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

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

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2098

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

PATRI CI O PALADI N,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. Paul J . Bar bador o, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,

and Smi t h, * Di st r i ct J udge.

J udi t h H. Mi zner , Assi st ant Feder al Publ i c Def ender , f orappel l ant .

Set h R. Af r ame, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomJ ohn P. Kacavas, Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

May 12, 2014

*Of t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/31

SMITH, Chief District Judge. Appel l ant Pat r i ci o Pal adi n

i s ser vi ng a l i f e sent ence f ol l owi ng hi s convi ct i on on a ser i es of

dr ug char ges. Subsequent t o Pal adi n s convi ct i on, but bef or e hi s

sent enci ng, Pal adi n l ear ned of t he exi st ence of cer t ai n evi dence

t hat t he gover nment had f ai l ed t o di scl ose to hi m, and t hat he

suggest s may have been used t o i mpeach the credi bi l i t y of t he key

gover nment wi t ness agai nst hi m at t r i al . Rel yi ng on Br ady v.

Mar yl and, 373 U. S. 83 ( 1963) , Pal adi n moved to set asi de the

ver di ct and f or a new t r i al . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on

i n a thor ough bench deci si on, and t hi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

Because we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on

t hat t he evi dence i n quest i on was i mmat er i al , we AFFI RM t he

di st r i ct cour t s deni al of Pal adi n s mot i on. And, as Pal adi n

concedes t hat we are pr ecedent - bound t o do, we r ej ect a ser i es of

separ at e const i t ut i onal chal l enges t o Pal adi n s l i f e sent ence, t he

i mposi t i on of whi ch was made mandatory by t he quant i t i es of cocai ne

at i ssue and by vi r t ue of t hi s bei ng Pal adi n s t hi r d f el ony dr ug

convi ct i on.

I . Facts

A second supersedi ng i ndi ct ment charged Pal adi n wi t h one

count of conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cocai ne, t hr ee count s of

di st r i but i on of cocai ne and one count of possessi on of cocai ne wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e. Fol l owi ng a j ur y t r i al i n December 2010,

Pal adi n was convi ct ed on al l count s.

-2-


3/31

The t est i mony of FBI Agent Mar k Al f or d and a conf i dent i al

i nf ormant by t he name of Kevi n Vega was of cent r al i mport ance t o

t he gover nment s case. We br i ef l y over vi ew t hat t est i mony her e,

but wi l l r et ur n t o i t i n gr eat er det ai l l at er . Al f or d was t he

f i r st gover nment wi t ness and t est i f i ed r egar di ng hi s over si ght of

t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o Pal adi n s nar cot i cs act i vi t i es and about hi s

super vi si on of Vega i n t he i ni t i at i on and compl et i on of a ser i es of

meet i ngs and cont r ol l ed pur chases wi t h Pal adi n.

Vega t est i f i ed l at er i n t he t r i al and t ol d j ur or s t hat he

had met Pal adi n i n 2004 and t her eaf t er r out i nel y pur chased cocai ne

f r om hi m unt i l l at e 2008, i n a t ot al aggr egat e amount t hat Vega

est i mat ed was i n excess of 100 ki l ogr ams. Of cent r al i mpor t ance t o

t hi s appeal , Vega t est i f i ed t hat dur i ng t he summer of 2009, he made

t he deci si on t o cease hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he dr ug t r ade and t o

i nf or m l aw enf or cement of hi s pr i or act i vi t i es. Vega t ol d j ur or s

t hat , i n J ul y 2009, he wal ked i nt o FBI headquar t er s i n New

Hampshi r e, conf essed, and agr eed to ser ve as a conf i dent i al

i nf or mant . 1 Thi s somewhat unusual deci si on, Vega t est i f i ed,

r esul t ed f r om Vega s gui l t y consci ence, f ear of ar r est and

i ncar cer at i on, and t he f act t hat he had a newbor n son. Vega st at ed

unequi vocal l y t hat , asi de f r omcont r ol l ed buys t hat he per f or med at

1 Al t hough t he FBI di d not i mmedi atel y gr ant Vega i mmuni t y,Vega was l at er assured by t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney s Of f i ce thathe woul d not f ace pr osecut i on so l ong as he cont i nued t o cooperate.

-3-


4/31

t he di r ect i on of t he gover nment , t he l ast t i me t hat he deal t dr ugs

was dur i ng the summer of 2009.

Because t hi s was Pal adi n s t hi r d f el ony dr ug convi ct i on

and because the quant i t i es of cocai ne at i ssue wer e suf f i ci ent t o

t r i gger a mandat or y l i f e sent ence, see 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) , a si gni f i cant del ay pr eceded sent enci ng as

Pal adi n sought t o over t ur n at l east one of hi s pr i or convi ct i ons. 2

I t was dur i ng t hi s per i od of t i me, i n Mar ch 2012, t hat t he at t or ney

who had r epr esent ed Pal adi n at t r i al r ecei ved a l et t er f r om one

J or dan Manni ng, an i nmat e at a st at e cor r ect i onal f aci l i t y i n New

Hampshi r e. Manni ng s l et t er suggest ed t hat Vega had got [ t en]

bust ed f or a dr ug charge and had r ecei ved somet hi ng i n exchange

f or t est i mony.

Def ense counsel cont act ed t he Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es

At t orney who had l ed t he pr osecut i on and asked t hat t he mat t er be

i nvest i gat ed. I n t he cour se of t he ensui ng i nvest i gat i on, i t was

di scover ed t hat , on November 12, 2010, pr i or t o t he st ar t of

Pal adi n s t r i al , r epr esent at i ves of var i ous l aw enf or cement

agenci es and t he New Hampshi r e Uni t ed St ates At t orney s Of f i ce had

i nt er vi ewed an i ndi vi dual named Angel Andi no i n r el at i on t o a

separ at e nar cot i cs i nvest i gat i on.

2 The i mposi t i on of a l i f e sentence was made mandat or ybased on t he gover nment havi ng pr evi ousl y f i l ed an i nf or mat i onpur suant t o 21 U. S. C. 851( a) ( 1) , set t i ng f or t h Pal adi n s t wopr i or f el ony dr ug convi ct i ons.

-4-


5/31

Not es f r om t hi s pr of f er sessi on, di scl osed i n r edacted

f or m t o def ense counsel i n Apr i l 2012, cont ai n t he f ol l owi ng

passage:

Andi no sai d t hat he suppl i ed Vega wi t h 200[ O] xycont i n t abl et s ever y 2 weeks f or anunspeci f i ed amount of t i me. Andi no sai d t hathe st opped suppl yi ng Vega wi t h cocai ne and[ O] xycont i n t abl et s appr oxi mat el y 1- 2 mont hsbef or e hi s ( Andi no s) ar r est .

The Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney s Of f i ce al so i nf or med def ense counsel

t hat Andi no had been ar r est ed i n Febr uar y 2010. I f t he cont ent s of

t he Andi no pr of f er wer e t r ue, t hen i t woul d suggest t hat Vega had

l i ed t o t he j ur y when he t est i f i ed t hat he had ended hi s

i nvol vement i n t he dr ug t r ade on hi s own accor d dur i ng t he summer

of 2009, because a t r ansact i on wi t h Andi no one t o two mont hs pr i or

t o Andi no s ar r est woul d have necessar i l y t aken pl ace dur i ng t he

wi nt er of 2009 t o 2010.

