U.S. v. Bucaro, No. 85-1456

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore SEYMOUR, MOORE and BALDOCK; BALDOCK
Citation801 F.2d 1230
Decision Date23 September 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-1456
Parties21 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1050 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel Nicolas BUCARO, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 1230

801 F.2d 1230
21 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1050
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Miguel Angel Nicolas BUCARO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 85-1456.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 1986.

Roger L. Cossack, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Brent D. Ward, U.S. Atty., and Wayne T. Dance, Asst. U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

Page 1231

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

On November 16, 1984, defendant-appellant Bucaro (defendant) was arrested while leaving the scene of a cocaine transaction. He was indicted by a grand jury on November 28, 1984, and convicted by a jury on January 25, 1985, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. The sole issue on appeal is whether co-conspirator hearsay was erroneously admitted because there was no independent evidence of the conspiracy. The record reflects substantial, independent evidence of the conspiracy and defendant's participation in it. Accordingly, we affirm.

I.

The testimony and other evidence introduced at trial established the following. On October 26, 1984, Stuart Smith, a narcotics agent for the State of Utah, posing as a cocaine buyer, was introduced to co-defendant 1 Arthur Ortiz by someone known as Leo. The introduction was made at Ortiz' home in Tooele, Utah. After the introduction, Smith negotiated the purchase of two kilograms of cocaine from Ortiz who stated that the cocaine would be supplied by someone from California. Record vol. III at 37.

During the next few weeks, various conversations occurred between Ortiz and agent Smith indicating that Ortiz was making the arrangements for the sale and that he was waiting for the supplier to come to Utah with the cocaine. Telephone calls were made from Ortiz' home to various places in the Los Angeles, California, area, including the defendant's residence, and from Los Angeles to Ortiz' home.

On November 15, 1984, agent Smith met with Ortiz at Ortiz' home to discuss the details of the transaction. During this meeting, Ortiz received a call from the Los Angeles area. The telephone conversation was in Spanish and was interrupted when Ortiz asked agent Smith when the sale was to occur. After the telephone conversation, Ortiz told agent Smith that the cocaine was being transported by automobile and the trip would take approximately 17 hours. Ortiz pointed to the southern California area of a time zone map and indicated that there was a one hour time difference between Utah and the location of the supplier. Agent Smith and Ortiz then agreed that the sale would take place the following day at noon at the Airport Hilton Inn in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Also on November 15, a collect call was made to the Ortiz home from a gas station located four-tenths of a mile from defendant's home in Los Angeles. At about 8:00 p.m. that evening, defendant rented an automobile from Budget Rent-a-Car in Los Angeles. He drove with a friend through the night, finally arriving at Ortiz' house at about 10:00 a.m. on November 16.

Agent Smith spoke with Ortiz by telephone on the morning of November 16 and was told that his supplier had arrived and that the cocaine would be delivered as planned. Narcotics agents observed Ortiz driving toward the Hilton Inn at about 1:00 p.m., followed by another automobile with California license plates. The two automobiles entered the hotel's parking lot, and defendant was identified as the driver of the vehicle with the California license plates.

Ortiz met agent Smith in a room in the hotel while defendant stood near the hotel's entrance and surveyed the area, particularly watching Ortiz' automobile. Agent Smith and Ortiz returned to the hotel's parking lot to get the money and cocaine. Defendant and his companion were seen slowly driving in front of the hotel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Anderson, No. 98-20030-01-JWL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • July 21, 1999
    ...members to pursue some common plan. 4 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 427, at 125 (Supp.1987); cf. United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir.1986) ("The rule embodies a long-standing doctrine, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, founded on general principl......
  • United States v. 1. Daryl Francis Yurek 2. Wendy Marie Yurek, Criminal Case No. 15-cr-394-WJM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • June 30, 2017
    ...Cir. 1987). Direct evidence is not required, and the conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. United States. v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Defendants are jointly charged, in Counts 1 and 2, with tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and bankru......
  • United States v. Ferris, Case No. CR-18-159-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 20, 2019
    ...F.3d 504, 516 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 502 (5th Cir. 2011)); see also United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986) (it is not necessary for the government to prove that the conspiracy was for unlawful purposes, but merely that a com......
  • US v. Lahue, Nos. 99-3344
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 18, 2001
    ...in both civil and criminal cases, and is based on general principles of agency and partnership law. See United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986). As stated by the Supreme Court: It depends upon the principle that when any number of persons associate themselves together ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • U.S. v. Anderson, No. 98-20030-01-JWL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • July 21, 1999
    ...to pursue some common plan. 4 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 427, at 125 (Supp.1987); cf. United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir.1986) ("The rule embodies a long-standing doctrine, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, founded on general princip......
  • United States v. 1. Daryl Francis Yurek 2. Wendy Marie Yurek, Criminal Case No. 15-cr-394-WJM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • June 30, 2017
    ...Cir. 1987). Direct evidence is not required, and the conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. United States. v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Defendants are jointly charged, in Counts 1 and 2, with tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and bankru......
  • United States v. Ferris, Case No. CR-18-159-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 20, 2019
    ...F.3d 504, 516 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 502 (5th Cir. 2011)); see also United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986) (it is not necessary for the government to prove that the conspiracy was for unlawful purposes, but merely that a com......
  • US v. Lahue, Nos. 99-3344
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 18, 2001
    ...in both civil and criminal cases, and is based on general principles of agency and partnership law. See United States v. Bucaro, 801 F.2d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 1986). As stated by the Supreme Court: It depends upon the principle that when any number of persons associate themselves together ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT