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

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

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2392

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

RONALD SERUNJ OGI ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Nancy Tor r eson, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Cl i f f or d B. St r i ke, wi t h whom St r i ke, Goodwi n & O' Br i en, wason br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Sept ember 24, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/23

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. When hi s f r i end and count r yman

needed a br i de t o secur e hi s st ay i n t he Uni t ed St at es, Ronal d

Ser unj ogi was t he best man f or t he j ob. But af t er seei ng t o t hi s

mar r i age i n hast e, Ronal d i s now r epent i ng at l ei sur e, ser vi ng f our

mont hs i n pr i son, and one year of super vi sed r el ease, f our mont hs

of whi ch must be spent i n home conf i nement , af t er a j ur y f ound hi m

gui l t y of conspi r acy t o def r aud t he Uni t ed St at es gover nment .

Speci f i cal l y, Ronal d was convi ct ed of conspi r i ng wi t h Samson

Sengoonzi t o ar r ange a sham marr i age i n or der t o secur e Samson a

change i n hi s i mmi gr at i on st atus t o whi ch he woul d not otherwi se be

ent i t l ed. 1 On appeal , Ronal d argues that t he evi dence admi t t ed at

t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on, and t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s sent ence. Af t er car ef ul

consi der at i on, we af f i r mbot h Ronal d' s convi ct i on and hi s sent ence.

I.

BACKGROUND

Because Ronal d i s chal l engi ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence, we wi l l r eci t e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most compat i bl e

wi t h t he j ur y' s ver di ct . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Pol anco, 634

F. 3d 39, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 618 F. 3d 27, 29

( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

1Rat her t han r i sk reader conf usi on over t he si mi l ar - soundi ngsurnames, we wi l l r ef er t o t he def endant as Ronal d and hi s co-conspi r at or as Samson. No di sr espect i s i nt ended.

-2-


3/23

A. The Wedding Planner

Every weddi ng needs a pl anner - - someone wi t h exper i ence

who can t end t o t he detai l s and gui de t he br i de and gr oom over t he

hur dl es of t hei r most i mpor t ant day. Ronal d i s a nur se by

pr of essi on, but f or hi s f r i end Samson, he was a most capabl e

weddi ng pl anner . A nat i ve of Uganda, Ronal d emi gr ated t o t he

Uni t ed St at es i n 1999 and was i ssued an Exchange Vi si t or Vi sa. I n

2002, Ronal d set t l ed i n Cal i f or ni a, wher e he mar r i ed f or t he f i r st

t i me. The mar r i age ended i n di vor ce i n 2003, al t hough t he f i nal

decr ee was not i ssued unt i l 2006. Ronal d t hen moved t o Mai ne and,

as t he i nk dr i ed on t he decr ee, mar r i ed f or t he second t i me. That

marr i age pr oduced one chi l d bef ore endi ng i n 2011. I n 2007, Ronal d

had a br i ef af f ai r wi t h Al i ce May- - a woman who pl ayed a bi t par t i n

hi s r omant i c hi st or y, but woul d assume a much l ar ger r ol e i n t hi s

case. Present l y, i n what i s per haps a t r i umph of hope over

exper i ence, Ronal d i s mar r i ed t o hi s t hi r d wi f e, Cassandr a Li nt on,

wi t h whom he has a second chi l d.

Ronal d met Samson at a par t y at a f r i end' s house. Li ke

Ronal d, Samson was a nat i ve of Uganda; unl i ke Ronal d, Samson' s

per mi ssi on t o r emai n i n t he Uni t ed St at es had expi r ed. As an

"over st ay, " Samson had a pr obl em; Ronal d had t he sol ut i on- - Al i ce

May.

-3-


4/23

B. The Bride Wore Camo

I n the summer of 2008, May was, by her own account , not

i n a good pl ace. She was "doi ng a l ot of dr ugs, al cohol , and, at

t hat t i me . . . pr et t y much di dn' t car e" about her l i f e. Al t hough

she t est i f i ed t hat her memor y of t hat t i me was not good, she

r ecal l ed havi ng sever al conver sat i ons wi t h Ronal d dur i ng whi ch he

woul d "ask i f [ she] knew anybody t hat woul d mar r y somebody t o get

a gr een car d or i f [ she] woul d. " May i ni t i al l y decl i ned, but

Ronal d per si st ed, r ai si ng t he t opi c " [ p] r et t y much ever y t i me

[ t hey] t al ked. " Accor di ng t o May, Ronal d t ol d her , "Whoever woul d

mar r y somebody f or a gr een car d woul d get money. "

The woul d- be br i de f i nal l y succumbed t o Ronal d' s

i mpor t uni ng. On August 27, 2008, May si gned a mar r i age cer t i f i cat e

at Lewi st on Ci t y Hal l . She t est i f i ed t hat she had no r ecol l ect i on

of who was wi t h her at t he t i me, but Samson' s si gnatur e appear s on

t he cer t i f i cat e besi de t hat of hi s br i de. 2 Fi ve days l at er , May

r ecei ved $400 that Samson had wi r ed t o her t hr ough West ern Uni on.