Wi t h t hi s i nf or mat i on i n hand, Pal adi n f i l ed a mot i on t o

set asi de t he ver di ct and f or a new t r i al , cont endi ng t hat t he

gover nment had f ai l ed t o di scl ose excul pat or y evi dence t hat woul d

have al l owed Pal adi n t o under mi ne Vega s cr edi bi l i t y. The

government di d not di sput e t hat t he Andi no pr of f er shoul d have been

di scl osed, but mai nt ai ned t hat Pal adi n was not ent i t l ed t o a new

t r i al because t he cont ent s of t he Andi no pr of f er wer e i mmat er i al .

Af t er a l engt hy hear i ng i n August 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

Pal adi n s mot i on i n an or al deci si on.

-5-


6/31

At a separ at e hear i ng shor t l y af t er t he deni al of

Pal adi n s mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a l i f e sent ence on t he

conspi r acy count , not i ng t hat such a sent ence was excessi ve, but

l egal l y requi r ed under t he ci r cumst ances. 3 Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I . Evi dent i ar y Suppr essi on

A. St andar d of Revi ew

The di st r i ct cour t s deni al of a mot i on f or a new t r i al

i s pr oper l y r evi ewed f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Hal l , 557 F. 3d 15, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . We conduct our r evi ew

mi ndf ul t hat [ t ] he t r i al j udge, havi ng seen and hear d t he

wi t nesses at f i r st hand, has a speci al sense of t he ebb and f l ow

of t he r ecent l y concl uded t r i al . Thus, hi s vi ews about t he l i kel y

i mpact of newl y di scl osed evi dence deser ve consi der abl e def er ence.

Uni t ed St at es v. Mat hur , 624 F. 3d 498, 504 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302, 313 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) .

B. An I nt r oduct i on

[ T]he suppr essi on by t he pr osecut i on of evi dence

f avor abl e t o an accused . . . vi ol at es due pr ocess wher e t he

evi dence i s mat er i al ei t her t o gui l t or t o puni shment , i r r espect i ve

of t he good f ai t h or bad f ai t h of t he pr osecut i on. Br ady, 373

U. S. at 87. A Br ady cl ai m, t hen, has t hr ee el ement s: ( 1) t he

evi dence at i ssue must be f avor abl e to the accused, ei t her because

3 Pal adi n was sent enced to 300 mont hs on each of t her emai ni ng di st r i but i on and possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but ecount s, wi t h al l sent ences or der ed t o r un concur r ent l y.

-6-


7/31

i t i s excul pat or y, or because i t i s i mpeachi ng; ( 2) t hat evi dence

must have been suppr essed by the government ei t her wi l l f ul l y or

i nadver t ent l y; and ( 3) pr ej udi ce must have r esul t ed. St r i ckl er v.

Gr eene, 527 U. S. 263, 281- 82 ( 1999) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v.

Avi l s- Col n, 536 F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The gover nment

concedes t hat t he Andi no pr of f er was pot ent i al l y i mpeachi ng and

t hat i t was suppr essed i nadver t ent l y. Thus, t he det er mi nat i ve

i ssue i s whet her t he suppr essi on r esul t ed i n pr ej udi ce.

I mpeachment evi dence must be mat er i al bef ore i t s

suppr essi on j ust i f i es a new t r i al . Conl ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 415

F. 3d 183, 188 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Evi dence i s mat er i al when a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y [ exi st s] t hat t he r esul t of t he t r i al woul d

have been di f f er ent i f t he suppr essed evi dence had been di scl osed.

St r i ckl er , 527 U. S. at 289 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y does not r equi r e t hat t he def endant woul d

mor e l i kel y t han not have r ecei ved a di f f er ent ver di ct wi t h t he

evi dence, onl y t hat t he l i kel i hood of a di f f er ent r esul t i s gr eat

enough t o under mi ne[ ] conf i dence i n t he out come of t he t r i al .

Smi t h v. Cai n, 132 S. Ct . 627, 630 ( 2012) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Kyl es v. Whi t l ey, 514 U. S. 419, 434 ( 1995) ) . Thi s

somewhat del phi c undermi ne conf i dence f ormul a suggest s t hat

r ever sal mi ght be war r ant ed i n some cases even i f t her e i s l ess

t han an even chance t hat t he evi dence woul d pr oduce an acqui t t al .

-7-


8/31

Conl ey, 415 F. 3d at 188 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda, 15

F. 3d 1216, 1220 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ) .

The st r ength of i mpeachment evi dence and t he ef f ect of

suppr essi on ar e eval uat ed i n t he cont ext of t he ent i r e r ecor d t o

det er mi ne mat er i al i t y. I d. at 189. Evi dence i s i mmat er i al wher e

i t i s cumul at i ve or mer el y i mpeaches a wi t ness on a col l at er al

i ssue. Uni t ed St at es v. Dumas, 207 F. 3d 11, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

Li kewi se, suppr essed i mpeachment evi dence has l i t t l e pr obat i ve

val ue i f addi t i onal evi dence st r ongl y cor r obor at es t he wi t ness s

t est i mony t he suppr essed evi dence mi ght have i mpeached. Conl ey,

415 F. 3d at 189.

C. The Mat er i al i t y of t he Andi no Pr of f er

The mat er i al i t y of undi scl osed evi dence ul t i mat el y t urns

on t he f act or s out l i ned above. As such, we assess t he Andi no

pr of f er i n t er ms of : ( 1) i t s evi dent i ar y st r engt h; ( 2) whet her i t

was cumul at i ve of ot her evi dence of f er ed at t r i al ; ( 3) whet her t he

mat t ers on whi ch i t woul d have al l owed i mpeachment were col l ateral ;

and ( 4) whet her t he mat t er s on whi ch i mpeachment woul d have been

made possi bl e were ot herwi se cor r oborated.

i . Evi dent i ar y St r engt h

Whi l e t he i mpact of wi t hhol di ng evi dence i s sever e when

t hat evi dence i s hi ghl y i mpeachi ng, t he f ai l ur e t o di scl ose

evi dence whose i mpeachment val ue i s merel y margi nal i s mani f est l y

i nsuf f i ci ent t o pl ace t he t r i al r ecor d i n such a di f f er ent l i ght

-8-


9/31

as t o under mi ne conf i dence i n t he ver di ct . Mat hur , 624 F. 3d at

505 ( quot i ng Kyl es, 514 U. S. at 435) .

The di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat t he Andi no prof f er was

i mmat er i al was based, i n par t , on t he concl usi on t hat i t s cont ent s

were ambi guous. Thi s concl usi on was wel l - f ounded, because whi l e

t he Andi no pr of f er suggest s t hat Vega was i nvol ved i n t he dr ug

t r ade mont hs af t er he had pr of essed ot her wi se, t he f ul l st or y i s

consi der abl y mor e compl i cat ed. At t he hear i ng on t he mot i on f or a

new t r i al , t he gover nment r epr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

Vega s ser vi ce as a conf i dent i al i nf or mant extended beyond t he

Pal adi n i nvest i gat i on. Mor e speci f i cal l y, t he gover nment i ndi cat ed

t hat Vega had execut ed a cont r ol l ed buy wi t h Andi no i n December

2009 at t he di r ect i on of agent s i nvol ved i n a separ at e

i nvest i gat i on of Andi no. Thi s buy, of cour se, woul d exact l y

cor r espond wi t h t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he Andi no pr of f er .

