United States v. Martinez, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Martinez, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/30

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 246214- 1127

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

KARAPET DZHANI KYAN AND RONALD J . MARTI NEZ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

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

Amy M. Bel ger f or appel l ant Dzhani kyan.Derege B. Demi ss i e, wi t h whom Demi ss i e and Chur ch was on

br i ef , f or appel l ant Mar t i nez.Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

December 11, 2015


2/30

- 2 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. I n t hese consol i dat ed cr i mi nal

appeal s, Karapet Dzhani kyan and Ronal d Mar t i nez r ai se a number of

chal l enges t o thei r convi ct i ons, i ncl udi ng some t hat concer n t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deci si on t o t r y t he t wo men t oget her . For t he

r easons set f or t h bel ow, we af f i r m each of t he convi ct i ons except

f or Mar t i nez' s convi ct i on f or conspi r i ng t o use ext or t i onat e means

t o col l ect an ext ensi on of credi t i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

894( a) .

I.

The i ni t i al i ndi ct ment char gi ng Dzhani kyan and Mar t i nez

was handed down i n 2011 and ar ose out of a year - l ong wi r et ap

i nvest i gat i on of a suspect ed dr ug t r af f i cker named Saf wan

Madar at i . A super sedi ng i ndi ct ment , cont ai ni ng el even t ot al

count s and nami ng f i f t een def endant s, was handed down i n 2012.

Fi ve count s of t he supersedi ng i ndi ct ment named

Dzhani kyan or Mar t i nez. Dzhani kyan was charged wi t h one count of

conspi r i ng wi t h Madar at i and ot her s t o di st r i but e oxycodone, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 846 ( Count 1) . Mar t i nez was char ged wi t h

t wo count s of conspi r i ng wi t h Madar at i and ot her s t o at t empt t o

col l ect a debt t hr ough ext or t i onat e means, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 894( a) ( Count s 2 and 3) , and t wo count s of possessi ng

crack cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e i t , i n vi ol at i on of 21

U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) ( Count s 10 and 11) .


3/30

- 3 -

Bef or e t r i al , Mar t i nez moved t o be t r i ed separ at el y f r om

al l of hi s co- def endant s, i ncl udi ng Dzhani kyan. Mar t i nez al so

moved t o be t r i ed separ at el y on each of t he f our count s he f aced.

I n J anuar y of 2013, t he Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Mar t i nez' s mot i ons

f or sever ance. Dzhani kyan made no pr e- t r i al severance mot i on.

By t he t i me t he t r i al began on J une 3, 2013, al l of t he

co- def endant s of Dzhani kyan and Mart i nez had pl eaded gui l t y. The

t r i al t hus proceeded wi t h onl y Dzhani kyan and Mar t i nez as

def endant s.

Af t er t he pr esent at i on of t he evi dence at t r i al ,

Mar t i nez moved under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 29( a) f or

acqui t t al on al l t he count s f or whi ch he had been char ged. The

Di st r i ct Cour t gr ant ed Mar t i nez' s mot i on as t o t he f i r st of t he

t wo count s t hat had char ged hi m wi t h usi ng extor t i onat e means t o

col l ect an ext ensi on of cr edi t ( Count 2) . That ext or t i on count

char ged Mar t i nez wi t h conspi r i ng t o use extor t i onat e means t o

col l ect an ext ensi on of cr edi t by Madar at i t o a j ewel r y st or e

owner . The al l eged extor t i onat e means i nvol ved shoot i ng t he

st or e' s wi ndows and r esul t ed i n i nj ur i es t o sever al peopl e.

The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Mar t i nez' s mot i on as t o t he

r emai ni ng count s agai nst hi m, i ncl udi ng as t o the second extor t i on

count ( Count 3) . That ext or t i on count char ged Mar t i nez wi t h

conspi r i ng t o use extor t i onat e means t o col l ect a separ at e

extensi on of cr edi t by Madar at i . The al l eged extor t i onat e means


4/30

- 4 -

i nvol ved an at t empt ed br eak- i n of t he house of t he pur por t ed

debt or .

Fol l owi ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he Rul e 29( a)

mot i on, j ur y del i ber at i ons began. I n t he mi dst of t he

del i ber at i ons, t he j ur y submi t t ed t wo quest i ons t o t he Di st r i ct

Cour t . One of t hose quest i ons i s at i ssue i n t hese appeal s: "Can

we use al l t he evi dence pr esent ed dur i ng t he t r i al as we eval uat e

each i ndi vi dual char ge?" The Di st r i ct Cour t pr oposed t o answer

t hat quest i on by sayi ng si mpl y, "Yes. "

Mar t i nez' s counsel r ai sed a concer n about t he pr oposed

answer . She r equest ed t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t make cl ear t hat t he

j ury coul d not r el y on evi dence f r omMar t i nez' s by- t hen di smi ssed,

j ewel r y- st or e ext or t i on count i n consi der i ng ( at l east ) t he

r emai ni ng ext or t i on count agai nst Mar t i nez. Mar t i nez' s counsel

di d not act ual l y pr opose such an i nst r uct i on, however . Mar t i nez' s

counsel expl ai ned that she woul d need some t i me t o come up wi t h

t he r i ght wor di ng. The Di st r i ct Cour t made cl ear t hat i n i t s vi ew

t her e was no need f or any l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on. Dzhani kyan r ai sed

no obj ect i on t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s pr oposed answer t o t he j ur y' s

quest i on.

The Di st r i ct Cour t cal l ed t he j uror s back i nto t he

cour t r oom and t ol d t hem t hat t he answer t o t hei r quest i on was,

"Yes. " Af t er addr essi ng t he j ur y' s ot her quest i on, t he Di st r i ct

Cour t asked t he j ur y: "And you under st and t he use of al l of t he


5/30

- 5 -

evi dence wi t h r espect t o each char ge as i t appl i es t o t hat char ge?"

The j ury r esponded by "noddi ng. "

The j ury r et urned gui l t y ver di ct s agai nst Dzhani kyan and

Mar t i nez on al l f our r emai ni ng count s. Fol l owi ng t he ver di ct s,

t he def endant s moved f or both a j udgment of acqui t t al under Federal

Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 29( a) and a new t r i al under Feder al

Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 33. 1 The mot i on f or a new t r i al

cont ended t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s "Yes" r esponse t o t he j ur y' s

quest i on r esul t ed i n "evi dent i ar y spi l l over , " a "var i ance, " and

"r et r oact i ve mi sj oi nder . " The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed t he

def endant s' Rul e 29( a) mot i ons and t hei r j oi nt mot i on f or a new

t r i al .

I n consi der i ng t he def endant s' chal l enges on appeal , we

st ar t wi t h t hei r i ndi vi dual chal l enges t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

i ni t i al deci si on t o t r y t hem t oget her and t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deni al of t hei r j oi nt mot i on f or new t r i al . We t hen consi der

Mar t i nez' s separ at e chal l enges t o hi s ext or t i on convi ct i on on

Count 3.

II.

"[ A] t r i al j udge has ' consi der abl e l at i t ude' i n deci di ng

sever ance quest i ons, " and thus, even when a chal l enge t o a deci si on

t o t r y a def endant j oi nt l y has been pr oper l y pr eserved, " t he

1 Techni cal l y, Mar t i nez f i l ed a mot i on f or a new t r i al andt hen Dzhani kyan moved t o j oi n t hat mot i on.


