U.S. v. Candelaria-Silva

Decision Date02 November 1998
Docket NumberA,CANDELARIA-SILV,96-2364,96-1713,Nos. 96-1711,96-1714,96-2275,96-2362,96-1712,s. 96-1711
Citation166 F.3d 19
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Eulalio/K/A Gatillo Macho, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Raul Ortiz-Miranda, A/K/A Cano Beeper, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Moises Candelaria-Silva, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Celenia Reyes-Padilla, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Jose A. Rosado-Rosado, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Nelson Miguel Ortiz-Baez, Defendant, Appellant. United States, Appellee, v. Rosa Morales-Santiago, Defendant, Appellant. . Heard
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Raymond L. Sanchez-Maceira, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Eulalio Candelaria-Silva.

G. Richard Strafer, by appointment of the Court, with whom Quinon & Strafer, P.A., was on brief, for appellant Ral Ortiz-Miranda.

Enrique Velez-Rodrguez, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Moises Candelaria-Silva.

Salvador Perez-Mayol, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Celenia Reyes-Padilla.

Lydia Lizarribar-Masini, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Jose Rosado-Rosado.

Rafael Anglada-Lpez, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Nelson Miguel Ortiz-Baez.

Marlene Aponte-Cabrera, by appointment of the Court, for appellant Rosa Morales-Santiago.

Lena D. Watkins, Trial Attorney, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Theresa M.B. Van Vliet, Chief, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert Lipman and Grace Chung Becker, Trial Attorneys, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, were on brief for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, LYNCH and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.

Defendant-appellants were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846. In addition, Count 43 of the indictment charged Nelson Ortiz-Baez ("Ortiz-Baez") with engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Count 46 charged Eulalio and Moises Candelaria-Silva The jury returned guilty verdicts as to all of the defendants in this appeal as well as special forfeiture verdicts. The district court sentenced the defendants to the following terms of imprisonment: (1) 480 months for Ortiz- Baez; (2) 540 months for Ral Ortiz-Miranda ("Ortiz-Miranda"); (3) 210 months for Celenia Reyes-Padilla ("Reyes-Padilla"); (4) 168 months for Rosa Morales-Santiago ("Morales-Santiago"); (5) 660 months for Eulalio Candelaria-Silva; (6) 360 months for Moises Candelaria-Silva; and (7) 480 months for Jose Rosado-Rosado ("Rosado-Rosado"). The district court also issued a Final Order of Forfeiture encompassing substitute property of Reyes-Padilla, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p).

with possessing cocaine base, cocaine and heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count 49 alleged the defendants' joint and several liability for forfeiture of $6,000,000, including substitute assets, as authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 853.

Defendants base their appeal on numerous evidentiary and procedural grounds. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

The government presented the testimony of three coconspirator witnesses, Marcos Hidalgo-Melendez ("Hidalgo"), Carlos Otero-Coln ("Otero-Coln"), and Noem Garca-Otero ("Garca-Otero"). Hidalgo pleaded guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment. Otero-Coln and Garca-Otero received immunity from prosecution in exchange for their cooperation. In addition, the government presented the testimony of numerous local police officers who executed search warrants or were otherwise involved in the investigation of the defendants and their co-conspirators. The government also presented documentary and forensic evidence and testimony relating to firearms and drugs seized from the co-conspirators, and other pertinent evidence.

The co-conspirator witnesses testified that Israel Santiago-Lugo ("Santiago-Lugo") operated several drug distribution points ("puntos") at various housing projects in the northern region of Puerto Rico. With the assistance of his co-conspirators, Santiago-Lugo distributed vast quantities of controlled substances including: (1) heroin sold under the name "cristal"; (2) cocaine sold under the names "bolso rojo" and "rolito"; (3) cocaine base; and (4) marijuana.

A. The Virgilio Davila Punto

Hidalgo testified that he, Ortiz-Baez, and Wilfredo and David Martnez-Matta began working for Santiago-Lugo's drug distribution ring sometime after Hidalgo moved to the Virgilio Davila housing project in 1990. He also testified that Ortiz-Baez and others packaged drugs at two rented apartments in Isla Verde and transported the drugs to various puntos. Hidalgo further testified that Reyes-Padilla, Santiago-Lugo's aunt, distributed drugs from a Virgilio Davila apartment used by Santiago-Lugo's grandparents. From this apartment, Morales-Santiago supplied Santiago-Lugo's distributors with drugs, including heroin and cocaine, and maintained a ledger to account for the drugs and proceeds.