Based on t he government s r epr esent at i ons, i t seems

l i kel y t hat Vega di d engage i n a dr ug t r ansact i on wi t h Andi no

dur i ng t he per i od of t i me t hat Andi no descr i bed. And, because

Andi no was merel y under i nvest i gat i on at t he t i me, one mi ght

r easonabl y i nf er t hat Andi no woul d have had no r eason t o bel i eve

t hat he was deal i ng wi t h a gover nment i nf ormant . 4 But , because

4 I ndeed, t he not es f r om t he Andi no pr of f er go on t odescr i be t hat : Andi no sai d t hat he had [ l at er ] hear d t hat . . .Vega was worki ng wi t h t he pol i ce and had set Andi no up. Andi nosai d t hat af t er he hear d about Vega possi bl y wor ki ng f or t hepol i ce, he st opped deal i ng wi t h Vega and pushed hi m away.

-9-


10/31

Pal adi n chose t o l eave t he r ecor d bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t

undevel oped, t hi s panel i s l ef t t o specul at e as t o what Vega mi ght

have sai d i f conf r ont ed wi t h t he Andi no pr of f er on cr oss-

exami nat i on at t r i al .

We can envi si on t hr ee scenar i os. Vega coul d have

conf i r med t hat he pur chased Oxycont i n f r om Andi no i n or ar ound

December 2009, but i ndi cat ed t hat he di d so at t he di r ect i on of

government agent s i nvest i gat i ng Andi no; second, Vega coul d have

admi t t ed t o l yi ng on di r ect exami nat i on about hi s mot i vat i on f or

t ur ni ng hi msel f i n t o t he FBI and about t he cessat i on of hi s dr ug

deal i ng; and t hi r d, Vega coul d have f l at l y deni ed engagi ng i n

nar cot i cs t r ansact i ons of any ki nd wi t h Andi no. We si mpl y cannot

know whi ch of t hese scenar i os woul d have pl ayed out because Pal adi n

decl i ned t he di st r i ct cour t s i nvi t at i on t o hol d an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng t o l ear n more.

As t he movant seeki ng a new t r i al under Br ady, t he bur den

t o demonst r at e t he mat er i al i t y of undi scl osed evi dence r est s

squar el y wi t h Pal adi n. See St r i ckl er , 527 U. S. at 289. Yet

Pal adi n made t he deci si on not t o cal l ei t her Vega or Andi no as

wi t nesses bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . 5 Of t he pot ent i al scenar i os

5 When asked, def ense counsel i ndi cat ed t o t he di st r i ctcour t t hat he di d not i nt end t o cal l ei t her Vega or Andi no, l eavi ngt he di st r i ct cour t t o l ament t hat I have l i mi t ed i nf or mat i on her ebecause nei t her of you deci ded t o i nvest i gat e f ur t her or t r i ed t opr oduce i t i n f r ont of me . . . . Wi t h r espect t o Andi no, t hedi st r i ct cour t t heor i zed t hat I suspect [ def ense counsel el ect ednot t o cal l Andi no] because you r e pr obabl y concerned t hat he mi ght

-10-


11/31

t hat we out l i ne above, onl y t wo of t hr ee ar e pot ent i al l y hel pf ul t o

Pal adi n. I n scenar i o one, wer e Vega t o conf i r m t hat he pur chased

Oxycont i n f r om Andi no at t he di r ect i on of t he gover nment , t he

i mpeachment val ue of t he Andi no prof f er woul d be nonexi st ent

because i t woul d not suggest a di scr epancy i n Vega s t est i mony.

I f , on t he ot her hand, i n scenar i o t wo, t he Andi no

pr of f er pr ompt ed Vega t o admi t t hat he had l i ed t o t he FBI and t o

t he j ur y, t he i mpeachment val ue of such t est i mony woul d be most

si gni f i cant . Li kewi se, i n scenar i o t hr ee, wer e Vega t o f l at l y deny

deal i ng wi t h Andi no, i t i s possi bl e t hat t he Andi no pr of f er coul d

have been used t o hi ghl i ght t he f actual di scr epancy and undermi ne

Vega s cr edi bi l i t y, assumi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he

pr of f er under an except i on t o the r ul e agai nst hear say. 6

I n ef f ect , Pal adi n asks t hi s panel t o i nf er ( or , mor e

accur at el y, guess) t hat ei t her scenar i o t wo or scenar i o thr ee woul d

have unf ol ded and, f ur t her mor e, wer e i t scenar i o t hr ee, t hat t he

not say somet hi ng t hat f avor s you.

6 As t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed, wer e Vega t o deny thecont ent s of t he Andi no pr of f er , use of t he pr of f er t o i mpeachVega s cr edi bi l i t y woul d be si gni f i cant l y compl i cat ed by thepr ohi bi t i on agai nst hear say. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wal t hour , 202 F.App x 367, 371 ( 11t h Ci r . 2006) ( per cur i am) ( St at ement s i n pol i ce

r epor t s made by i ndi vi dual s ot her t han t he repor t i ng of f i cer . . .const i t ut e hear say upon hear say, and ar e t her ef or e i nadmi ssi bl e. ) .The par t i es hot l y cont est t he appl i cabi l i t y of several hear sayexcept i ons, and mor eover whet her i nadmi ssabi l i t y necessar i l ypr ecl udes a f i ndi ng of mat er i al i t y. But , because we f i nd t hat t heAndi no pr of f er i s of quest i onabl e i mpeachment val ue based on i t si nherent ambi gui t y, we need not r each t hese quest i ons.

-11-


12/31

di st r i ct cour t woul d have r esol ved t he var i ous hear say

compl i cat i ons i n Pal adi n s f avor . Thi s i s a br i dge t oo f ar and we

decl i ne t o cr oss i t because we concl ude t hat Pal adi n has not

car r i ed hi s bur den t o demonst r at e t hat t he Andi no pr of f er woul d

have been at al l hel pf ul t o hi m. We r each t he same concl usi on as

t he di st r i ct cour t : t he cont ent s of t he Andi no pr of f er ar e at best

hi ghl y ambi guous. Based on t he r ecor d bef ore us, we can onl y

concl ude that t he i mpeachment val ue of t he undi scl osed evi dence was

l i kel y mi nor , and t hus i t i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o under mi ne our

conf i dence i n t he j ur y s ver di ct .

i i . Was t he Andi no Pr of f er Cumul at i ve?

Suppr essed evi dence that i s cumul at i ve of evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al i s i mmat er i al . Avi l s- Col n, 536 F. 3d at 19;

see al so Mor eno- Mor al es v. Uni t ed St at es, 334 F. 3d 140, 148 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . Where, as here, suppr essed evi dence woul d have been

used f or i mpeachment pur poses, t he key i ssue i s whether t he def ense

had an adequat e oppor t uni t y t o i mpeach t he wi t ness by other means.

Zei gl er v. Cal l ahan, 659 F. 2d 254, 266 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) .

I mpeachment evi dence, even t hat whi ch tends t o f ur t her undermi ne

t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he key Gover nment wi t ness whose cr edi bi l i t y has

al r eady been shaken due t o ext ensi ve cr oss- exami nat i on, does not

cr eat e a reasonabl e doubt t hat di d not ot her wi se exi st wher e t hat

evi dence i s cumul at i ve . . . . Dumas, 207 F. 3d at 16 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Shel t on, 588 F. 2d 1242, 1248 ( 9t h Ci r . 1978) ) ; see

-12-


13/31

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Connol l y, 504 F. 3d 206, 217 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

Never t hel ess, suppr essed i mpeachment evi dence can be i mmater i al

because of i t s cumul at i ve nat ur e onl y i f t he wi t ness was al r eady .