On Oct ober 22, 2008, at Samson' s behest , Ronal d pi cked May up at

her home and dr ove her t o t he weddi ng. May t est i f i ed t hat she had

been dr i nki ng and was dr essed " l i ke [ she] j ust was cl eani ng" ; i n

f act , she was wear i ng a camouf l age t ank t op. Ronal d dr ove her t o

a pr i vat e home where a notary publ i c per f ormed t he rather spar t an

2The def ense st i pul at ed t hat pur suant t o st at e l aw, bot hpar t i es are r equi r ed t o be pr esent t o appl y f or and r ecei ve a val i dmar r i age l i cense.

-4-


5/23

nupt i al s. The gr oom wor e a sui t , but di d not pr ovi de a r i ng.

I nst ead, t he coupl e bor r owed a r i ng f r om t he of f i ci ant f or Samson

t o pl ace on t he br i de' s f i nger ( "somet hi ng bor r owed") and t he br i de

mi med pl aci ng a r i ng on t he gr oom' s f i nger .

Fol l owi ng t he br i ef cer emony, Ronal d dr ove t he br i de back

t o hi s house; t he gr oom f ol l owed wi t h a f r i end i n a separ at e car .

Whi l e at Ronal d' s house, May obser ved Samson as he handed Ronal d "a

l ot of money. " Ronal d t hen gave May $800 or $900 bef ore pocket i ng

"a good amount " f or hi msel f . A shor t t i me l ater , Ronal d and Samson

dr opped May of f at her home. May t est i f i ed t hat she di d not i nt end

t o act ual l y be mar r i ed t o Samson, nor di d she ever l i ve wi t h hi m.

C. The Newlywed Game

When May became pregnant i n September 2009, t he f at her

was not her new husband, but r at her , t he same man who f at her ed her

younger chi l d. Dur i ng her pr egnancy, both Samson and Ronal d asked

her t o si gn paper s f or Samson' s gr een car d; i ni t i al l y, she r ef used.

Fi nal l y, on Febr uar y 24, 2010, af t er Ronal d cal l ed her and

expl ai ned the rel evant paper wor k, May si gned an I - 130 Pet i t i on f or

Al i en Rel at i ve. May gave bi r t h i n, appr opr i at el y enough, May. Si x

weeks l ater , Samson cal l ed her and asked her t o at t end an

appoi nt ment i n Sout h Por t l and t he f ol l owi ng day, i n or der t o secur e

hi s gr een car d. Samson and Ronal d pi cked May up t he next morni ng,

al ong wi t h her t wo chi l dr en. Dur i ng t he r i de, Ronal d, a vet er an of

t he pr ocess, di r ect ed t he coupl e i n a rehear sal of what t hey woul d

-5-


6/23

l i kel y be asked, and what t hey shoul d say. I n par t i cul ar , t hey

agr eed t hat i f asked what TV show t hey l i ked, t hey woul d answer

"NCI S. " Ronal d al so poi nt ed out t hat t he pr esence of May' s i nf ant

chi l d of anot her f at her "woul d l ook bad, " and so Ronal d r emai ned i n

t he car wi t h t he i nf ant whi l e t he coupl e and May' s ol der chi l d

at t ended t he i nt er vi ew i n t he i mmi gr at i on of f i ce.

Unsur pr i si ngl y, t he i nt er vi ew di d not go wel l .

I mmi gr at i on Ser vi ce Of f i cer Kur t Pel l et i er quest i oned t he coupl e

separatel y. Both May and Samson gave t hei r addr ess as 20 Garf i el d

St r eet , Apar t ment 25- - Ronal d' s addr ess- - al t hough bot h cl ai med t o

l i ve t her e wi t h May' s one chi l d. No ment i on was made of ei t her t he

new baby or Ronal d l i vi ng t here. Samson pr ovi ded a l ease t o

Pel l et i er f or t he Gar f i el d St r eet apar t ment , wi t h "Al i ce Sengoonzi

and Samson Sengoonzi " l i st ed on i t . Pel l et i er asked May and Samson

a ser i es of quest i ons, i ndi vi dual l y, about t hei r weddi ng and what

t hey wat ched on Satur day ni ght . May f or got her l i nes and, i nst ead

of NCI S, t al ked about watchi ng a movi e. Samson, on t he other hand,

mi ssed hi s cue; when asked about Satur day ni ght , he sai d "my

f avor i t e show i s NCI S"- - a st at ement t hat Pel l et i er f el t was not an

answer t o t he quest i on he had posed. There were other r ed f l ags;

accor di ng t o Pel l et i er , t hey gave conf l i ct i ng answer s t o sever al

quest i ons, al t hough t hey both agr eed t hat t hey "met t hr ough a

f r i end named Ronal d. "

-6-


7/23

Af t er f ai l i ng t o wi n over Pel l et i er i n t hi s hi gh- st akes

newl ywed game, t he coupl e r ecei ved not " l ovel y part i ng gi f t s" but

a not i ce of i nt ent t o deny ( "NOI D") . Havi ng det er mi ned t hat t hi s

was possi bl y a f r audul ent mar r i age, Pel l et i er sent t he not i ce t o

May at Ronal d' s Gar f i el d St r eet addr ess.

