness' s opi ni ons are based.

So i n shor t , you shoul d car ef ul l y consi der t heopi ni ons of exper t wi t nesses, but t hey ar e notnecessar i l y det er mi nat i ve or concl usi ve.

-18-



i nst r uct i on l ent cont ent t o i t , " such t hat j ur y was not l ed

ast r ay) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ni shni ani dze, 342 F. 3d 6, 16 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) ( f i ndi ng no pl ai n er r or i n j ur y i nst r uct i on wher e di st r i ct

cour t i ni t i al l y mi sst at ed el ement of cri me but l at er cl ar i f i ed

natur e of government ' s bur den) .

D. Sent enci ng

Fer mi n ar gues t hat r esent enci ng i s r equi r ed because t he

di st r i ct cour t i mposed t wo unsuppor t ed sentence enhancement s and

al so i mpr oper l y penal i zed hi m f or exer ci si ng hi s r i ght agai nst

sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on. We consi der each obj ect i on i n t ur n, r evi ewi ng

t he cour t ' s l egal concl usi ons de novo and f act ual concl usi ons f or

cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez, 609 F. 3d 13, 20 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) .

1. Obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement

A sent enci ng cour t i s aut hor i zed t o enhance a def endant ' s

of f ense l evel by two l evel s i f t he def endant "wi l l f ul l y obst r ucted

or i mpeded, or at t empt ed t o obst r uct or i mpede, t he admi ni st r at i on

of j ust i ce. " U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual § 3C1. 1. Such an

enhancement may be pr emi sed on a f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant

commi t t ed per j ur y dur i ng t he cour se of t he i nvest i gat i on,

pr osecut i on, or sent enci ng. I d. cmt . n. 1; Uni t ed St at es v.

Magui r e, 752 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . The cour t must make an

i ndependent f i ndi ng, by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, t hat t he

el ement s of per j ur y have been sat i sf i ed bef or e i mposi ng t he

-19-



enhancement . Gonzal ez, 609 F. 3d at 20. "Per j ur y consi st s of f al se

t est i mony under oat h concer ni ng a mat t er mat er i al t o t he

pr oceedi ng, as l ong as t he t est i mony i s gi ven ' wi t h t he wi l l f ul

i nt ent t o pr ovi de f al se t est i mony, r at her t han as a r esul t of

conf usi on, mi st ake, or f aul t y memor y. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Shi nder man, 515 F. 3d 5, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Dunni gan, 507 U. S. 87, 94 ( 1993) ) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a two- l evel enhancement

f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce af t er concl udi ng t hat Fer mi n had

per j ur ed hi msel f dur i ng t he suppr essi on hear i ng. The cour t f ound

t hat Fer mi n' s t est i mony was "a t al e spun t o at t empt t o get [ t he

cour t ] t o suppr ess t he evi dence, " and t hat i t was " cl ear l y f al se, "

bot h "i n i t s speci f i cs and . . . i n a gener al over al l sense. " I n

par t i cul ar , t he cour t f ound unt r ut hf ul Fer mi n' s account of

di scover i ng t he sui t case, hi s deni al t hat he ever t ol d pol i ce t hat

he f ound i t whi l e runni ng on t he t r ack at Pr ovi dence Col l ege, and

hi s asser t i on t hat pol i ce st opped hi m wi t h weapons dr awn.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Fer mi n wi l l f ul l y l i ed

i n an at t empt t o have evi dence agai nst hi m suppr essed i s a f act ual

one t hat we r evi ew f or cl ear er r or . Gonzal ez, 609 F. 3d at 20. We

cannot say t hat t he f i ndi ng was cl ear l y er r oneous. Fer mi n' s

t est i mony about t he ci r cumst ances of f i ndi ng the sui t case and

subsequent st op by pol i ce di r ect l y conf l i ct ed wi t h t hat of t he

other t wo wi t nesses, who t he cour t determi ned t o be more cr edi bl e.