6/30

- 6 -

j udge' s r esol ut i on of [ t hose quest i ons] ' wi l l be over t urned onl y

i f t hat wi de di scret i on i s pl ai nl y abused. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

O' Br yant , 998 F. 2d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302, 308 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) . An abuse of

di scret i on i n decl i ni ng t o sever a t r i al may be f ound, however , i f

a def endant "who seeks a separat e t r i al can . . . mak[ e] a st r ong

showi ng of evi dent pr ej udi ce. " I d. And t hat st r ong showi ng may

be made "i f t her e i s a ser i ous r i sk t hat a j oi nt t r i al woul d . . .

pr event t he j ur y f r om maki ng a r el i abl e j udgment about gui l t or

i nnocence. " I d. ( quot i ng Zaf i r o v. Uni t ed St at es, 506 U. S. 534,

539 ( 1993) ) . Wi t h t hat backgr ound i n pl ace, we now t ur n t o t he

chal l enges t he def endant s br i ng - - bot h i ndi vi dual l y and j oi nt l y - -

t o t he deci si on t o t r y t hem t oget her .

A.

Dzhani kyan cont ends t hat t her e was a ser i ous r i sk her e

t hat , i n consequence of t he j oi nt t r i al , t he j ur y woul d not be

abl e t o r ender a r el i abl e ver di ct because the evi dence t he

gover nment i nt ended t o put f or t h about Mar t i nez' s i nvol vement i n

t he two al l eged ext ort i on schemes was "hi ghl y i nf l ammatory and

prej udi ci al . " 2 Dzhani kyan di d not r ai se t hi s chal l enge bel ow,

2 The evi dence concerni ng Count 2 i ncl uded t est i mony t hat aman t he government mai nt ai ned was Mar t i nez shot bul l et s t hr ought he wi ndows and di spl ay cases of a j ewel r y shop, i nj ur i ng sever albyst ander empl oyees of t he shop. The evi dence concer ni ng Count 3i ncl uded t est i mony t hat a man t he government named as Mar t i nez


7/30

- 7 -

however , and so hi s chal l enge, i f not wai ved, i s subj ect t o r evi ew

onl y f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Magana, 127 F. 3d 1, 7

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( r evi ewi ng unpr eser ved mi sj oi nder cl ai m f or pl ai n

error) . 3

To sat i sf y t he demandi ng pl ai n- er r or st andar d,

Dzhani kyan must show t hat " ( 1) an err or occur r ed, ( 2) t he er r or

was obvi ous, ( 3) t he er r or af f ect ed subst ant i al r i ght s, and ( 4)

t he er r or 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. Lanza-

Vzquez, 799 F. 3d 134, 145 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . But he cannot make t hat showi ng.

I t i s not obvi ous t hat t he gover nment ' s evi dence about

Mar t i nez' s use of extor t i onat e means t o col l ect an extensi on of

cr edi t woul d cr eat e a ser i ous r i sk t hat t he j ur y woul d be pr event ed

f r om maki ng a rel i abl e j udgment about Dzhani kyan' s r ol e i n

commi t t i ng t he di st i nct and unr el at ed dr ug conspi r acy cr i me f or

whi ch he was char ged. That evi dence, t o be sure, di d i nvol ve

at t empt ed t o br eak i nt o the home of a pur port ed debt or i n t hemi ddl e of t he ni ght .

3 The gover nment ar gues i n i t s br i ef t hat t hi s ar gument has

act ual l y been wai ved because Dzhani kyan made no t i mel y mot i on f orsever ance under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 12( b) ( 3) . SeeUni t ed St at es v. Oquendo- Ri vas, 750 F. 3d 12, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)( f i ndi ng wai ver i n t he cont ext of anot her unt i mel y 12( b) ( 3)mot i on) . But we need not deci de her e when a f ai l ur e t o f i l e apr e- t r i al mot i on t o sever mi ght const i t ut e a wai ver , becauseDzhani kyan' s chal l enge f ai l s even i f we appl y t he pl ai n- er r orst andar d.


8/30

- 8 -

descr i pt i ons of ver y vi ol ent act i vi t y. But gi ven t he mi ni mal r i sk

t hat t he j ur y woul d bel i eve t hat t he evi dence agai nst Mar t i nez

per t ai ni ng t o extor t i on was r el evant t o the gover nment ' s case

agai nst Dzhani kyan f or dr ug di st r i but i on, we concl ude t hat

Dzhani kyan has not shown t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t pl ai nl y er r ed i n

exer ci si ng i t s br oad di scr et i on t o deci de whet her t o sever

Dzhani kyan' s t r i al f r omt hat of Mar t i nez. See Uni t ed St at es v. De

La Paz- Rent as, 613 F. 3d 18, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( r ej ect i ng a

def endant ' s sever ance chal l enge wher e t he t r i al i ncl uded

"subst ant i al " evi dence of hi s co- def endant s' gun deal i ngs - - wi t h

whi ch t he def endant had no i nvol vement - - but where "t here was no

r eason f or t he j ur y to be conf used about [ t he def endant ' s] r ol e" ) .

B.

Bef or e t r i al , Mar t i nez of f er ed a di f f er ent r eason f or

cont endi ng t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t shoul d t r y the t wo def endant s

separ at el y. Mar t i nez cont ended t hat t he deci si on t o t r y t he t wo

of t hem t oget her r i sked pr ej udi ci ng t he j ur y' s abi l i t y t o make a

r el i abl e j udgment about whet her Mar t i nez i nt ended t o di st r i but e

t he crack cocai ne t hat he was char ged wi t h possess i ng.

On appeal , t he government cont ends t hat Mar t i nez has

f ai l ed t o r enew t hi s chal l enge t o us and t hat t hi s chal l enge has

t heref ore been wai ved. But even assumi ng t he gover nment i s wr ong

on t hat scor e, Mar t i nez' s chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deci s i on not t o sever hi s tr i al f r om Dzhanki yan' s st i l l f ai l s .


9/30

- 9 -

Mar t i nez bases hi s severance ar gument on t he evi dence

t hat t he government was t o put f or t h concerni ng Dzhani kyan' s

al l eged i nvol vement i n Madar at i ' s al l eged dr ug- di st r i but i on

conspi r acy. That evi dence concer ned Dzhani kyan' s al l eged t r avel

t o Cal i f or ni a t o make subst ant i al pur chases of oxycodone pi l l s on

behal f of Madar at i . Mar t i nez cont ends that t hi s evi dence r egar di ng

hi s co- def endant ' s al l eged i nvol vement i n dr ug di st r i but i on woul d

pr ej udi ce t he j ur y' s eval uat i on of whet her Mar t i nez possessed t he

r equi si t e i nt ent t o di st r i but e t he dr ugs t hat he was char ged wi t h

possessi ng.

Mar t i nez poi nt s out t hat ot her evi dence suppor t ed hi s

cont ent i on t hat he possessed t he dr ugs f or per sonal use. And he

poi nt s i n t hat r egar d t o t he t r i al t est i mony of an exper t wi t ness

t hat t he amount of cr ack cocai ne wi t h whi ch Mart i nez was char ged

wi t h possessi ng - - 3. 25 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne - - was consi st ent

wi t h possessi on f or per sonal use rat her t han wi t h possessi on wi t h

an i nt ent t o di st r i but e.