. . i mpeached at t r i al by t he same ki nd of evi dence. Conl ey, 415

F. 3d at 192 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cuf f i e, 80 F. 3d 514, 518

( D. C. Ci r . 1996) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The di st r i ct cour t s i mmat er i al i t y f i ndi ng was based, i n

par t , on i t s concl usi on t hat t he Andi no pr of f er woul d have pr ovi ded

avenues of i mpeachment t hat were cumul at i ve of others al r eady

avai l abl e t o t he def ense. We agr ee t hat , at best , t he Andi no

pr of f er woul d have pr ovi ded Pal adi n wi t h more of t he same ki nd of

evi dence t hat was al r eady avai l abl e t o hi m t o under mi ne Vega s

credi bi l i t y.

Pal adi n r el i es pr i nci pal l y on t he not i on f r omConl ey t hat

evi dence i s cumul at i ve onl y i nsof ar as t he wi t ness was al r eady

i mpeached by t he same ki nd of evi dence. See i d. I n Conl ey, t he

def endant pol i ce of f i cer was convi ct ed of per j ur y and obst r uct i on

charges st emmi ng f r omhi s i nvol vement i n ( and subsequent cover- up

of ) t he acci dent al beat i ng of an under cover of f i cer . I d. at 187.

A key gover nment wi t ness - a f el l ow of f i cer i nvol ved i n t he pur sui t

t hat l ed t o t he beat i ng - t est i f i ed r egar di ng hi s per cept i on of t he

chai n of event s. However , t he pr osecut i on had f ai l ed t o di scl ose

an FBI i nt er vi ew wi t h t he wi t ness dur i ng whi ch he expr essed

uncer t ai nt y regardi ng t he event s, and even asked t hat he be

-13-


14/31

hypnot i zed i n or der t o bet t er r ecal l what had happened. I d. at

185- 86. Thi s Cour t f ound t hat a Br ady vi ol at i on had occur r ed

because t he def endant had been unaware of any evi dence suggest i ng

t hat t he wi t ness was uncer t ai n as t o hi s r ecol l ect i on of event s.

I d. at 191 ( Pr i or t o t r i al . . . Pet i t i oner di d not know t he

Government s key wi t ness pr evi ousl y suggest ed he be hypnot i zed t o

t r ul y r ecal l t he event s . . . . Wi t hout any ot her si mi l ar

mat er i al , Pet i t i oner di d not i mpeach [ t he wi t ness s] abi l i t y t o

r ecal l at t r i al . ) .

A pr ej udi ci al Br ady vi ol at i on has not been ef f ect ed,

however , wher e t he def endant al r eady had avai l abl e t o hi mevi dence

t hat woul d have al l owed f or i mpeachment on t he same or si mi l ar

t opi cs. I n Mor eno- Mor al es, f or exampl e, a key gover nment wi t ness

i mpl i cat ed t he def endant pol i ce of f i cer i n t he mur der of an unar med

suspect . 334 F. 3d at 143- 44. On appeal , t he def endant argued t hat

t he government had t ur ned over onl y a subset of pol ygr aph t est

r esul t s demonst r at i ng that t he wi t ness changed hi s st or y numer ous

t i mes pr i or t o t r i al . Thi s Cour t di sagr eed, concl udi ng t hat t he

addi t i onal t est r esul t s woul d have been cumul at i ve because t he

def ense had ampl e oppor t uni t y t o i mpeach t he wi t ness s cr edi bi l i t y

wi t h ot her evi dence of hi s pr i or i nconsi st enci es. I d. at 148; see

al so Connol l y, 504 F. 3d at 217 ( Gi ven [ t he wi t ness s] extensi ve

cr i mi nal hi st or y, i t woul d not have been an abuse of di scr et i on f or

t he di st r i ct cour t t o f i nd t hat t he absence of addi t i onal cross-

-14-


15/31

exami nat i on on essent i al l y t he same wel l - devel oped t heme woul d not

under mi ne conf i dence i n t he j ur y s ver di ct . ) .

Pal adi n s r el i ance on Conl ey i s mi spl aced. Whi l e t he

Andi no pr of f er had t he pot ent i al t o l ead t o a l i ne of quest i oni ng

r egar di ng Vega s t r ut hf ul ness wi t h l aw enf or cement and wi t h t he

j ury, Pal adi n al r eady had avai l abl e - and used - t he same ki nd of

evi dence t o under mi ne Vega s cr edi bi l i t y. For exampl e, on cr oss-

exami nat i on, t he def ense el i ci t ed f r om Vega t he concessi on t hat ,

despi t e ear ni ng upwar ds of a mi l l i on dol l ar s f r om t he sal e of

Oxycont i n t abl et s, Vega pai d vi r t ual l y not hi ng i n t axes and

l aunder ed t he nar cot i cs proceeds t hr ough a smal l busi ness t hat he

owned. Vega was al so quest i oned about a home i nvasi on i n whi ch

sever al masked i nt r uders broke i nt o hi s house, bound Vega and hi s

wi f e i n f r ont of t hei r chi l dr en, and st ol e var i ous i t ems. Vega

admi t t ed t hat he l i ed t o pol i ce of f i cer s af t er t he i nci dent when he

t ol d t hemt hat he was not a dr ug deal er . I n cont i nued quest i oni ng,

t he def ense suggest ed t hat Vega was si mi l ar l y l yi ng about hi s

r el at i onshi p wi t h Pal adi n i n or der t o avoi d pr osecut i on.

I n sum, t he pr i nci pal f ocus of t he def ense on cr oss-

exami nat i on sought t o under mi ne Vega s cr edi bi l i t y by suggest i ng t o

t he j ur y t hat Vega was gener al l y di shonest and was wi l l i ng t o l i e

t o ser ve hi s own i nt er est s. I n t he best case scenar i o f or Pal adi n,

t he Andi no pr of f er woul d have per mi t t ed one addi t i onal avenue t o

-15-


16/31

accompl i sh thi s same obj ect i ve. 7 Thi s, we bel i eve, necessar i l y

means t hat t he Andi no pr of f er was cumul at i ve because i t i s

ul t i mat el y t he same ki nd of evi dence al r eady i n t he r ecor d. See

Conl ey, 415 F. 3d at 192.

i i i . Wer e t he I ssues f or I mpeachment Col l at er al ?

I mpeachment evi dence . . . does not cr eat e a r easonabl e

doubt t hat di d not ot her wi se exi st wher e t hat evi dence i s . . .

col l at er al . Dumas, 207 F. 3d at 16 ( quot i ng Shel t on, 588 F. 2d at

1248) . A mat t er i s consi der ed col l at er al i f t he mat t er i t sel f i s

not r el evant i n t he l i t i gat i on t o est abl i sh a f act of consequence,

i . e. , not r el evant f or a pur pose ot her t han mer e cont r adi ct i on of

t he i n- cour t t est i mony of t he wi t ness. Uni t ed St at es v.

Beauchamp, 986 F. 2d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( quot i ng 1 McCormack on

Evi dence 45, at 169 ( 4t h ed. 1992) ) .