-20-



Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Meada, 408 F. 3d 14, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( f i ndi ng of per j ur y not cl ear l y er r oneous wher e def endant ' s

t est i mony "conf l i ct ed wi t h sever al ot her wi t nesses") . "Thi s was no

gar den- var i et y t est i moni al conf l i ct about a per i pher al mat t er but ,

r at her , a head- on cl ash about a cent r al i ssue" at t he hear t of t he

mot i on t o suppr ess. Shi nder man, 515 F. 3d at 19. As t he di st r i ct

cour t not ed, Fer mi n' s di savowal of havi ng t ol d pol i ce t hat he was

r unni ng at t he t r ack al so was bel i ed by pol i ce r epor t s t hat

r ecor ded such st at ement af t er t he f act .

Fer mi n cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o make

t he requi si t e f i ndi ng t hat hi s f al se t est i mony concer ned a mat t er

mat er i al t o t he suppr essi on hear i ng. But i nsof ar as hi s t est i mony

was r el evant t o whet her pol i ce had reasonabl e suspi ci on to conduct

t he st op and whet her t hat st op const i t ut ed a sei zur e, i t was

"obvi ousl y mat er i al . " Uni t ed St at es v. Campbel l , 61 F. 3d 976, 984

( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( af f i r mi ng appl i cat i on of obst r ucti on- of - j ust i ce

enhancement wher e di st r i ct cour t "appl i ed t he cor r ect l egal t est

f or per j ur y" but di d not make expl i ci t mat er i al i t y f i ndi ng, not i ng

t hat "cour t of appeal s can make mat er i al i t y det er mi nat i on absent

expr ess di st r i ct cour t f i ndi ng") . The enhancement was pr oper and

not cl ear l y er r oneous.

2. Gun enhancement

Fer mi n al so di sput es t he t wo- l evel enhancement i mposed

under U. S. S. G. § 2D1. 1( b) ( 1) . That gui del i ne appl i es i f a

-21-



dangerous weapon was possessed dur i ng t he course of a dr ug-

t r af f i cki ng of f ense, pr ovi ded t hat t he pr esence of t he weapon was

known t o, or r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t o, t he def endant . Uni t ed

St at es v. Qui ñones- Medi na, 553 F. 3d 19, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . 10 The

comment ary t o t he gui del i ne notes t hat " [ t ] he enhancement shoul d be

appl i ed i f t he weapon was pr esent , unl ess i t i s cl ear l y i mpr obabl e

t hat t he weapon was connect ed wi t h t he of f ense. " U. S. S. G. § 2D1. 1

cmt . n. 11( A) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Thongsophapor n, 503 F. 3d

51, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Fer mi n ar gues t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t hat he knew or coul d have r easonabl y f oreseen t he

pr esence of t he gun i n t he sui t case, par t i cul ar l y wher e t he j ur y

acqui t t ed hi m of t he f i r ear m char ge.

Al t hough we ar e mi ndf ul t hat t he j ur y acqui t t ed Fer mi n of

t he f i r ear m char ge, i t r emai ns t he l aw i n t hi s Ci r cui t t hat

acqui t t ed conduct can f or m t he basi s of a sent ence enhancement .

Uni t ed St at es v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 302, 314 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Whi l e

t he j ur y must , of cour se, f i nd f act s beyond a r easonabl e doubt , a

pr eponder ance- of - t he- evi dence st andar d appl i es t o t he sent enci ng

cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs. I d. Fur t her , t her e i s no necessar y

i nconsi st ency bet ween acqui t t al on char ges of "knowi ng" possessi on

10 The "r easonabl y f or eseeabl e" st andar d appl i es i n cases of j oi nt cr i mi nal vent ures, i r r espect i ve of whet her t he vent ure hasbeen charged as a conspi r acy. U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual§ 1B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Thongsophapor n, 503 F. 3d 51, 58& n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

-22-



of a f i r ear m and t he cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat t he pr esence of t he gun

was " r easonabl y f or eseeabl e" t o Fer mi n.