D. The Nervous Groom

On J ul y 19, 2010, Samson and Ronal d went t o t he

i mmi gr at i on cent er t o f i l e a r ebut t al . Pel l et i er happened t o be

worki ng at t he count er t hat day, and recogni zed Ronal d, whomhe had

pr evi ousl y i nt ervi ewed when Ronal d appl i ed f or hi s permanent

r esi dence. Accor di ng t o Pel l et i er , Ronal d "di d most of t he

t al ki ng" and pr ovi ded Pel l et i er wi t h sever al document s: a "pr oof of

marr i age aut hent i ci t y" pur port edl y si gned by May, a bank st atement

f r omFi ve County Cr edi t Uni on i n t he name of Samson Sengoonzi whi ch

showed a deposi t t r ansf er f r om Ronal d f or $25, 3 and a Li ber t y

Mut ual r ecei pt showi ng that an i nsur ance agr eement was pur chased on

behal f of Samson and pai d f or wi t h Ronal d' s cr edi t car d. Unhappi l y

f or Samson, t he document s t hat wer e pr of f er ed t o bol st er t he

aut hent i ci t y of hi s mar r i age had t he opposi t e ef f ect . Af t er

3The bank account was opened i n Samson' s name on J une 30,2010, and May' s name was added t o t he account on J ul y 7, 2010. Mayt est i f i ed t hat she agr eed t o add her name t o t he j oi nt accountbecause Samson "sai d t hat he needed more pr oof of our marr i age. "Notabl y, Fi ve Count y Cr edi t Uni on has a mi ni mum openi ng deposi tr equi r ement of $25.

-7-


8/23

vi ewi ng t hem, Pel l et i er r ef er r ed t he mat t er f or cr i mi nal

i nvest i gat i on.

Pel l et i er al so per f or med a si mpl e onl i ne sear ch and

det er mi ned t hat May had gi ven bi r t h si x weeks bef or e t he i ni t i al

i nt er vi ew, yet she f ai l ed t o ment i on anythi ng about t hat chi l d.

Pel l et i er sent a second NOI D i n Febr uar y 2011. I n r esponse t o t he

second NOI D, Pel l et i er r ecei ved addi t i onal document s, i ncl udi ng:

paper wor k f r omFi ve Count y Cr edi t Uni on, i nsurance cover age, a Ti me

Warner Cabl e bi l l , a W- 2 i n Samson' s name, and a l et t er dated March

12, 2011, ent i t l ed "pr oof of mar r i age" t hat , agai n, pur por t ed t o be

si gned by Al i ce G. Sengoonzi . May t est i f i ed t hat she di d not wr i t e

or si gn ei t her l et t er . The i mmi gr at i on of f i ce r equest ed anot her

i nt er vi ew, but Samson cancel l ed i t , cl ai mi ng t hat hi s wi f e was "out

of st at e at t he moment vi si t i ng wi t h t he r est of her f ami l y i n

Al abama. " The second i nt ervi ew never occur r ed.

At some poi nt i n 2010 or 2011, Samson gave May a For d

Expl or er . Al t hough she coul d not r ecal l when she r ecei ved t he

vehi cl e, May t est i f i ed t hat Samson gave i t t o her because i t was

"[ p] r et t y much more money t owards . . . t he marr i age. " May f ur t her

t est i f i ed t hat she r ecei ved addi t i onal money f r omSamson and Ronal d

ei t her t hr ough West er n Uni on or per sonal l y, but she was unabl e to

r emember t he amount s.

Af t er she l ear ned t hat she was under i nvest i gat i on

r egar di ng t he mar r i age, May cooper at ed i n t he i nvest i gat i on and

-8-


9/23

si gned a pl ea agr eement . I n J une 2011, af t er she had begun

cooperat i ng wi t h Agent J ames Bel l of t he Depar t ment of Homel and

Secur i t y, May recei ved a ser i es of t ext messages t hat she f or war ded

t o Bel l . The t ext conver sat i on began on J une 10, 2011, when May

mi ssed a phone cal l on her cel l phone. Because t he number was

unf ami l i ar , May t exted back "Who t hi s. " Thi s exchange f ol l owed,

between May' s cel l phone and a cel l phone l ater determi ned t o

bel ong t o Ronal d:

" I t s me r onal d"

"Who"

"U r emember Samson?"

"Ya I m busy"

"Don' t need anyt hi ng but t o l et u know i fi mmi gra[ n] t guys came n ask u i f samson gaveyou money or car t o marr y hi m j ust say no. "

When near l y an hour passed wi t h no response f r omMay, Ronal d t ext ed

agai n:

"U got my t ext m[ e] ss?