But Mar t i nez does not cont end on appeal t hat hi s t r i al

on t he extor t i on count s shoul d have been sever ed f r omhi s t r i al on

t he cr ack cocai ne possessi on count . And t hus Mar t i nez necessar i l y

concedes t hat even i f hi s t r i al had been sever ed f r omDzhani kyan' s,

t he j ur y st i l l woul d have been exposed t o evi dence about Madar at i ' s

dr ug di st r i but i on conspi r acy. Af t er al l , t o show t hat Mar t i nez

conspi r ed t o use extor t i onat e means t o col l ect an extensi on of


10/30

- 10 -

cr edi t , as Count 3 al l eged, t he government needed t o put f orward

evi dence t hat t her e was an "extensi on of cr edi t . " And t he

gover nment ' s case i n t hat r egar d consi st ed, i n si gni f i cant par t ,

of evi dence t hat a man named Vi ct or Loukas had t r avel ed more t i mes

t o Cal i f or ni a on behal f of Madar at i t han had Dzhani kyan, and as

par t of Madar at i ' s dr ug- di st r i but i on conspi r acy, t o buy mor e t ot al

oxycodone pi l l s f or more money t han had Dzhani kyan.

I n consequence, any sever ance chal l enge Mar t i nez makes

on appeal necessar i l y amount s onl y t o a compl ai nt about t he

i ncrement al addi t i onal r i sk of pr ej udi ce t hat woul d ar i se f r omt he

j ury hear i ng mor e about a t opi c about whi ch t he j ury woul d al r eady

have heard much. We t hus do not see how Mar t i nez can successf ul l y

cont end t hat t he j ur y' s exposur e t o t he addi t i onal evi dence about

dr ug di st r i but i on t hat per t ai ned t o Dzhani kyan cr eat ed t he ki nd of

"seri ous" r i sk of pr ej udi ce t hat coul d suf f i ce t o show t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n deci di ng t o t r y Mar t i nez

and Dzhani kyan t ogether . See O' Br yant , 998 F. 2d at 25, 27. We

t hus r ej ect Mar t i nez' s chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s i ni t i al

deci si on t o decl i ne t o sever hi s t r i al f r om t hat of hi s co-

def endant .

C.

Looki ng past t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s i ni t i al deci si on not

t o sever t he t r i al s of Mar t i nez and Dzhani kyan, t he def endant s

cont end - - as t hey di d i n t hei r j oi nt mot i on f or new t r i al - - t hat


11/30

- 11 -

t hey wer e i mper mi ssi bl y pr ej udi ced once t he t r i al began by the

"yes" answer t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t gave t o t he j ur y' s quest i on

about whi ch evi dence t he j ur y coul d use. Speci f i cal l y, t he

def endant s r enew t hei r cont ent i on t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s answer

t o t he j ur y' s quest i on caused "evi dent i ar y spi l l over , " r esul t i ng

i n a "var i ance, " i n whi ch t he cr i mes char ged agai nst t hem var i ed

f r om t he cr i mes f or whi ch t hey wer e ul t i mat el y convi ct ed, see

Uni t ed St at es v. Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d 109, 116 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ,

or a " r et r oact i ve mi sj oi nder , " i n whi ch t r yi ng t he def endant s

t oget her was r endered i mpr oper by devel opment s at t r i al , see Uni t ed

St at es v. Mubayyi d, 658 F. 3d 35, 72 n. 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

But t he def endant s' cont ent i on does not hol d up.

"[ I ] nst r uct i ons must be eval uat ed not i n i sol at i on but i n t he

cont ext of t he ent i r e char ge. " J ones v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S.

373, 391 ( 1999) . And once t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s answer t o t he j ur y

i s consi der ed i n t hi s way, i t becomes cl ear t hat t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s answer t o t he j ur y' s quest i on di d not gi ve r i se t o t he

concer n about t he cl ai med "evi dent i ar y spi l l over " on whi ch t he

def endant s' var i ance and r et r oact i ve mi sj oi nder chal l enges depend.

I n i t s mai n char ge, t he Di st r i ct Cour t expr essl y

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he def endant s wer e "char ged wi t h

di f f er ent cr i mes" and t hat t he j ur y had a dut y t o "consi der t he

evi dence separatel y as t o each def endant and as t o each count whi ch

a def endant i s char ged. " The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen expl ai ned each


12/30

- 12 -

count as i t r el at ed t o each def endant and i nst r uct ed t he j ur y what

i t woul d need t o f i nd t o convi ct each def endant on each count . 4

And, f i nal l y, t he Di st r i ct Cour t sought t o conf i r m t he j ur y' s

pr oper under st andi ng of t he i nst r uct i ons as a whol e. The Di st r i ct

Cour t di d so by sayi ng, af t er of f er i ng i t s "yes" answer t o t he

4 On Dzhani kyan' s conspi r acy char ge, t he Di st r i ct Cour texpl ai ned as f ol l ows: "Let me t ur n now t o Count 1, whi ch i s t hespeci f i c conspi r acy t o di st r i but e OxyCodone, and onl y Mr .Dzhani kyan i s char ged i n t hat . . . . So, r evi ew t he evi dence, what

was Mr . Dzhani kyan' s conduct i n connect i on wi t h the pur chase andsal e of any pi l l s, what conver sat i ons di d he have wi t h Mr . Madar at ior ot her s, what di d he know about any agr eement among Madar at i andot her s t o di st r i but e dr ugs, and t hen det ermi ne whet her t her e wasan agr eement t o di st r i but e OxyCodone as charged, and t hen whethert he government has pr oven t hat Mr . Dzhani kyan di d knowi ngl y andi nt ent i onal l y j oi n i n t he conspi r acy. "

On Mar t i nez' s conspi r acy- t o- ext or t char ge, t he cour texpl ai ned: "The next count i s Count 3, whi ch per t ai ns t o onl y Mr .Mar t i nez. . . . Agai n, r evi ew t he evi dence, consi der evi dence ofMr . Madar at i ' s and Kabba' s conver sat i ons. What , i f anythi ng, di d

Mr . Mar t i nez do or at t empt t o do? What , i f any, f i nanci alar r angement s exi st ed between Mr . Loukas and Madarat i ? I npar t i cul ar , had Madar at i made a l oan t o Loukas or agr eed t o def err epayment of an exi st i ng debt ? That i s, was t her e a l oan or anextensi on of cr edi t t o Loukas by Madar at i or any co- conspi r at or ?I f t her e was not , t hen t he def endant cannot be f ound gui l t y. "

And on Mar t i nez' s char ges of possessi on wi t h i nt ent t odi st r i but e, t he cour t expl ai ned: "You need t o l ook at al l t heevi dence and deci de whet her he i nt ended t o sel l i t or gi ve i t awayor t r ansf er i t t o somebody el se or whet her he had t hi s cocai neonl y f or hi s per sonal use. . . . You may t ake i nt o account howmuch cocai ne he had, and you must cer t ai nl y l ook at hi s st at e ofmi nd about t hi s, because i nt ent t o di st r i but e, agai n, i nvol ves t hedef endant ' s st at e of mi nd. So, you need t o i nf er t hat f r om hi swor ds, hi s conduct , and al l of t he sur r oundi ngci r cumst ances . . . . "

Fi nal l y, t he cour t concl uded t he char ge by r ei t er at i ng: "And,agai n, t he government has t o pr ove each and ever y el ement of eachof f ense and onl y i f t he government pr oves each el ement of eachof f ense, can you f i nd t he def endant gui l t y. "


13/30

- 13 -

j ury' s quest i on about what evi dence coul d be "used": "And you

under st and t he use of al l of t he evi dence wi t h r espect t o each

char ge as i t appl i es t o t hat char ge?"