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat Fer mi n ei t her

was movi ng hi s own sui t case or t hat he was movi ng i t at t he behest

of anot her per son. I f t he f or mer was t r ue, t he cour t f ound t hat

" i t was absol ut el y cl ear t hat i t was mor e l i kel y t han not he knew

t hat t he f i r ear m was pr esent i n t he sui t case. " I f , on t he ot her

hand, t he l at t er was t r ue, t he cour t f ound t hat Fer mi n had been

ent r ust ed wi t h $50, 000 wor t h of dr ugs; someone i n hi s posi t i on,

r el i ed upon t o t r anspor t dr ugs of such val ue, coul d be expect ed t o

be f ami l i ar wi t h t he t r ade and f or esee t he coi nci dence of guns and

dr ugs. The cour t t hus concl uded t hat , r egar dl ess of whi ch scenar i o

pr evai l ed, i t was mor e l i kel y t han not t hat Fer mi n "knew of and/ or

coul d r easonabl y f or esee t he pr esence of [ t he] f i r ear m. " Thi s

f i ndi ng was war r ant ed and not cl ear l y er r oneous, i n l i ght of

evi dence of Fer mi n' s knowl edge of t he dr ugs i n t he sui t case, and

case l aw r ecogni zi ng that such knowl edge makes t he pr esence of guns

r easonabl y f or eseeabl e. 11 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Bi anco, 922

F. 2d 910, 912 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( af f i r mi ng appl i cat i on of f i r ear m

enhancement and not i ng that "we of t en obser ve t hat f i r ear ms ar e

11 We not e al so that , as di scussed above, t he di st r i ct cour thad bef ore i t evi dence of an ongoi ng dr ug operat i on t hat was notpr esent ed t o t he j ur y: t he conf i dent i al i nf or mant ' s t i p,cor r obor ated by pol i ce, t hat t he house at 40 Li ege St r eet was bei ngused as a "st ash house" f or l ar ge quant i t i es of mar i j uana, whi chwas t o be rel ocat ed shor t l y.

-23-



common t ool s of t he dr ug t r ade. " ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. J ackson,

918 F. 2d 236, 240 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) , Uni t ed St at es v. Wal t er s, 904

F. 2d 765, 769 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) .

3. Al l eged penal t y f or Fer mi n' s exer ci se of r i ghtagai nst sel f - i ncri mi nat i on

Fi nal l y, Fer mi n ar gues t hat he was penal i zed dur i ng

sent enci ng f or havi ng exer ci sed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght agai nst

sel f - i ncri mi nat i on. Speci f i cal l y, Fer mi n cont ends t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y f ocused on hi s r ef usal t o admi t knowl edge

of t he cont ent s of t he sui t case, dr awi ng an adver se i nf er ence f r om

t he r ef usal and met i ng out a har sher sent ence as a r esul t . Because

Fer mi n di d not r ai se t hi s obj ect i on bel ow, our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n

er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Pal adi n, 748 F. 3d 438, 452 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) .

I n shor t , t he r ecor d does not bear out Fer mi n' s

asser t i on. Towar d t he end of t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct

cour t di scussed a l et t er t hat Fer mi n had sent t o t he cour t

f ol l owi ng t r i al , i n whi ch he voi ced r egr et f or t aki ng t he sui t case

but st i l l mai nt ai ned t hat he had not known of i t s cont ent s. The

cour t di d not f ocus on Fer mi n' s si l ence, but r at her on t he ver si on

of event s he ar t i cul at ed dur i ng t he suppr essi on hear i ng and agai n

i n t he l et t er , expr essi ng skept i ci smat hi s i nsi st ence t hat he di d

not know what was i n t he sui t case. However , t he cour t di d not

t r ansl at e t hi s skept i ci smi nt o an addi t i onal sent ence enhancement ;

i n f act , t he f or t y- one- mont h sent ence Fer mi n ul t i mat el y r ecei ved

-24-



was at t he l owest end of t he gui del i ne r ange f or hi s of f ense

l evel . 12 Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he cour t i mposed a mor e

sever e penal t y as a r esul t of Fer mi n' s f ai l ur e t o admi t t hat he

knew what was i n the sui t case.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Fer mi n' s convi ct i ons and

sent ence ar e AFFI RMED.

12 I t i s evi dent f r omt he t r anscri pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ngt hat t he di st r i ct cour t was mi ndf ul of t he f act or s t o be consi der edunder 18 U. S. C. § 3553( a) .

-25-

Documents

United States v. Fermin, 1st Cir. (2014)