"Ya"

"Coz t hey have been checki n some peopl e i ft hey wer e pai d. And i f u say yes ur put i nj ai l f or 5[ ] years. "

Af t er f or war di ng t hese t exts t o Agent Bel l , May agr eed t o

"wear a wi r e" t o recor d a conver sat i on between hersel f and Samson

on J une 28, 2011. Al t hough t he t ape of t hi s conver sat i on was not

-9-


10/23

i nt r oduced i nt o evi dence, 4 Bel l t est i f i ed t hat , dur i ng t he

r ecordi ng, May asked Samson, "Why di d you have Ronal d t ext me?" and

l at er , " [ S] o you had hi m t ext me?"

I n Febr uar y 2012, a super sedi ng i ndi ct ment was f i l ed

char gi ng Ronal d wi t h conspi r i ng " t o par t i ci pat e i n a shammar r i age

f or t he pur pose of def r audi ng t he Uni t ed St at es. " The i ndi ct ment

al l eged t wo obj ect s of t he conspi r acy: ( 1) " f or Samson t o acqui r e

a change of hi s Uni t ed St at es i mmi gr at i on st at us t o whi ch he woul d

not ot her wi se have been ent i t l ed by f al sel y r epr esent i ng t o

agenci es of t he Uni t ed St at es Gover nment t hat t he marr i age i nt o

whi ch Samson ent er ed . . . was bona f i de when i n f act i t was not , "

and ( 2) " f or [ May] t o pr of i t f i nanci al l y by accept i ng payment s f r om

co- conspi r at or s, i ncl udi ng Samson and Ronal d, i n exchange f or

part i ci pat i ng i n a shammarr i age and hel pi ng Samson obt ai n a change

of i mmi gr at i on st at us. "

A j ur y t r i al commenced i n Apr i l 2013. At t he cl ose of

t he gover nment ' s case, and agai n at t he concl usi on of t he t r i al ,

Ronal d moved f or j udgment of acqui t t al ; both mot i ons were deni ed.

Af t er a t hr ee- day t r i al , t he j ur y convi ct ed Ronal d of conspi r acy t o

def r aud t he gover nment . Samson, who had been char ged wi t h

conspi r acy, document f r aud, and maki ng a f al se st at ement , pl ed

gui l t y t o t he l at t er t wo count s and di d not cooper at e wi t h t he

4The Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney made a r epr esent at i on t hat t het ape, whi ch i mpl i cat ed Samson, was not of f er ed i nt o evi dencebecause i t was not r el evant t o the case agai nst Ronal d.

-10-


11/23

gover nment , nor t est i f y at Ronal d' s t r i al . At hi s sent enci ng

hear i ng, Ronal d was gi ven f our mont hs i n pr i son and one year of

supervi sed rel ease, f our mont hs of whi ch must be spent i n home

conf i nement . Ronal d t i mel y appeal ed. He r ai ses t wo mai n i ssues

f or our consi der at i on.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Ronal d f i r st ar gues t hat t he evi dence adduced at t r i al

was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on. We r evi ew chal l enges

t o the suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence de novo, "vi ewi ng al l evi dence,

credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons, and r easonabl e i nf er ences t her ef r omi n

t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct , i n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her t he j ur y r at i onal l y coul d have f ound that t he gover nment

est abl i shed each el ement of t he charged of f ense beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . " Uni t ed St at es v. Por t al l a, 496 F. 3d 23, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ossai , 496 F. 3d 25, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) .

However , we wi l l not "wei gh t he evi dence or make cr edi bi l i t y

j udgment s; t hese t asks ar e sol el y wi t hi n t he j ury' s provi nce. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Her nandez, 218 F. 3d 58, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 966 F. 2d 707, 711 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) .

Ronal d was char ged under 18 U. S. C. 371 wi t h conspi r acy

"t o def r aud t he Uni t ed St at es, or any agency t her eof . " To pr ove

t hat Ronal d conspi r ed t o def r aud t he Uni t ed St ates, t he government

-11-


12/23

must est abl i sh the exi st ence of an agr eement , t he unl awf ul obj ect

of t he agr eement , and an over t act i n f ur t her ance of t hat

agr eement . Uni t ed St at es v. Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d 22, 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . Her e, t he unl awf ul obj ect i ve of t he conspi r acy was mar r i age

f r aud. Pur suant t o 8 U. S. C. 1325( c) , "Any i ndi vi dual who

knowi ngl y ent er s i nt o a mar r i age f or t he pur pose of evadi ng any

pr ovi si on of t he i mmi gr at i on l aws shal l be i mpr i soned f or not mor e

t han 5 year s, or f i ned not mor e t han $250, 000, or bot h. " Fi nal l y,

t he government must al so est abl i sh t he def endant ' s knowi ng

par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy. Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d at 28.