Thus, consi der ed i n t he cont ext of t he i nst r uct i ons as

a whol e, t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s one- wor d af f i r mat i ve answer t o t he

j ury' s quest i on di d not ef f ect i vel y i nst r uct t he j ury t hat i t coul d

use evi dence of one cr i me to make a j udgment of gui l t about a

separ at e cr i me t o whi ch t hat evi dence had no r el at i on.

Accor di ngl y, t he def endant s' chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deni al of t he mot i on f or a new t r i al must f ai l .

III.

We now t ur n t o Mar t i nez' s separ at e chal l enges t o hi s

convi ct i on on Count 3. I n t hat count , t he government charged

Mar t i nez wi t h vi ol at i ng 18 U. S. C. 894( a) by conspi r i ng wi t h

Madarat i and anot her man ( named Kabba) t o use extor t i onat e means

t o at t empt t o col l ect an "ext ensi on of cr edi t " t hat had been made

by Madar at i .

A.

Mar t i nez r ai sed hi s suf f i ci encyof - t heevi dence

chal l enge i n hi s mot i on f or acqui t t al , and so we r evi ew t he r ecor d

de novo. See Uni t ed St ates v. Munyenyezi , 781 F. 3d 532, 536 ( 1st

Ci r . 2015) . I n doi ng so, we vi ew t he evi dence and al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences t hat can be dr awn f r om i t i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e

t o t he ver di ct . I d. We may r ever se t he convi ct i on onl y i f on t he


14/30

- 14 -

basi s of t hi s evi dence "no r at i onal j ur y coul d have" f ound Mar t i nez

gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . I d.

Thus, t o sust ai n Mar t i nez' s convi ct i on on t hi s count ,

t he government must show t hat t here was suf f i ci ent evi dence f r om

whi ch a r at i onal j ur y coul d f i nd not onl y that Mar t i nez conspi r ed

t o use extor t i onate means, but al so t hat Mar t i nez had used t hose

means t o col l ect payment f or an under l yi ng "extensi on of cr edi t "

f r om Madar at i . Mar t i nez cont ends t hat t her e was not suf f i ci ent

evi dence t o suppor t t he convi ct i on because the r ecor d pr ovi des t oo

l i t t l e evi dence t hat Madar at i had made an "extensi on of cr edi t . "

And we agr ee wi t h Mart i nez on t hi s poi nt . 5

B.

I n eval uat i ng Mar t i nez' s chal l enge, we st ar t wi t h t he

t ext of t he cr i mi nal st at ut e and how i t def i nes what an "extensi on

of credi t " i s. Under 18 U. S. C. 894( a) ( 1) , i t i s a cri me t o

"knowi ngl y par t i ci pat e[ ] i n any way, or conspi r e[ ] t o do so, i n

t he use of any ext or t i onat e means . . . t o col l ect or at t empt t o

col l ect any ext ensi on of credi t . " The st at ut e t hen def i nes "[ t ] o

extend cr edi t " as " t o make or r enew any l oan, or t o ent er i nt o any

agr eement , t aci t or expr ess , wher eby t he r epayment or sat i sf act i on

5 We t hus need not consi der Mart i nez' s ot her gr ound f orchal l engi ng t hi s convi ct i on - - hi s cont ent i on t hat he was subj ect edt o a r et r oact i ve mi sj oi nder on Count s 2 and 3 af t er t he Di st r i ctCour t gr ant ed hi s mot i on f or acqui t t al on Count 2, due t o t hepr ej udi ci al ef f ect of t he j ur y' s exposur e t o t he evi dence t hegover nment put f or t h agai nst hi m on t he acqui t t ed count .


15/30

- 15 -

of any debt or cl ai m, whet her acknowl edged or di sput ed, val i d or

i nval i d, and however ar i si ng, may or wi l l be def er r ed. " I d. 891

( 1) .

The gover nment char ged Mar t i nez wi t h conspi r i ng wi t h

Madar at i t o use ext or t i onat e means ( maki ng thr eat s and pl ant i ng

evi dence) t o at t empt t o col l ect an al l eged "ext ensi on of cr edi t "

t hat Madarat i had made t o Vi ct or Loukas. Loukas was t he man who

t ook t wo t r i ps t o Cal i f or ni a t o pur chase t housands of dol l ar s of

oxycodone pi l l s f or Madar at i wi t h Madar at i ' s money.

I n gi vi ng Loukas money to buy pi l l s f or Madar at i ,

Madar at i was not f r ont i ng money t o Loukas f or hi s per sonal use.

Madarat i was suppl yi ng Loukas wi t h t he means t o per f orm a ser vi ce

f or Madar at i - - namel y, pur chasi ng dr ugs t hat Madar at i coul d then

r e- sel l . Thus, consi st ent wi t h i t s pr esent at i on t o t he j ur y bel ow,

t he government does not argue on appeal t hat , i n gi vi ng t he money

t o Loukas t o make t he pur chases, Madarat i made a " l oan" wi t hi n the

meani ng of 891. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Br uce, 405 F. 3d 145, 149-

50 ( 3d Ci r . 2005) . 6

But , as t he pl ai n t ext of 894 r eveal s, t he st at ut e has

a br oad r each and cl ear l y bar s t he use of extor t i onat e means t o

6 I n addi t i on t o t he money that Loukas r ecei ved f r om Madar at it o buy t he pi l l s f or Madar at i , Loukas al so t est i f i ed t hat Madar at ipai d hi m $10, 000 f or t he t wo sol o t r i ps t o Cal i f or ni a t hat Loukasmade on Madarat i ' s behal f . The government does not argue t hatsuch a payment f or servi ces const i t ut ed a l oan wi t hi n t he meani ngof 894, and we agr ee t hat i t di d not .


16/30

- 16 -

col l ect payment f or mor e t han t r adi t i onal " l oans. " See Uni t ed

St at es v. Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Sedl ak, 720 F. 2d 715, 720 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ) . I n

par t i cul ar , t he st at ut e cover s any at t empt t o use ext or t i onat e

means t o col l ect "an ext ensi on of cr edi t . " And t he st at ut e def i nes

t hat phr ase expansi vel y, so t hat i t encompasses any "agr eement ,

t aci t or expr ess, wher eby the r epayment or sat i sf act i on of any

debt or cl ai m, whet her acknowl edged or di sput ed, val i d or i nval i d,

and however ar i si ng, may or wi l l be def er r ed. " 18 U. S. C. 891( 1) .

The key quest i on, t her ef or e, i s whet her t he r ecor d

suppl i es "suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a" of such an agr eement . See Hoyl e,

237 F. 3d at 7 ( f i ndi ng "suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of agr eement . . . t o

concl ude t hat an agr eement t o def er payment of t he debt s exi st ed") .