The di st r i ct cour t t ouched on t hi s i ssue when i t drew a

di st i nct i on between evi dence t he government has produced t o

support t he el ement s of t he case and evi dence t hat bear s on t he

credi bi l i t y of a wi t ness. We r ead t he di st r i ct cour t s or al

deci si on as concl udi ng, based on t hi s di st i nct i on, t hat t he Andi no

pr of f er was col l at er al because whi l e i t woul d have possi bl y

7 Though we not e agai n t he di st i nct possi bi l i t y t hat Vegami ght have r esponded t o t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng by i ndi cat i ng t hatt he t r ansact i ons wi t h Andi no had been i n hi s capaci t y as aconf i dent i al i nf or mant and at t he di r ect i on of t he gover nment - ar esponse t hat woul d have ser ved to el i mi nate any i mpeachment val uet hat t he pr of f er mi ght have pr ovi ded.

-16-


17/31

per mi t t ed i mpeachment of Vega s gener al cr edi bi l i t y, i t woul d not

have permi t t ed i mpeachment of t he f actual evi dence under l yi ng t he

gover nment s case. I n l i ght of t he weakness of t he suppr essed

evi dence and i t s cumul at i veness, any er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t s

f i ndi ng - i f i ndeed t her e was any at al l - was har ml ess.

i v. Were the I ssues f or I mpeachment Corr oborated?

[ S] uppr essed i mpeachment evi dence has l i t t l e pr obat i ve

val ue i f addi t i onal evi dence st r ongl y cor r obor at es t he wi t ness s

t est i mony t he suppr essed evi dence mi ght have i mpeached. Conl ey,

415 F. 3d at 189; see al so Hal l , 557 F. 3d at 19. Never t hel ess,

[ c] onf i dence i n t he out come i s par t i cul ar l y doubt f ul when t he

wi t hhel d evi dence i mpeaches a wi t ness whose t est i mony i s

uncor r obor at ed and essent i al t o t he convi ct i on. Nor t on v.

Spencer , 351 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar t nez- Medi na, 279 F. 3d 105, 126 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) .

Thi s Cour t has previ ousl y f ound undi scl osed evi dence t o

be i mmat er i al by vi r t ue of havi ng been i ndependent l y cor r obor at ed.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Gonzl ez, 258 F. 3d 16, 18- 19

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( despi t e gover nment s nondi scl osur e of evi dence

t endi ng t o under mi ne t he cr edi bi l i t y of t wo wi t nesses, numer ous

ot her wi t nesses t est i f i ed as t o def endant s i nvol vement i n a dr ug

conspi r acy and t he government i nt r oduced document ary evi dence

i ncl udi ng r ecor di ngs of conver sat i ons, t r avel r ecor ds and

sur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs) ; Connol l y, 504 F. 3d at 214 ( asi de f r oma

-17-


18/31

government wi t ness who l ater pur port edl y r ecant ed hi s t est i mony,

mul t i pl e ot her wi t nesses t est i f i ed as t o def endant s cor r upt

deal i ngs wi t h or gani zed cr i me f i gur es) ; Mat hur , 624 F. 3d at 505

( despi t e del ayed di scl osure of evi dence def endant ar gued coul d be

used t o shi f t bl ame t o one of t he wi t nesses agai nst hi m, numerous

ot her wi t nesses t est i f i ed as t o t hei r vi ct i mi zat i on by def endant s

f i nanci al scheme and t he government i nt r oduced vol umi nous

cor r obor at i ve r ecor ds) . Never t hel ess, at t he ot her end of t he

spect r um, t hi s Cour t has f ound t hat a t r i al cour t er r ed when i t

decl i ned t o gr ant a new t r i al where evi dence emerged post -

convi ct i on t hat t he gover nment s sol e wi t ness had f abr i cat ed

al l egat i ons and wher e no addi t i onal cor r obor at i ve evi dence was

i nt r oduced at t r i al . See Nor t on, 351 F. 3d at 9.

Our f ocus wi t h r espect t o cor r obor at i on i s on t he

conspi r acy char ge. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded, and we agr ee,

t hat t he evi dence of Pal adi n s gui l t on t he di st r i but i on and

possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e char ges was over whel mi ng and

di d not depend on Vega s credi bi l i t y. J ur or s hear d t est i mony f r om

f eder al , st at e and l ocal l aw enf or cement per sonnel who var i ousl y

i nvest i gat ed Pal adi n, conduct ed sur vei l l ance on a ser i es of

cont r ol l ed buys wi t h Vega, t est ed and conf i r med as cocai ne the

subst ances t hat Vega pur chased f r om Pal adi n, execut ed a sear ch

war r ant at Pal adi n s r esi dence wher e a si gni f i cant cocai ne st ash

was uncover ed, and ar r est ed Pal adi n whi l e he was t r avel i ng i n

-18-


19/31

Geor gi a and car r yi ng some t en t housand dol l ar s i n cash. Thi s

evi dence was not meani ngf ul l y cont est ed.

As t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed, however , despi t e t he

st r engt h of t he gover nment s case wi t h r espect t o t he ot her count s,

t he conspi r acy char ge depended i n l ar ge par t on t he j ur y s

wi l l i ngness t o accept Vega s ver si on of event s t hat had t aken pl ace

pr i or t o hi s becomi ng a conf i dent i al i nf or mant . 8

We bel i eve t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence

cor r obor at i ve of Vega s t est i mony on t he conspi r acy count . We

begi n wi t h Pal adi n s own st at ement s. The j ur y hear d a ser i es of

audi o r ecordi ngs of meet i ngs and cont r ol l ed buys bet ween Vega and

Pal adi n, as wel l as t he t est i mony of members of l aw enf orcement who

sur vei l l ed t hese i nt er act i ons. Pal adi n i s hear d t o make a ser i es

of comment s i ndi cat i ve of a l ong- st andi ng dr ug deal i ng r el at i onshi p

wi t h Vega. For exampl e, i n one conver sat i on i n whi ch Vega and

Pal adi n ar e di scussi ng dr ug quant i t i es, t he f ol l owi ng exchange t ook

pl ace:

Pal adi n: That s what you need, we don t need,i t s not l i ke [ expl et i ve del et ed] t o go ar oundl i ke we used t o do, you know what I mean.

8 [ I ] n si t uat i ons wher e t he conspi r acy i nvol ves onl y [ one]

def endant and a government i nf ormer. . . . t here can be noconspi r acy because i t t akes t wo t o conspi r e and the governmenti nf or mer i s not a t r ue conspi r at or . Uni t ed St at es v. Gi r y, 818F. 2d 120, 126 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The cont r ol l ed dr ug t r ansact i ons t hatoccur r ed af t er Vega became an i nf ormant coul d not f ormt he basi s ofconspi racy l i abi l i t y.

-19-


20/31

Vega: [ Expl et i ve del et ed] , what ar e we doi ng[ expl et i ve del et ed] t hat one summer l i ke 100keys. 9

Pal adi n: [ I naudi bl e] . . . I mgoi ng beyond t hat .

Dur i ng a separ at e conver sat i on on t he t opi c of conduct i ng

t hei r meet i ngs i n par ki ng l ot s, Pal adi n i s hear d t o say: Yeah,

[ expl et i ve del et ed] , you got t a move i n cl ose so we can meet up l i ke

we di d bef ore, you f eel me? We vi ew t hese ( and other ) st atement s

by Pal adi n as cor r obor at i ng Vega s t est i mony t hat Vega and Pal adi n

had pr evi ousl y conspi r ed t o di st r i but e cocai ne pr i or t o Vega s

servi ce as an i nf or mant .