Ronal d ar gues t hat t he gover nment di d not of f er cr edi bl e

evi dence of t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy, much l ess hi s knowi ng

and vol unt ar y par t i ci pat i on i n t hat conspi r acy. Chi ef l y, he

chal l enges t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he gover nment ' s pri mar y wi t ness,

asser t i ng t hat May' s t est i mony was so r i f e wi t h i nconsi st enci es

t hat no r at i onal j ur y coul d have cr edi t ed her account . To suppor t

t hi s ar gument , Ronal d notes t hat , by May' s own admi ss i on, her dr ug

use i n 2008 r endered her memory of t hat t i me "not good. " He

poi nt s t o her conf usi on over dat es and her i nabi l i t y t o r emember

whether Samson accompani ed her t o Ci t y Hal l as pr oof t hat her

t est i mony i s not wor t hy of bel i ef . Whi l e i t i s cl ear t o us t hat

May was f ar f r om an i deal wi t ness , t he ver y same i nst ances t hat

Ronal d ci t es demonst r at e t hat a reasonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound

her t o be f or t hr i ght , even i f f l awed. As the gover nment ' s wi t ness,

-12-


13/23

r at her t han t est i f y t o event s she coul d not r ecal l , she f r eel y

admi t t ed when she coul d not r emember . Even i n an i nst ance wher e a

f act coul d r eadi l y be est abl i shed wi t h suppor t i ng evi dence ( i . e.

t he vi si t t o Ci t y Hal l wi t h Samson) , and t hus she was unl i kel y to

be chal l enged on cr oss- exami nat i on, May st uck t o her guns and

admi t t ed t hat she coul d not r emember . Si mi l ar l y, she di d not

r ecal l r ecei vi ng $400 f r omSamson i n Sept ember 2008, and when shown

t he West er n Uni on r ecords memor i al i zi ng t hat t r ansact i on dur i ng

cr oss- exami nat i on, t he f ol l owi ng col l oquy took pl ace:

Q: "Di d you j ust happen t o f or get t hatear l i er?"

A: " I don' t r emember havi ng i t , no. I don' tr emember t hat . "

Q: "You r emember i t now, t hough, don' t you?"

A: "No, I don' t r emember f ul l y but i t ' s onpaper so obvi ousl y I - - i t happened. "

A r at i onal j ur y coul d per cei ve t hat exchange as t he t est i mony of a

per son who was bei ng compl et el y honest about what she coul d and

coul d not r emember , and t her ef or e f i nd her t o be credi bl e.

On appeal , Ronal d' s bur den i s a heavy one; t o pr evai l , he

must demonst r ate t hat "vi ewi ng t he evi dence and r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, no

r at i onal j ur y coul d have convi ct ed hi m. " Pol anco, 634 F. 3d at 45.

Because j ur or s are i n t he best posi t i on t o j udge a wi t ness' s

credi bi l i t y, suf f i ci ency chal l enges ar e a "t ough sel l . " I d. We

wi l l not usur p t he j ur y' s r ol e of wei ghi ng evi dence and maki ng

-13-


14/23

credi bi l i t y j udgment s; i nst ead, we "must r ej ect onl y ' t hose

evi dent i ar y i nt er pr et at i ons . . . t hat ar e unr easonabl e,

i nsuppor t abl e, or over l y specul at i ve. ' " Her nandez, 218 F. 3d at 64

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nney, 65 F. 3d 231, 234 ( 1st Ci r .

1995) ) . The j ur y hear d f r om both May and Ronal d, and was capabl e

of wei ghi ng t hei r cr edi bi l i t y. I ndeed, a r at i onal j ur y coul d have

cr edi t ed May' s t est i mony, di scount ed Ronal d' s, and det er mi ned t hat

Ronal d was a knowi ng and wi l l i ng par t i ci pant i n t he conspi r acy. I n

shor t , we ar e not sol d. We must "uphol d any ver di ct t hat i s

' suppor t ed by a pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of t he r ecor d. ' " I d. at 64

( quot i ng Or t i z, 966 F. 2d at 711) ) .

Undaunt ed, Ronal d next of f er s a t heor y of i nnocent

expl anat i ons f or each damagi ng pi ece of t he government ' s r emai ni ng

evi dence. He deni es pl ayi ng any par t i n ar r angi ng and conceal i ng

t he sham mar r i age, and cast s a f ar mor e beni gn l i ght on hi s

act i ons. Accor di ng t o Ronal d, he di d al l t he t al ki ng at Samson' s

second appear ance at t he i mmi gr at i on of f i ce mer el y as one f r i end

hel pi ng anot her . Li kewi se, t he t r ansact i on at Fi ve Count y Cr edi t

Uni on was a l oan f r om one good f r i end t o anot her . He i mpl i es t hat

Samson may have st ol en hi s l ease at some poi nt when i t was l ef t out

on a t abl e. Si mi l ar l y, al t hough he admi t s t hat t he i ncr i mi nat i ng

t ext messages came f r omhi s phone, Ronal d pr oposes t hat Samson must

have used hi s phone to send t he text s.

-14-


15/23

Despi t e Ronal d' s i nnocent expl anat i ons f or each of t hese

pi eces of evi dence, we must f ocus on t he evi dence as a whol e.