Bef ore del vi ng i nt o what t he r ecor d shows about whether such an

"agr eement " exi st ed her e, however , we need to say more about what

i s meant by t he r equi r ement t hat t here be an "agr eement . "

I n our l ast case addr essi ng t he i ssue, Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d

at 6- 7, we not ed t hat t he Thi r d Ci r cui t has r easoned ( i n uphol di ng

t he suf f i ci ency of an i ndi ct ment under 894) t hat " [ w] hen a sel f -

st yl ed cr edi t or appear s bef or e hi s ' debt or ' and demands

sat i sf act i on, t he credi t or posi t s bot h a debt and t he pr i or

def er r al of i t s r epayment . " Uni t ed St at es v. Di Pasqual e, 740 F. 2d

1282, 1287 ( 3d Ci r . 1984) ; see Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 6. And t he Thi r d

Ci r cui t has ci t ed t he r ul e of Di Pasqual e i n f i ndi ng suf f i ci ent


17/30

- 17 -

evi dence of an "agr eement t o def er" payment - - and t hus an

"ext ensi on of cr edi t " - - t o suppor t convi ct i ons under 894 on at

l east t wo occasi ons. See Br uce, 405 F. 3d at 149- 50; Uni t ed St at es

v. Tr ai t z, 871 F. 2d 368, 387- 88 ( 3d Ci r . 1989) ; cf . Hoyl e, 237

F. 3d at 6 ( f i ndi ng i t unnecessar y under t he ci r cumst ances t o r el y

on Di Pasqual e t o uphol d t he convi ct i on) .

But t o t he ext ent Di Pasqual e suggest s t hat a mere demand

f or payment , or even t hat a demand f or payment t hat i s not

i mmedi at el y f ol l owed by t he use of extor t i onat e means, suf f i ces t o

show t hat t her e has been an agr eement t o def er payment and t hus an

"ext ensi on of credi t , " we di sagr ee. By i t s pl ai n t er ms, t he

st at ut e di st i ngui shes a mer e debt f r oman "ext ensi on of cr edi t " on

t he basi s of whether t here has been an agr eement t o def er payment .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Boul ahani s, 677 F. 2d 586, 590 ( 7t h Ci r . 1982)

( "Sect i on 894 does not make i t a cr i me t o use extor t i on t o col l ect

debt s, but onl y to exact r epayment of cr edi t pr evi ousl y

ext ended. ") .

Thus, when t here i s not a l oan, we hol d - - consi st ent

wi t h t he deci si ons of a number of our si st er ci r cui t s - - t hat t he

government must pr ove t hat t he cr edi t or mani f est ed an assent ( even

i f onl y uni l at er al l y and even i f onl y t aci t l y) t o def er payment .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Wal l ace, 59 F. 3d 333, 339- 40 (2d Ci r . 1995) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. St okes, 944 F. 2d 211, 215 ( 5t h Ci r . 1991)

( " [ P] r oof of some mani f est at i on by t he cr edi t or of hi s assent t o


18/30

- 18 -

def er , however mi ni mal , bur dens t he gover nment ' s case. " ) ;

Boul ahani s, 677 F. 2d at 590 ( "The extensi on of cr edi t i s a

del i ber at e act by a credi t or . ") . 7 Onl y t hen i s t her e suf f i ci ent

evi dence of an "agr eement . . . whereby t he repayment or

sat i sf act i on of any debt or cl ai m . . . may or wi l l be def er r ed. "

18 U. S. C. 891( 1) .

Accor di ngl y, i n r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d her e, we ar e

l ooki ng not merel y f or evi dence of a demand f or i mmedi ate payment .

We ar e l ooki ng f or what we f ound i n Hoyl e: "suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of

agr eement . . . t o concl ude t hat an agr eement t o def er payment of

t he debt [ ] exi st ed. " See Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 7. Absent such

evi dence, t he convi ct i on must be r ever sed.

The quest i on of exact l y what const i t ut es evi dence of an

"agr eement " f or l egal pur poses i s of t en not suscept i bl e t o a r ul e-

l i ke answer . Rat her , one must consi der t he f act s i n l i ght of t he

cont ext . And t hi s i s t r ue f or t he "agr eement " r ef er enced i n 891.

The same act i ons or communi cat i ons may car r y di f f er ent

i mpl i cat i ons dependi ng on t hat cont ext . I n some ci r cumst ances,

7 We r ecogni ze that i n Hoyl e, we expr essl y "decl i ne[ d] t o gi ve

[ ] much wei ght " t o Boul ahani s, St okes, and Wal l ace, i n par t becausewe thought t hey " r equi r e[ d] mor e than [ wa] s r equi r ed i n ourdeci si on i n Sedl ak. " Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 6. On f ur t her r evi ew,however , we do not see a meani ngf ul conf l i ct between t hose casesand Sedl ak, at l east wi t h r espect t o t he ki nd of evi dence t hatsuf f i ces t o show an "agr eement t o def er . " I n f act , Sedl ak di d notaddr ess t hat i ssue at al l , because i t f ound a l oan, not anagr eement t o def er . See Sedl ak, 720 F. 2d at 720- 21.


19/30

- 19 -

f or exampl e, a credi t or ' s si l ence mi ght f ai r l y be char act er i zed as

a t aci t agr eement t o def er payment - - such as wher e the credi t or

f aces hi s debt or and st ays si l ent r at her t han maki ng or i mpl yi ng

a demand f or i mmedi at e payment . See Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 6- 7. But

i n ot her s, t he credi t or ' s si l ence may i ndi cat e onl y an i nt ent not

t o al t er what ever message t he credi t or had most r ecent l y

communi cat ed t o t he debt or . And where t hat message was a demand

f or i mmedi at e payment , si l ence may i ndi cat e onl y t hat t he pr i or

demand has not been wi t hdr awn.

Thus, as t he r el evant precedent s ampl y demonst r at e,

det er mi ni ng whet her t he r ecor d i n a gi ven case i ncl udes "suf f i ci ent

i ndi ci a of agr eement " t o suppor t t he i nf er ence t hat a cr edi t or

agr eed t o def er payment wi l l of t en r equi r e a par t i cul ar i zed r evi ew

of bot h t he cr edi t or ' s conduct and t he sur r oundi ng cont ext . Her e,

our r evi ew of t he r ecor d l eads us t o t he concl usi on t hat Madar at i

never agr eed - - t aci t l y or expr essl y - - t o def er Loukas' s payment .

C.

The gover nment ' s br i ef i s l ess t han cl ear i n i dent i f yi ng

t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat suf f i ces t o show t hat Madar at i

agr eed t o def er t he payment of what Loukas owed. But at oral

ar gument , t he gover nment expl ai ned t hat i t "doesn' t cont end that

t he def er r al occur r ed at t he t i me Loukas t ook of f t o Cal i f or ni a

wi t h t he money. " The government cont ended i nst ead t hat t he


20/30

- 20 -

agr eement t o def er " r epayment or sat i sf act i on" occur r ed l at er ,

when Loukas r et ur ned f r om Cal i f or ni a.