Ther e was al so cor r obor at i on of Vega s t est i mony by ot her

wi t nesses, pr i nci pal l y Agent Al f or d, t he FBI agent who over saw t he

i nvest i gat i on of Pal adi n and who t est i f i ed f i r st f or t he

government . I n one i nst ance of cor r oborat i on, among others, Vega

t est i f i ed t hat i n appr oxi mat el y 2007, he pai d Pal adi n f or a

shi pment of cocai ne by gi vi ng hi ma cust omi zed Suzuki mot or cycl e.

Agent Al f or d t est i f i ed r egar di ng t he FBI s sei zur e of t he same

motorcycl e i n 2010 and the government of f ered i n evi dence t he

mot or cycl e s t i t l e hi st or y whi ch showed Vega s past owner shi p and

pr esent owner shi p by Pal adi n s gi r l f r i end, Cr i st y Baez. 10

9 The gover nment r epr esent ed at or al ar gument , and we haveno r eason t o doubt , t hat a key i s a ki l ogr am.

10 Agent Al f or d t est i f i ed t hat when t he FBI t r acked down t hemot or cycl e, i t was f or sal e on Cr ai gsl i st , wi t h i nt er est ed buyer si nst r uct ed t o cal l a phone number r egi st er ed t o Pal adi n and Baez.

-20-


21/31

Next , Agent Al f or d cor r obor at ed Vega s t est i mony wi t h

r espect t o t he nat ur e of t he f r ont i ng and payment pr act i ces.

Vega t est i f i ed t hat hi s i ndependent deal i ngs wi t h Pal adi n spanned

f r om 2004 to 2008, and that t here was a gap between Vega s l ast

pur chase i n 2008 and hi s r ei ni t i at i on of cont act wi t h Pal adi n at

t he di r ect i on of t he FBI i n November 2009. Vega t est i f i ed

r egar di ng t he det ai l s of t he f i r st cont r ol l ed buy, and j ur or s hear d

an audi o r ecor di ng of what t r anspi r ed. Dur i ng t hi s meet i ng,

Pal adi n pr ovi ded Vega wi t h si x ounces of cocai ne, and Vega and

Pal adi n agr eed t hat Vega woul d pay f or i t appr oxi matel y a week

l at er . Thi s pr act i ce, i n whi ch t he buyer ef f ect i vel y pur chases

dr ugs on cr edi t , t hen pays t he sel l er l at er wi t h pr oceeds f r omt he

r esal e, i s known as f r ont i ng. Vega t est i f i ed t hat i n t wo

addi t i onal cont r ol l ed buys i n November and December 2009, Vega and

Pal adi n used si mi l ar f r ont i ng ar r angement s.

Agent Al f or d cor r obor at ed t hi s t est i mony by det ai l i ng f or

j uror s hi s oversi ght of t he cont r ol l ed pur chases. Speci f i cal l y,

Agent Al f or d t est i f i ed t hat i n t he case of each cont r ol l ed

pur chase, Pal adi n f r ont ed Vega the dr ugs, t hen Vega l at er pai d f or

t hem wi t h f unds pr ovi ded by t he gover nment . As t he di st r i ct cour t

r ecogni zed, Pal adi n s wi l l i ngness t o f r ont si gni f i cant quant i t i es

of cocai ne t o Vega begi nni ng wi t h t he f i r st cont r ol l ed pur chase i n

November 2009 i s i ndi cat i ve of a pr i or dr ug deal i ng r el at i onshi p.

-21-


22/31

We bel i eve i t unl i kel y t hat Pal adi n woul d have done so wer e he

deal i ng wi t h Vega f or t he f i r st t i me.

Wi t nesses ot her t han Agent Al f or d cor r obor at ed Vega s

t est i mony as wel l . For exampl e, Vega t est i f i ed t hat Pal adi n used

t he Lowel l , Massachuset t s home of an associ ate by t he name of J uan

Bur gos ( ni cknamed I ndi o) as a st ash house f or guns, dr ugs and

bul l et pr oof vest s. Vega t est i f i ed about a conver sat i on t hat he had

wi t h Pal adi n i n 2007 i n whi ch Pal adi n descr i bed ar r i vi ng at I ndi o s

home t o col l ect a package of mar i j uana, knocki ng on the f r ont door ,

and i t bei ng opened by pol i ce of f i cers and FBI agent s who happened

t o have j ust r ecent l y rai ded t he home i n connect i on wi t h an

i nvest i gat i on i nt o I ndi o. Vega t est i f i ed t hat Pal adi n t ol d hi m

t hat t he of f i cer s quest i oned but ul t i mat el y r el eased hi m. Thi s

t est i mony was cor r oborated by members of t he Lowel l Pol i ce

Depar t ment who t est i f i ed as t o the execut i on of t he rai d at I ndi o s

home and Pal adi n s i l l - t i med ar r i val , quest i oni ng and r el ease.

D. Concl usi on

Because of t he quest i onabl e evi dent i ar y st r engt h of t he

Andi no pr of f er , t he f act t hat we bel i eve i t t o pr ovi de avenues of

i mpeachment t hat are merel y cumul at i ve of others t hat were al r eady

avai l abl e to the def ense, and because Vega s t est i mony was

suf f i ci ent l y cor r obor at ed, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

t he Andi no pr of f er was i mmat er i al . As such, we AFFI RM t he deni al

of Pal adi n s mot i on t o set asi de ver di ct and f or a new t r i al .

-22-


23/31

I I I . Const i t ut i onal Chal l enges

Pal adi n r ai ses a ser i es of const i t ut i onal chal l enges t o

t he di st r i ct cour t s i mposi t i on of a l i f e sent ence. As we not ed

pr evi ousl y, t he l i f e sent ence was made mandatory by t he

gover nment s f i l i ng of an i nf or mat i on pur suant t o 21 U. S. C.

851( a) ( 1) r egar di ng t wo pr i or f el ony dr ug convi ct i ons t hat

Pal adi n had sust ai ned. 11 These convi ct i ons, combi ned wi t h t he f act

t hat t he i nst ant char ges i nvol ved mor e than t he necessary f i ve

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, t r i gger ed t he r equi r ement set f or t h at 21

U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( vi i i ) t hat [ i ] f any per son commi t s a

vi ol at i on of t hi s subpar agr aph . . . af t er t wo or mor e pr i or

convi ct i ons f or a f el ony dr ug of f ense have become f i nal , such

per son shal l be sent enced t o a mandat or y t er mof l i f e i mpr i sonment

wi t hout r el ease . . . . Pal adi n r ai ses t hese const i t ut i onal

chal l enges f or f ur t her appel l at e revi ew because, as he concedes,

most of t hemar e f or ecl osed by bi ndi ng pr ecedent . We consi der each

of Pal adi n s argument s i n t ur n, but t hey need not det ai n us f or

l ong.

11 The i nf or mat i on, f i l ed i n August 2010, suggest s t hatPal adi n was previ ousl y convi ct ed i n 1998 f or conspi r acy t o possessa cont r ol l ed dr ug wi t h i nt ent t o sel l , and i n 2003 f or conspi r acyt o sel l a cont r ol l ed dr ug. Bot h convi ct i ons wer e i n New Hampshi r est at e cour t s. The r ecor d suggest s t hat , pr i or t o sent enci ng,Pal adi n sought unsuccessf ul l y t o vacat e t he 1998 convi ct i on.