Fl oyd, 740 F. 3d at 30. I t i s not suf f i ci ent t o of f er " a pl ausi bl e

t heor y of i nnocence . . . because t he i ssue i s not whet her a j ur y

r at i onal l y coul d have acqui t t ed but whet her i t r at i onal l y coul d

have f ound gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed St at es v. Seng

Tan, 674 F. 3d 103, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . The j ury hear d Ronal d' s

t est i mony as wel l as t hat of May and was ent i t l ed t o dr aw i t s own

i nf er ences and concl usi ons f r om al l of t he evi dence pr esent ed.

"I t suf f i ces i f t he concl usi ons t hat t he j ur y dr aws f r om

t he evi dence, al t hough not i nevi t abl e, ar e r easonabl e. " Fl oyd, 740

F. 3d at 30 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Laboy- Del gado, 84 F. 3d 22, 26-

27 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) . Our r evi ew of t he r ecor d per suades us t hat ,

when vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct , t he

evi dence was suf f i ci ent f or a r at i onal j ur y t o concl ude t hat Ronal d

had knowi ngl y and vol unt ar i l y entered i nt o an agr eement wi t h Samson

and May t o f aci l i t at e a sham mar r i age i n or der t o pr ovi de a gr een

card f or Samson and cash f or May, and t hat t he t r i o undert ook

sever al over t act s i n f ur t her ance of t hat agr eement . Ronal d,

r emember , had appr oached May on mor e t han one occasi on aski ng i f

she or anyone she knew "woul d mar r y someone to get a green car d. "

He pi cked May up, at Samson' s r equest , and dr ove her t o t he

weddi ng. Fol l owi ng t he cer emony, he accept ed cash f r om Samson,

gave May her cut , and pocket ed t he r est . Hi s rol e di dn' t end

-15-


16/23

t her e; af t er t he weddi ng, Ronal d coached t he coupl e i n how t o

decei ve t he i mmi gr at i on of f i ci al s. No weddi ng pl anner coul d have

done mor e. These over t act s ar e mor e t han suf f i ci ent f or a j ur y t o

concl ude t hat Ronal d conspi r ed t o def r aud the government .

B. Sentence

Ronal d al so chal l enges t he sent ence i mposed by t he

di st r i ct cour t . Fol l owi ng t he ver di ct , t he pr obat i on depar t ment

pr epar ed a Pr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( "PSI " ) . The r epor t

not ed t hat Ronal d had a di f f i cul t st ar t i n l i f e: hi s f at her was

ki l l ed by t he I di Ami n r egi me when he was t wo year s ol d, and hi s

mot her t her eaf t er wor ked l ong hour s t o suppor t hi m and hi s ei ght

si bl i ngs. Sever al of t hose si bl i ngs have si nce di ed of AI DS,

l eavi ng behi nd a number of chi l dr en whomRonal d hel ps t o support .

Si nce emi gr at i ng, Ronal d ear ned a nur si ng degr ee and worked i n

sever al heal t hcar e set t i ngs, most r ecent l y as a Li censed Pr act i cal

Nur se. He has no cr i mi nal hi st or y and no hi st or y of subst ance

abuse or ment al i l l ness.

A di sposi t i on hear i ng was convened on September 30, 2013,

and cont i nued on Oct ober 25, 2013. Af t er r evi ewi ng t he PSI , t he

cour t cal cul at ed t he gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange ( "GSR") . Si nce

Ronal d was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng 18 U. S. C. 371, a base l evel of

11 appl i ed. See U. S. S. G. 2X1. 1, 2L2. 1( a) . Because t he cour t

f ound t hat Ronal d was "an or gani zer or f aci l i t at or of t he of f ense"

pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( c) , t wo poi nt s wer e added, br i ngi ng

-16-


17/23

t he adj ust ed of f ense l evel t o 13. The government ' s r ecommendat i on

of a f ur t her enhancement f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce was r ej ect ed.

Ronal d' s r equest f or downward adj ust ment s because t he of f ense was

not commi t t ed f or pr of i t and because t he conspi r acy was not

compl et ed wer e si mi l ar l y rej ect ed.

These cal cul at i ons yi el ded a GSR of 12 t o 18 mont hs.

Af t er not i ng t hat Ronal d was " a ver y har d wor ker , " "a good

pr ovi der , " and a "good and gener ous f r i end, " t he cour t r ecogni zed

t hat Ronal d was " t oo good of a f r i end, and t hat i n or der t o hel p

[ hi s] f el l ow count r yman, [ Ronal d] br oke t he l aws of t hi s count r y. "

The cour t i mposed a sentence of f our mont hs i n pr i son and one year

of supervi sed r el ease, f our mont hs of whi ch woul d be ser ved i n home

conf i nement .

Bef or e us, Ronal d cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

by not appl yi ng U. S. S. G. 2L2. 1( b) ( 1) , whi ch al l ows f or a t hr ee-

l evel deduct i on " [ i ] f t he of f ense was commi t t ed ot her t han f or

pr of i t . " Had t hi s gui del i ne been pr oper l y appl i ed, he ar gues, hi s

base of f ense l evel woul d have been 8 r ather t han 11. Ronal d al so

says t hat he was ent i t l ed t o an addi t i onal t hr ee- l evel deduct i on

under U. S. S. G. 2X1. 1( b) ( 2) because he and Samson " f ai l ed t o

compl et e al l t he act s necessary f or t he successf ul compl et i on of

t he subst ant i ve of f ense, " r educi ng hi s base of f ense l evel t o 5.