At t hat poi nt , t he government cont ends, Loukas di d owe

Madar at i ei t her t he pi l l s t hat Loukas was t o buy wi t h Madar at i ' s

money or t he money i t sel f . And, i n t he government ' s vi ew, when

Madar at i made cont act wi t h Loukas f ol l owi ng hi s r et ur n t o Bost on

but t hen wai t ed more t han a week bef ore undert aki ng ext ort i onate

means t o col l ect payment , Madarat i t aci t l y agr eed t o def er payment

by Loukas. 8

I n pr essi ng t hi s cont ent i on, t he gover nment i dent i f i es

cer t ai n speci f i c act i ons t hat Madar at i t ook ( or , i n some cases,

f ai l ed t o t ake) t hat al l egedl y show t hat he was t aci t l y agr eei ng

t o gi ve Loukas more t i me t o pay. But , we concl ude, t he r ecor d

does not suppl y suf f i ci ent evi dence of such a t aci t agr eement on

Madar at i ' s par t .

8 I n hi s openi ng br i ef , Mar t i nez argued t hat t her e was no"debt " at al l , because Loukas was mer el y Madar at i ' s agent . ButMar t i nez does not expl ai n why a j ur y coul d not r easonabl y f i ndt hat Loukas became Madar at i ' s debt or , at t he l at est , upon Loukas' sr et ur n f r om Cal i f or ni a when he f ai l ed t o pr ovi de Madar at i wi t hei t her t he pi l l s or t he money, and we see no basi s f or concl udi ng

t hat a j ur y coul d not so f i nd. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bonanno, 467F. 2d 14, 15- 17 ( 9t h Ci r . 1972) ( f i ndi ng a debt on si mi l ar f act s) .Mar t i nez al so ar gues t hat Loukas' s deci si on t o st eal Madar at i ' smoney "di d not cr eat e an ext ensi on of cr edi t , " because i t was"si mpl y a t hef t . " But t he key i ssue i s whet her Madar at i agr eed t ogi ve Mar t i nez mor e t i me t o pay, and the reason f or Loukas' sdef aul t - - namel y, whet her he st ol e t he pi l l s - - has no bear i ng ont hat i ssue.


21/30

- 21 -

To see why, i t f i r st hel ps t o descr i be what t he r ecor d

shows about what had t r anspi r ed bef ore Madarat i met wi t h Loukas

when Loukas came back to Bost on f r om hi s t r i p t o Cal i f or ni a.

Loukas t est i f i ed t hat on March 29, 2011, as he was on hi s way t o

t he ai r por t i n Los Angel es at t he end of hi s second sol o t r i p t o

Cal i f or ni a on Madar at i ' s behal f , he cal l ed Madar at i . I n t hat cal l ,

Loukas t est i f i ed, he t ol d Madar at i t hat t he pol i ce had pul l ed

Loukas over whi l e Loukas was headi ng to t he ai r por t and conf i scat ed

al l t he pi l l s t hat Loukas had j ust pur chased wi t h Madar at i ' s money.

I n t r ut h, however , accor di ng to Loukas' s t est i mony,

Loukas had pur chased t he pi l l s f or Madar at i as r equest ed but t hen

gi ven t he pi l l s t o a f r i end who sol d t he pi l l s on hi s own and spl i t

t he pr of i t wi t h Loukas. I n ot her wor ds, Loukas t est i f i ed, t he

pol i ce had not conf i scat ed t he pi l l s. I nst ead, Loukas stol e t he

pi l l s f r om Madar at i and t hen came up wi t h a cover st or y to t el l

Madar at i i n or der t o hi de hi s t hef t .

Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d about how Madar at i

r esponded t o Loukas' s f al se st or y when he f i r st hear d i t . But

Loukas conceded i n hi s t est i mony that t he st or y he t ol d Madar at i

was an "out r ageous" one t hat no one woul d l i kel y bel i eve. And

t hus i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat t he r ecor d shows t hat when Loukas

ar r i ved i n Bost on, he "basi cal l y di sappear ed f or a day, " such t hat

Madarat i "had no i dea where I was. "


22/30

- 22 -

I n l i ght of what t he recor d shows r egar di ng t hese event s,

a r at i onal j ur y coul d not f i nd t hat Madar at i assent ed - - even

t aci t l y - - t o gi ve Loukas mor e t i me t o pr ovi de t he pi l l s or t he

money as of t he f i r st day af t er Loukas had r et ur ned t o Bost on.

The r ecor d shows onl y t hat , as of t hat t i me, Loukas had t ol d

Madar at i an "out r ageous" l i e t o expl ai n why he di d not have t he

pi l l s or t he money and t hat Loukas t hen ef f ect i vel y hi d f r om

Madar at i upon r et ur ni ng t o Bost on.

Nor does t he r ecor d pr ovi de suf f i ci ent evi dence f r om

whi ch a j ur y coul d r easonabl y f i nd t hat Madar at i assent ed t o the

def er r al of Loukas' s payment t her eaf t er . To expl ai n why we r each

t hi s concl usi on, we begi n wi t h what t he r ecor d shows about t he

f i r st cont act t hat Loukas made wi t h Madar at i af t er Loukas came

back t o Bost on.

Loukas t est i f i ed t hat "about a day" af t er he got back

f r omLos Angel es, Loukas t ur ned hi s phone back on, cal l ed Madar at i ,

and " t ol d hi m t o meet me at my home. " Accor di ng t o t he t est i mony

gi ven by Loukas, he and Madarat i t al ked f or about an hour when

t hey met on March 30. At t hat meet i ng, accor di ng t o Loukas' s

t est i mony, Loukas r epeat ed t he same f al se st ory t hat he had r el ayed

t o Madar at i over t he phone f r om Cal i f or ni a. Then, Loukas

t est i f i ed, at Madar at i ' s suggest i on t he t wo men l ef t Loukas' s house

i n Madar at i ' s wi f e' s car and dr ove t o a conveni ence st or e.


23/30

- 23 -

Loukas t est i f i ed t hat dur i ng t hat r i de, Madar at i made no

t hr eat s t o Loukas and t hat " [ a] t t hat moment I t hought he was

buyi ng t he st or y. " But , Loukas' s t est i mony r eveal s, Madar at i

qui ckl y changed hi s t one once t he t wo men arr i ved at t he

conveni ence st or e. Loukas t est i f i ed t hat when t he t wo men got t o

t he par ki ng l ot of t he conveni ence st or e, " [ Madar at i ] pr oceeded t o

l et me know t hat he hoped i t wasn' t me [ who t ook t he pi l l s] because

he woul d t ake car e of t he pr obl em l i ke he di d at t he j ewel r y

st or e, " r ef er r i ng t o t he j ewel r y- st or e shoot i ng i nci dent t hat

r esul t ed i n i nj ur i es t o i nnocent byst ander s ( and pr ovi ded t he basi s

f or Count 2 of t he i ndi ct ment i n t hi s case) .

Nei t her compl et el y excusi ng a debt or cl ai m, nor

t hr eat eni ng vi ol ence i f no payment i s made, can f ai r l y be

char act er i zed by i t sel f as assent i ng t o t he def er r al of t he payment

of what i s owed. And t hus, on t hese f act s, i t woul d be "over l y

specul at i ve" f or a j ur y t o concl ude t hat , i n maki ng cl ear t he di r e

consequences t hat woul d bef al l Loukas i f he was l yi ng about what

had happened t o t he pi l l s, Madar at i was act ual l y agr eei ng t o gi ve

Loukas more t i me t o pay t he debt . See Wal l ace, 59 F. 3d at 339

( " [ N] one of t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al amount ed t o t he

f or mat i on of a cr edi t agr eement , because Wal l ace and hi s

r epr esent at i ves never agr eed t o def er t he col l ect i on of t hei r

money. Af t er maki ng t hei r t hr eat s, t hey mer el y ( and t empor ar i l y)

l ef t Capr i i nt act . " ( al t er at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks


24/30

- 24 -

omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mor i l l o, 158 F. 3d 18, 22- 23 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ( "We must conduct a cl ose r evi ew of t he recor d and ' r ej ect

t hose evi dent i ar y i nt er pr et at i ons and i l l at i ons t hat ar e

unr easonabl e, i nsuppor t abl e, or over l y specul at i ve. ' " ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ) .