-23-


24/31

A. Does Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es Requi r e Submi ssi on ofPr i or Convi ct i ons t o t he J ur y?

Pal adi n mai nt ai ns t hat because t he i ndi ct ment di d not

r ef er ence hi s t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons, and because the j ur y

was not r equi r ed t o f i nd beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat he had been

convi ct ed of t hese cr i mes, Pal adi n s Fi f t h and Si xth Amendment

r i ght s t o have al l of t he el ement s of an of f ense i ncl uded i n an

i ndi ct ment and f ound by a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt were

vi ol at ed. Because t hi s ar gument was pr eserved, our r evi ew i s f or

har ml ess er r or , see Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88, 94 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 1530 ( 2014) , but we concl ude

based on bi ndi ng Supr eme Cour t and Ci r cui t pr ecedent t hat t here was

no er r or at al l .

I n Al mendarez- Tor r es v. Uni t ed St ates, t he Supr eme Cour t

uphel d t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a st at ut e t hat per mi t t ed di st r i ct

cour t s t o enhance cer t ai n sent ences based on t he def endant s s t at us

as a r eci di vi st even wher e al l egat i ons of t he def endant s pr i or

of f enses wer e not set f or t h i n t he i ndi ct ment . 523 U. S. 224, 228

( 1998) ( An i ndi ct ment must set f or t h each el ement of t he cr i me

t hat i t char ges. But i t need not set f or t h f act or s r el evant onl y

t o t he sent enci ng of an of f ender f ound gui l t y of t he char ged

cri me. ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Four year s l at er , i n Har r i s v.

Uni t ed St at es, t he Supr eme Cour t af f i r med t he convi ct i on of a

def endant where the di st r i ct cour t had f ound by a pr eponderance of

t he evi dence t hat t he def endant had br andi shed a f i r ear m i n

-24-


25/31

r el at i on t o a dr ug cr i me, but t he quest i on of br andi shi ng had not

been submi t t ed t o t he j ur y. 536 U. S. 545, 550- 52 ( 2002) . Under

t he appl i cabl e st at ut e, t he di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat t he

def endant had br andi shed t he f i r ear m r esul t ed i n an enhanced

mandatory mi ni mum sent ence. I d. at 550- 51.

Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es over r ul ed Har r i s, r easoni ng t hat

[ f ] act s t hat i ncr ease the mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence ar e . . .

el ement s and must be submi t t ed t o t he j ury and f ound beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2158 ( 2013) . Never t hel ess,

Al l eyne r ecogni zed an except i on t o t hi s r ul e t hat a def endant s

pr i or convi ct i ons need not be submi t t ed t o the j ur y even wher e

t hose convi ct i ons f or mt he basi s f or an i ncr eased sent ence. I d. at

2160 n. 1. I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t expr essl y decl i ned t o

r evi si t Al mendar ez- Tor r es. See i d. ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Car r i gan, 724 F. 3d 39, 51 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S.

Ct . 668 ( 2013) ( [ Appel l ant ] . . . ask[ ed] t hi s cour t t o f i nd t hat

hi s sent ence i s unconst i t ut i onal because t he quest i on of hi s st at us

as an [ armed career cr i mi nal ] shoul d have been submi t t ed t o the

j ury pur suant t o [ Al l eyne] . We di sagr ee. I n Al l eyne, t he Supreme

Cour t st at ed t hat [ Al mendar ez- Tor r es] r emai ns good l aw. )

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Thi s bei ng t he case, we must r ej ect Pal adi n s

argument t hat hi s Fi f t h and Si xt h Amendment r i ght s were i mpl i cated

when t he i ndi ct ment di d not set f or t h hi s pr i or convi ct i ons and t he

j ury was not r equi r ed t o pass upon t hem.

-25-


26/31

B. Does Al l eyne Requi r e Submi ss i on of Dr ug Quant i t y t ot he J ur y?

Pal adi n cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by not

submi t t i ng t o t he j ur y t he quest i on of whet her Pal adi n was

i ndi vi dual l y r esponsi bl e f or t he char ged quant i t y of cocai ne ( f i ve

ki l ogr ams or mor e) . Because Pal adi n di d not preserve t hi s

ar gument , our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Har akal y, 734 F. 3d at

94. To pr evai l , Pal adi n must show t hat t he er r or was pr ej udi ci al

and af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s, and . . . caused a mi scar r i age

of j ust i ce or ser i ousl y under mi ned t he 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. Car pent er ,

736 F. 3d 619, 632 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 901

( 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son, 320 F. 3d 92, 105 (1st

Ci r . 2003) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

As we not ed ear l i er , Al l eyne r equi r es t hat any f act t hat

ser ves t o i ncr ease t he mandat ory mi ni mum sentence be submi t t ed t o

t he j ur y and f ound beyond a r easonabl e doubt . 133 S. Ct . at 2158.

Pr i or t o Al l eyne, t hi s Cour t had hel d t hat when a di st r i ct cour t

determi nes dr ug quant i t y f or t he pur pose of sent enci ng a def endant

convi ct ed of par t i ci pat i ng i n a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy, t he

cour t i s r equi r ed t o make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o dr ug

amount s at t r i but abl e t o, or f or eseeabl e by, t hat def endant .

Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

Pal adi n ur ges a col l ect i ve r eadi ng of Col n- Sol s and Al l eyne t o

r equi r e t hat t he j ur y make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o t he

-26-


27/31

quant i t y of dr ugs at t r i but abl e t o a par t i cul ar def endant . Agai nst

t hat backdr op, Pal adi n ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s j ur y

i nst r uct i ons wer e i nsuf f i ci ent t o gl ean an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng

as t o t he quant i t y of cocai ne at t r i but abl e t o hi m.

Thi s ar gument mi sconst r ues t he di st r i ct cour t s j ury

i nst r uct i ons and over l ooks t he nat ur e of t he char ged conspi r acy.

The di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ury t hat [ i ] n or der f or t he

def endant t o be f ound gui l t y of t he char ged conspi r acy, t he

gover nment must pr ove t hat t he def endant conspi r ed t o di st r i but e

and possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e f i ve or mor e ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne. ( emphasi s added) . These i nst r uct i ons r equi r ed t he j ur y

t o f i nd t hat Pal adi n di r ect l y conspi r ed wi t h r espect t o t he

appl i cabl e mi ni mum quant i t y i n or der t o sust ai n a convi ct i on.

What i s mor e, we di st i ngui sh t he i nst ant conspi r acy f r om

t he f act s under l yi ng t hi s Cour t s hol di ng i n Col n- Sol s. Ther e,

t hi s Cour t was f aced wi t h one def endant i nvol ved i n a l ar ge- scal e

Puer t o Ri can dr ug car t el r esponsi bl e f or massi ve quant i t i es of

cocai ne and her oi n. I d. at 102. Of cour se, i n t hese cont ext s, t he

aut omat i c at t r i but i on of t he f ul l scope of t he conspi r acy s

deal i ngs t o a par t i cul ar def endant wi t hout an i ndi vi dual i zed

quant i t y f i ndi ng i s pr obl emat i c. See i d. at 103- 04. Her e,

however , t he char ged f i ve ki l ogr amquant i t y was based sol el y on t he

conspi r at or i al deal i ngs of t wo men: Pal adi n and Vega. Pal adi n

cannot r easonabl y mai nt ai n t hat hi s subst ant i al r i ght s wer e

-27-


28/31

af f ect ed when t her e ar e no t hi r d par t i es t o whoma mat er i al por t i on

of t he cocai ne i n quest i on coul d be at t r i but ed. 12

Even i f we wer e t o l ook beyond t he suf f i ci ency of t he

j ury i nst r uct i ons and t he nat ure of t he char ged conspi r acy and

concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had er r ed, Pal adi n woul d be unabl e

t o demonst r at e t he r equi si t e pr ej udi ce necessary t o pr evai l on

pl ai n er r or r evi ew. Thi s Cour t has pr evi ousl y t r eat ed t he

pr esence of overwhel mi ng evi dence of t he r equi si t e dr ug t ypes and

quant i t i es as a pr oxy f or har ml essness. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d at 95

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) ) .