Bef ore we addr ess Ronal d' s ar gument s, we must f i r st determi ne

whet her t her e i s a l i ve case or cont r over sy suf f i ci ent t o i nvoke

-17-


18/23

t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s Cour t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ducl os, 382

F. 3d 62, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

1. Mootness

The gover nment cont ends t hat Ronal d' s appeal of hi s

sent enci ng i s moot , because he was rel eased f r om cust ody i n May

2014. However , Ronal d may st i l l be ser vi ng f our mont hs of home

conf i nement and assur edl y f aces a year of super vi sed r el ease. For

us t o have subj ect - mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, Ronal d "must have

' suf f er ed, or be t hr eat ened wi t h, an act ual i nj ur y t r aceabl e t o

[ t he gover nment ] and l i kel y t o be r edr essed by a f avor abl e j udi ci al

deci si on. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Rene E. , 583 F. 3d 8, 19 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) ( quot i ng Ducl os, 382 F. 3d at 65) . Ronal d' s one year of

super vi sed r el ease, as a r est r i ct i on of hi s per sonal f r eedom, i s an

i nj ur y t hat woul d be redr essed wer e he to pr evai l i n t hi s appeal .

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wei ker t , 504 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( hol di ng t hat an i ndi vi dual on super vi sed r el ease has "a

subst ant i al l y di mi ni shed expect at i on of pri vacy") . Accor di ngl y,

t he sent enci ng i ssue i s not moot .

2. Reasonableness

"We r evi ew cr i mi nal sent ences f or r easonabl eness, usi ng

an abuse of di scr et i on st andar d. " Uni t ed St at es v. Leahy, 668 F. 3d

18, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 38,

46 ( 2007) ) . Thi s r evi ew i s bi f ur cat ed; "we f i r st det er mi ne whet her

t he sent ence i mposed i s pr ocedur al l y r easonabl e and t hen determi ne

-18-


19/23

whet her i t i s subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Cl ogst on, 662 F. 3d 588, 590 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) . Ronal d

chal l enges t he cal cul at i on of hi s GSR, whi ch appear s t o be a

pr ocedur al ar gument . Accor di ngl y, we wi l l r evi ew Ronal d' s sent ence

f or pr ocedur al r easonabl eness.

For a sent ence to be pr ocedur al l y reasonabl e, t he

di st r i ct cour t must have pr oper l y cal cul at ed t he GSR. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

pr ocedur al er r or s i ncl ude: "f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y

cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange, t r eat i ng t he Gui del i nes as

mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he 3553( a) f act or s, sel ect i ng a

sent ence based on cl ear l y er r oneous f act s, or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y

expl ai n t he chosen sent ence- i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any

devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes range") . When assessi ng pr ocedur al

r easonabl eness, our abuse of di scr et i on st andar d i s mul t i f acet ed.

Leahy, 668 F. 3d at 21. " [ W] e r evi ew f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear

er r or , ar gument s t hat t he sent enci ng cour t er r ed i n i nt er pr et i ng or

appl yi ng t he gui del i nes de novo, and j udgment cal l s f or abuse of

di scr et i on s i mpl i ci t er . " I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Sent enci ng j udges ar e ur ged t o " f ol l ow a speci f i cal l y

del i neat ed r oadmap when sentenci ng under t he now- advi sor y f ederal

sent enci ng gui del i nes. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d

26, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Gonzl ez,

595 F. 3d 42, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) . The f i r st st ep on t hi s road i s

-19-


20/23

t o est abl i sh the GSR, bef ore movi ng on t o consi der t he

appr opr i ateness of depar t ur es and wei ghi ng t he sent enci ng f act or s

enumerated i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) al ong wi t h any ot her r el evant

consi der at i ons. I d. at 29- 30 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l et i er ,

469 F. 3d 194, 203 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) . "The pur pose of t hi s exer ci se

i s t o ensur e that t he sent ence i mposed wi l l be the pr oduct of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s i ndi vi dual i zed and f act- i nt ensi ve deci si on

maki ng. " I d. at 30 ( ci t i ng Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d at 92) .

The def endant bear s t he bur den of provi ng by a

pr eponderance of t he evi dence that he i s ent i t l ed t o a downward

adj ust ment of t he base of f ense l evel . Uni t ed St at es v. Sachdev,

279 F. 3d 25, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri zzo, 121

F. 3d 794, 801 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ) . The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat

Ronal d f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat t he of f ense was

not commi t t ed f or pr of i t . Our r evi ew of t he t r anscr i pt s of t he

di sposi t i on hear i ngs r eveal s t hat , i n ar r i vi ng at t he GSR, t he

cour t t ook gr eat pai ns t o consi der and addr ess Ronal d' s ar gument s.