That l eaves onl y t he t i me per i od bet ween t he par ki ng-

l ot conver sat i on and t he act ual use of extor t i onat e means. But

t he recor d does not show t hat Madar at i di d anythi ng dur i ng t hat

t i me per i od t hat woul d pr ovi de suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a j ur y t o

f i nd t hat Madar at i was agr eei ng ( even t aci t l y) t o gi ve Loukas mor e

t i me to pay.

The r ecor d shows t hat on Mar ch 31, t he day af t er t he t wo

men spoke i n t he conveni ence st or e par ki ng l ot , Madar at i cal l ed

Loukas and repeat edl y demanded hi s "shi t , " even t el l i ng Loukas he

woul d "see [ hi m] t oday. " Mor eover , i n t he onl y ot her conver sat i on

between t he two men r ef l ected i n t he recor d, Madarat i spoke t o

Loukas i n Loukas' s dr i veway and made cl ear t o Loukas t hat Madarat i

"want ed hi s money or he want ed t he pi l l s. "9 Thus, Madar at i di d

not i n t hese i nt eract i ons i n any way suggest t hat Loukas had more

t i me to pay.

9 The r ecor d i s not cl ear on exact l y when t hat conver sat i ont ook pl ace, but Loukas' s t est i mony appear s t o i ndi cat e t hat i toccur r ed shor t l y af t er t he March 31 phone conver sat i on.


25/30

- 25 -

I n ar gui ng t hat Madar at i never t hel ess t aci t l y agr eed t o

def er t he payment f ol l owi ng t he par ki ng- l ot conver sat i on, t he

government ci t es t o a ser i es of conver sat i ons bet ween Madarat i and

t he t hi r d man char ged i n t he conspi r acy, Kabba, bet ween Apr i l 1

and Apr i l 9. I n t hose conver sat i ons, t he t wo men di scussed ways

t o i nt i mi dat e Loukas and t o i nduce hi m t o pay. The gover nment

not es i n par t i cul ar an Apr i l 1 cal l bet ween Kabba and Madar at i

dur i ng whi ch Madarat i expr essl y chose not t o go t hr ough wi t h a

pl an t o f r ame Loukas by pl ant i ng cocai ne i n hi s house and cal l i ng

t he pol i ce. And t he government cont ended at oral argument t hat

t he del ay bet ween t hat cal l and t he ul t i mat e execut i on by Madar at i

and Kabba of anot her ver si on of t hei r pl an - - whi ch l ed t o

Mar t i nez' s arr est near Loukas' s house on Apr i l 10 - - pr ovi des a

suf f i ci ent evi dent i ar y basi s f or a j ur y t o f i nd t hat Madar at i

t aci t l y agr eed t o a def er r al gi ven t he t i me t hat passed bef or e

Madar at i r esort ed t o t he use of extor t i onat e means.

But t he r ecord evi dence concerni ng Madar at i ' s

conver sat i ons wi t h Kabba bet ween Apr i l 1 and Apr i l 9 i s not

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

Madarat i was, despi t e hi s demands f or i mmedi ate payment , actual l y

agr eei ng t o al l ow Loukas t o t ake mor e t i me t o pay. I n pl ot t i ng

how best t o ef f ect t he col l ect i on of what he was owed and what he

had demanded be pai d, Madarat i di d not at any poi nt wi t hdr aw hi s

ear l i er , cl ear l y st at ed demand f or i mmedi ate payment , whi ch


26/30

- 26 -

f ol l owed r i ght on t he heel s of t he par ki ng- l ot t hr eat . I ndeed,

dur i ng each conver sat i on between Madarat i and Loukas i n t he per i od

i n quest i on, Madarat i demanded i mmedi ate payment f r om Loukas.

To be sure, as t he gover nment emphasi zes, Madar at i di d

del ay t he use of ext or t i onate means t o col l ect payment f or a number

of days. But i t i s t he use of ext or t i onat e means t o col l ect " an

ext ensi on of credi t " - - and not t hei r use t o col l ect a debt - -

t hat t he st at ut e pr ohi bi t s. See Boul ahani s, 677 F. 2d at 590. And

t hus evi dence of a del ay i n usi ng extor t i onat e means t o col l ect a

debt f or whi ch a demand f or i mmedi at e payment has been made does

not i t sel f suf f i ce t o show t hat cr edi t has been ext ended. See

Wal l ace, 59 F. 3d at 339. 10

For t hese r easons, t hi s case i s not j ust l i ke Hoyl e, 237

F. 3d at 6, even t hough t he gover nment , l i ke t he Di st r i ct Cour t ,

r el i es on t hat precedent t o suppor t t he convi ct i on. I n t hat case,

an el ect r i ci an had pr ovi ded el ect r i cal cont r act i ng ser vi ces t o

mul t i pl e cust omer s wi t hout a wr i t t en cont r act and wi t hout t hen

demandi ng " i mmedi at e payment . " I d. Some mont hs l at er , t he

i ndi ct ment char ged, t he el ect r i ci an used extor t i onat e means t o

col l ect on t he ser vi ces. I d.

10 We not e t hat t he government , i n i t s openi ng st atement andcl osi ng ar gument bel ow, consi st ent l y char act er i zed Mar t i nez as a"debt col l ect or " or a "debt col l ect i on subcont r act or " and as havi ng"ent er [ ed] a conspi r acy t o col l ect a debt by use of ext or t i onat emeans. " At no poi nt i n t he t r i al di d i t ar gue t o t he j ur y t hatMadarat i agr eed t o def er r epayment of Loukas' s debt t o hi m.


27/30

- 27 -

I n sust ai ni ng a convi ct i on under 894 agai nst a

suf f i ci encyof - t heevi dence chal l enge, we hel d t hat on t he r ecor d

i n t hat case i t was "l ogi cal t o i nf er , at t he ver y l east , t hat

t here was a taci t agr eement t o def er r epayment of t he debt " t here

at i ssue. I d. And i n expl ai ni ng t hat "[ o] nce t he ser vi ces wer e

provi ded and i mmedi at e payment was not demanded, an ext ensi on of

cr edi t was est abl i shed, " we not ed t hat i t woul d have been

unr easonabl e f or t he benef i ci ar i es of t he ser vi ces t o have assumed

t hat t he servi ces wer e pr ovi ded at no cost or t hat a bi l l woul d

not be f or t hcomi ng i n "due cour se. " I d.

But whi l e i n Hoyl e the agr eement t o def er payment coul d

be " l ogi cal [ l y] " i nf er r ed f r om t he el ect r i ci an' s s i l ence upon

pr ovi di ng t he ser vi ces, i d. , no si mi l ar l ogi cal i nf er ence can be

dr awn f r omMadar at i ' s act i ons ( or i nact i on) . The el ect r i ci an chose

not t o pr esent a bi l l wi t hi n any expect ed t i me f r ame. I d.