Vega t est i f i ed t hat , i n hi s est i mat e, he and Pal adi n

deal t i n more t han 100 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne between 2004 and 2008.

We acknowl edge t hat t hi s f i gur e i s an est i mate and nothi ng more.

But t he vol ume of cocai ne at t r i but abl e t o Pal adi n i n t he mer e f i ve

weeks bet ween t he f i r st cont r ol l ed pur chase wi t h Vega and t he rai d

on Pal adi n s home conf i r ms t hat he deal t i n si gni f i cant quant i t i es,

l endi ng cr edi bi l i t y t o Vega s est i mat e.

Agent Al f or d t est i f i ed t hat Vega pur chased si x ounces of

cocai ne f r omPal adi n i n each of t wo cont r ol l ed buys on November 12

and December 8, 2009, and a ki l ogr ami n a t hi r d buy on December 15.

12 I ndeed, j ur or s hear d t est i mony about j ust one t r ansact i oni n whi ch Pal adi n was not di r ect l y i nvol ved. Vega t est i f i ed t hat onone occasi on i n ear l y 2008, af t er I ndi o s house was r ai ded andPal adi n was near l y i mpl i cat ed, Pal adi n had a l i t t l e hi at us andVega pur chased cocai ne f r om Pal adi n s gi r l f r i end.

-28-


29/31

Then, Agent Al f or d t est i f i ed t hat i n t he r ai d on Pal adi n s home on

December 17, an addi t i onal t hr ee and a hal f ki l ogr ams of cocai ne

wer e f ound and sei zed. That Pal adi n was r esponsi bl e f or near l y

f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne dur i ng t hi s shor t per i od of t i me suggest s

t hat Vega s est i mat e of t hei r pr i or deal i ngs bet ween 2004 and 2008

was not wi l dl y i naccur at e. 13

C. Does t he Fi ve- Year Li mi t at i on on Chal l engi ng Pr i orConvi ct i ons under 21 U. S. C. 851( e) Vi ol at e Due Processand Equal Prot ect i on?

No person who st ands convi ct ed of an of f ense . . . may

chal l enge t he val i di t y of any pr i or convi ct i on al l eged under t hi s

sect i on whi ch occur r ed mor e t han f i ve year s bef or e t he dat e of t he

i nf or mat i on al l egi ng such pr i or convi ct i on. 21 U. S. C. 851( e) .

Pal adi n s argument wi t h r espect t o t hi s i ssue may be summari zed as

f ol l ows: t he 1998 f el ony dr ug convi ct i on t hat he sust ai ned and t hat

was one of t wo pr i or f el oni es r ef er enced i n t he gover nment s

i nf or mat i on f i l ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t was t ai nt ed due t o

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel , but Pal adi n was bar r ed f r om

r ai si ng t hi s i ssue bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t because t he convi ct i on

was mor e t han f i ve year s ol d. Thus, hi s r i ght t o due pr ocess and

equal pr ot ect i on was vi ol at ed. Our r evi ew i s de novo. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Robi nson, 137 F. 3d 652, 653 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

13 A ki l ogr am i s equal t o j ust over 35 ounces. The t hr eecont r ol l ed pur chases and t he rai d pr oduced appr oxi mat el y 4. 8ki l ogr ams.

-29-


30/31

As Pal adi n acknowl edges, t hi s argument has been squarel y

r ef ut ed by Ci r cui t pr ecedent , and we must r ej ect i t . See

Henderson, 320 F. 3d at 104 ( The ban agai nst chal l engi ng

convi ct i ons over f i ve year s need onl y be support ed by a r at i onal

l egi sl at i ve pur pose because no f undament al r i ght or suspect cl ass

i s at i ssue i n t hi s case. The f i ve year l i mi t at i on . . . has a

r at i onal basi s i n l i ght of bot h t he admi ni st r at i ve di f f i cul t i es

i nher ent i n chal l enges t o pr i or convi ct i ons . . . and t he i nt er est

i n f i nal i t y. We t her ef or e have no di f f i cul t y concl udi ng t hat

sect i on 851( e) does not vi ol at e [ def endant s] r i ght t o due pr ocess

and equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aw. ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

D. I s t he Li f e Sent ence Ar bi t r ar y and Capr i ci ous?

Pal adi n cont ends t hat br oad pr osecut or i al di scr et i on

r esul t s i n t he ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous appl i cat i on of sent enci ng

enhancement s under 851( e) . Thi s ar gument t oo i s f orecl osed by

bi ndi ng precedent as t he Supreme Cour t has r evi ewed and deemed

const i t ut i onal t he appl i cabl e pr act i ces under 851. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Labont e, 520 U. S. 751, 761- 62 ( 1997) .

E. Does t he Li f e Sent ence Vi ol ate the Ei ght h Amendment ?

Pal adi n s f i nal chal l enge suggest s t hat hi s l i f e sent ence

vi ol ates t he Ei ght h Amendment because i t i s cr uel and unusual and

i s cont r ar y t o an emer gi ng nat i onal consensus on sent enci ng f or

-30-


31/31

non- vi ol ent dr ug cr i mes. 14 Our r evi ew i s de novo. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Raymond, 697 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Thi s Cour t

r ecent l y consi der ed, and r ej ect ed, vi r t ual l y i dent i cal ar gument s i n

Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 674 F. 3d 88, 96- 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , cer t .

deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 363 ( 2012) ( ci t i ng Supr eme Cour t cases uphol di ng

l i f e and ot her l engt hy pr i son sent ences f or non- vi ol ent r epeat dr ug

of f ender s) , and we must do t he same here.

Whi l e we may wel l agr ee wi t h t he sent i ment of t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat t he sent ence her e i s excessi ve, l i ke t he

di st r i ct cour t , we cannot but hol d t hat i t i s l awf ul and

const i t ut i onal . Rel i ef i n cases such as thi s - i f t her e i s any -

must come, i n t he f i r st i nst ance, i n t he exer ci se of r est r ai nt and

wi sdom i n t he char gi ng deci si on of t he pr osecut or , or i n t he

exer ci se of t he cl emency power ; bot h ar e execut i ve not j udi ci al

f unct i ons and l eave us power l ess t o i nt er cede t o gr ant r el i ef .

Affirmed.

14 Wi t h r espect t o an emer gi ng nat i onal consensus, Pal adi nr el i es pr i nci pal l y on Gr aham v. Fl or i da, 560 U. S. 48 ( 2010) , i nwhi ch t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed nat i onal publ i c opi ni on i nassessi ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of sent enci ng j uveni l es t o l i f e i npr i son wi t hout t he possi bi l i t y of par ol e f or non- homi ci de of f enses.

-31-

Documents

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