Al t hough t he part i es agr ee t hat t he base of f ense l evel was

cor r ect l y set at 11, Ronal d cont ends t hat he was ent i t l ed t o t wo

separ at e deduct i ons f r om t hat l evel because t he of f ense was not

commi t t ed f or pr of i t , and was not subst ant i al l y compl et ed.

Af t er hear i ng ar gument s, t he sent enci ng j udge made

speci f i c f i ndi ngs of f act . She r evi ewed May' s t est i mony t hat

Samson handed Ronal d a l ar ge amount of cash, and that Ronal d gave

-20-


21/23

her a port i on of t he money and pocketed t he r est . Al t hough

evi dence di d not est abl i sh t he pr eci se amount of money, and Ronal d

argued t hat t he amount he t ook was merel y used t o def r ay expenses,

t he cour t was unconvi nced. Fur t her , t he cour t f ound t hat May

pr of i t ed by t he of f ense and because Ronal d ai ded and abet t ed t he

conduct , he was al so r esponsi bl e f or t he pr of i t .

The cour t al so f ound t hat t he subst ant i ve of f ense,

def r audi ng t he government , was subst ant i al l y compl eted because t he

mar r i age t ook pl ace, t he i mmi gr at i on i nt er vi ew was compl et ed, and

Ronal d and Samson had sent i n al l of t he paperwork t hey were usi ng

t o t r y t o est abl i sh t he val i di t y of t he mar r i age. I n shor t , t her e

was not hi ng l ef t t o do but wai t and hope that t he i mmi gr at i on

aut hor i t i es woul d be duped. Agai n, t he cour t det er mi ned t hat

Ronal d had f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den, hol di ng t hat he was not

ent i t l ed t o a decr ease under U. S. S. G. 2X1. 1.

Wi t h due def er ence t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s "uni que coi gn

of vant age and t he def er ent i al st andar d of r evi ew, " we f i nd no

cl ear er r or i n t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs. Leahy, 668 F. 3d at 23

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 302, 315 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) ) . Nei t her can we qui bbl e wi t h t he cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on or

appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes. Ther e was ampl e evi dence t hat bot h

Ronal d and May recei ved cash f ol l owi ng t he sham mar r i age; i t i s

i mmat er i al preci sel y how much money Ronal d r ecei ved.

-21-


22/23

The quest i on of whet her t he of f ense was subst ant i al l y

compl et ed i s a j udgment cal l , t her e bei ng no suggest i on t hat t her e

was any f ur t her act t o per f or m t o successf ul l y def r aud t he

government . The phony nupt i al s had t aken pl ace, and f ake document s

had been submi t t ed t o a government agency by Ronal d and Samson.

They wer e t hwar t ed onl y when t he i mmi grat i on aut hor i t i es wer e

unper suaded by t he prof f ered document s and l aunched t he

i nvest i gat i on t hat l ed t o Ronal d' s convi ct i on. "I t i s t he near ness

of t he cr i me t o achi evement - - not t he pr eci se nat ur e of t he

i nvol unt ar y i nt er r upt i on- - t hat def eat s t he reduct i on avai l abl e f or

conspi r aci es and at t empt s t hat have not pr ogr essed ver y f ar . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Chapdel ai ne, 989 F. 2d 28, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( hol di ng t hat a def endant who had equi pped hi msel f f or a r obbery

and ar r i ved at t he desi gnat ed l ocat i on, onl y t o be t hwar t ed by the

unt i mel y depar t ur e of t he tar get ed ar mor ed t r uck, was not ent i t l ed

t o a r educt i on under U. S. S. G. 2X1. 1( b) ) . We have l i t t l e doubt

t hat , had t he i mmi gr at i on aut hor i t i es accept ed t he stor y t hat t he

happy coupl e l i ved t oget her and shar ed a j oi nt account , t he f r aud

woul d be compl et e. As pr evi ousl y st at ed, we r evi ew j udgment cal l s

f or abuse of di scr et i on, and we di scern none her e; t he sent ence was

pr ocedur al l y reasonabl e.

To t he ext ent t hat Ronal d may quest i on t he subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness of hi s sent ence, we not e that t he sent enci ng j udge

r ecogni zed her dut y to " i mpose a sent ence t hat i s suf f i ci ent but

-22-


23/23

not gr eat er t han necessary t o r ef l ect t he ser i ousness of t he

of f ense, t o pr omot e r espect f or t he l aw, t o pr ovi de j ust puni shment

f or t he cr i me, t o af f or d adequat e det er r ence, and t o pr ot ect t he

publ i c. " She wei ghed Ronal d' s backgr ound and work ethi c bef ore

set t i ng a sent ence t hat was wel l wi t hi n t he 12 t o 18 mont h r ange of

t he GSR. The di st r i ct cour t havi ng t aken al l r el evant f act or s i nt o

account , we wi l l not second- guess t he sent ence i mposed.

CONCLUSION

For t he reasons set out at l engt h above, we ar e

unconvi nced by each of Ronal d' s ar gument s. Ronal d' s convi ct i on and

sentence areAFFIRMED.

-23-

Documents

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