Madar at i , by cont r ast , was not si l ent upon Loukas' s r et ur n t o

Bost on. I nst ead, Madar at i t hr eat ened hi m dur i ng t hei r f i r st

meet i ng and t hen made two expl i ci t demands f or payment i n t he onl y

t wo conver sat i ons t hat t he r ecor d shows t hey had t her eaf t er . And

whi l e Madarat i t ook a l i t t l e more than a week t o make good on hi s

t hr eat , he di d not hi ng i n bet ween t hat coul d r easonabl y be

underst ood as a wi t hdr awal of t he t hr eat - backed demand f or payment

he had j ust made.


28/30

- 28 -

The Di st r i ct Cour t di d al so not e t hat t hi s case was

"ar guabl y" si mi l ar t o Hoyl e f or t he separ at e r eason t hat " i t woul d

have been unr easonabl e f or Loukas t o assume t hat Madarat i was

payi ng hi m ( and pr ovi di ng r esour ces) f or ser vi ces t hat woul d not

be per f or med. " On t hat r easoni ng, t he def er r al of payment occur r ed

at t he ver y out set of t he t r ansact i on, when Madar at i f i r st gave

hi s money t o Loukas, as Madar at i woul d r ecei ve t he pi l l s ( or t he

money he had handed over ) onl y l ater .

But , as we have expl ai ned, t he gover nment af f i r mat i vel y

r epr esent ed at or al ar gument t hat i t was not cont endi ng t hat " t he

def er r al occur r ed at t he t i me t hat Loukas t ook of f t o Cal i f or ni a

wi t h t he money, " and t he gover nment i nst ead has ur ged us t o f i nd

an extensi on of cr edi t on t he basi s of t he evi dence of Madar at i ' s

wor ds and act i ons i n t he t i me per i od af t er Loukas r et ur ned t o

Bost on. Consi st ent wi t h t he government ' s vi ew of when any

"def er r al " coul d have occur r ed, t he r ecor d shows t hat , i n pr ovi di ng

t he money t o Loukas t o buy pi l l s on hi s behal f , Madar at i was

pr ovi di ng t he f unds necessar y f or Loukas t o car r y out a t ask whi ch

gave r i se t o a debt . The r ecor d pr ovi des i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence

t hat Madar at i was at t hat t i me assent i ng t o t he def er r al of i t s

r epayment . Thus, on t hese f act s, we agr ee wi t h t he government ' s

concess i on t hat t her e was no assent by Madar at i t o def er a deadl i ne

f or r e- payment - - and t hus no "ext ensi on of cr edi t " - - pr i or t o

Loukas' s ret ur n f r om Cal i f or ni a.


29/30

- 29 -

D.

Congr ess has made cl ear t hat 894 i s t o be const r ued

br oadl y. H. R. Rep. No. 1397, at 31 ( 1968) ( Conf . Rep. ) ( " [ T] he

conf er ees wi sh t o l eave no doubt of t he congr essi onal i nt ent i on

t hat chapt er 42 i s a weapon t o be used wi t h vi gor and i magi nat i on

agai nst ever y act i vi t y of or gani zed cri me t hat f al l s wi t hi n i t s

t erms. " ) . And an agr eement t o def er payment need not be expr ess

or even bi l at er al . See Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 6 ( ci t i ng Sedl ak, 720

F. 2d at 720) . Thus, on some f act s, a cr edi t or ' s del ay i n

col l ect i ng a pr i or demand f or payment mi ght suf f i ce t o show an

agr eement t o def er payment . But , consi st ent wi t h Hoyl e and t he

pl ai n t ext of 891( a) , t he recor d i n each i nst ance must show

"suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of agr eement . . . t o concl ude t hat an

agr eement t o def er payment of t he debt s exi st ed" i n or der f or t her e

t o be suf f i ci ent evi dence t o sust ai n t hat el ement of t he cr i me.

See Hoyl e, 237 F. 3d at 7. And her e, t he r ecor d r eveal s onl y t hat

Madar at i t hr eat ened har m t o Loukas i f he f ai l ed t o pay what he

owed and t hen qui ckl y f ol l owed up t hat t hr eat by twi ce demandi ng

i mmedi ate payment whi l e he f i nal i zed hi s pref err ed method of usi ng

extor t i onat e means to col l ect on t he debt . We t her ef or e cannot

concl ude t hat t he r ecor d suppl i es suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a t hat Madar at i

agr eed to def er payment at any poi nt , and t hus we must r everse


30/30

Mar t i nez' s convi ct i on as t o Count 3 due t o a l ack of suf f i ci ent

evi dence of any under l yi ng "ext ensi on of cr edi t . " 11

IV.

For t he r easons set f or t h above, we reverse t he

convi ct i on of Ronal d Mar t i nez as t o Count 3 and affirm i n al l ot her

r espect s.

11 The r emai ni ng publ i shed precedent s on whi ch the governmentr el i es do not pr ovi de suppor t f or f i ndi ng suf f i ci ent evi dence ofan ext ensi on of cr edi t on t he r ecor d i n t hi s case. I n Uni t edSt at es v. Gar ci a, 135 F. 3d 951, 954 ( 5t h Ci r . 1998) , t he cr edi t or s"mani f est [ ed] an assent t o def er payment " by per mi t t i ng the debt ort o pay f or a por t i on of hi s pur chase (of mar i j uana) and "al l ow[ i ng]hi m t o pay f or t he bal ance at a l at er dat e, " whi ch was consi st entwi t h a pr i or cour se of deal i ng. Ther e i s no si mi l ar evi dence i n

t he r ecor d here. I n Bonanno, 467 F. 2d at 15, t he cr edi t or demandedt hat "at l east $2, 500" of a $5, 000 debt "had t o be r epai di mmedi at el y" and al l owed t he debt or addi t i onal t i me t o pay t hebal ance. Here, t here was no such expr ess agr eement . I n Uni t edSt at es v. Char l es, No. 92- 3513, 1993 WL 299361, at *3 ( 7t h Ci r .Aug. 3, 1993) ( unpubl i shed) , t he def endant chal l enged t hesuf f i ci ency of t he evi dence but not speci f i cal l y whet her t hegovernment had pr oved an "ext ensi on of cr edi t . " And i n Uni t edSt at es v. Neal , 692 F. 2d 1296, 1301- 03, 1308 ( 10t h Ci r . 1982) , t hedef endant r ai sed a number of chal l enges r el at i ng t o t he suf f i ci encyof bot h t he i ndi ct ment and t he t r i al evi dence, but t he cour t di d

not speci f i cal l y addr ess t he evi dence suf f i ci ent t o pr ove an"extensi on of cr edi t . " The gover nment does al so ci t e t o anunpubl i shed case f r omt he Tent h Ci r cui t , Uni t ed St at es v. Enr i quez,No. 96- 6185, 1997 WL 31567, at *2 ( 10t h Ci r . J an. 28, 1997)( unpubl i shed) , whi ch uphel d a convi ct i on because t he "def endantsever al t i mes set deadl i nes f or payment whi ch he l at er post poned. "But t hat opi ni on does not descr i be what evi dence was i n t he recor dt hat l ed i t t o concl ude t hat "deadl i nes" had been "post poned. "

Documents

United States v. Martinez, 1st Cir. (2015)