On October 6, 1989, the Police of Puerto Rico ("POPR") executed a search warrant at Virgilio Davila building 43, apartment 411. Reyes-Padilla was at the apartment with her parents. The search yielded twenty-six grams of cocaine and three grams of heroin packaged in over 250 small bags. Later, on October 17, 1989, the POPR executed a search warrant at the same apartment. When an officer first arrived, a young man was selling a controlled substance through an iron grating on the apartment door. When the officer identified himself, the man fled inside the apartment. A search of the apartment yielded two grams of heroin, less than a gram of cocaine, and over $2000 in U.S. currency.

At trial, POPR officer Angel Nieves-Domnguez testified that, pursuant to a tip, he conducted surveillance of Reyes-Padilla at Virgilio Davila building 43, apartment 412 during the afternoon of October 1 and the morning of October 2, 1991. On the first day, he observed Reyes-Padilla and Santiago-Lugo retrieve two large bags from the trunk of Santiago-Lugo's car. Upon reaching the stairs to building 43, Santiago-Lugo After Santiago-Lugo left, the officer observed one individual--who had received a package from Santiago-Lugo--apparently selling some of the smaller red bags to a young woman near building 44. Shortly thereafter, a young man arrived at apartment 412, and Reyes-Padilla sold the man a transparent bag appearing to contain heroin. The next day, the officer saw Santiago-Lugo arrive and deliver yet another brown bag to Reyes-Padilla.

opened one of the brown bags and pulled out several transparent plastic bags that each contained smaller red bags. As Santiago-Lugo distributed the plastic bags to the persons assembled, Reyes-Padilla made notations in a notebook. Additionally, upon receiving the packages, some recipients hid the packages in nearby garbage cans or bushes. Reyes-Padilla took the other large brown bag up to apartment 412.

Later that month, POPR executed a search warrant at apartment 412. At that time, defendants Reyes-Padilla and Morales-Santiago were in the apartment. The search yielded four "decks" of heroin in a Sucrets box, approximately $100,000 in U.S. currency, and two notebooks appearing to contain records of drug deliveries and debts.

In November, POPR officers observed Rosado-Rosado and a minor each engage in an apparent sale of controlled substances and give the proceeds from the sale to a heavy-set individual. Rosado-Rosado retrieved the drugs from a brown paper bag in his back pants pocket. When officers entered the housing project, Rosado-Rosado and the minor attempted to flee. Officers caught Rosado-Rosado and seized eighteen aluminum foil packets containing heroin and five bags containing cocaine.

Hidalgo testified at trial about the importance of the Virgilio Davila punto as a drug distribution site. He stated that he personally received packages of cocaine and heroin from Morales-Santiago to distribute on behalf of Israel Santiago-Lugo, and that he observed distributors from Santiago-Lugo's other puntos arrive at Virgilio Davila and receive packages from Morales-Santiago. He identified four pages of notebook entries under the name "Batman" from the notebook seized in October 1991 that pertained to his distribution of marijuana and cocaine at Virgilio Davila.

Among the entries in the notebook was one pertaining to fifty packets of heroin, referred to as "C" to correspond to "cristal," and one pertaining to fifty packets of cocaine, referred to as "R" because of the brand name "bolso rojo." Expert testimony showed that the entries recorded transactions transpiring almost daily between October 29, 1990 and October 24, 1991. The notebooks contained a "price structure" table which specified the prices of multiple units with a base price of $75 per unit. A conservative estimate of the amount of drugs distributed would be close to 50,000 units having a total value of approximately $3.5 million dollars.

B. The Rosario Brothers

In 1993, Hidalgo learned that Santiago-Lugo and the Rosario brothers had become adversaries. Santiago-Lugo and the Rosarios previously had agreed to share control of the drug distribution punto at Virgilio Davila in Bayamn. According to Hidalgo, the enmity between them stemmed from a drug debt owed to Santiago-Lugo by one of the Rosarios. Tensions escalated in early 1993 when a Santiago debt collector and a Rosario associate were both murdered.

In June 1993, Hidalgo sustained a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
121 cases
  • U.S. v. Flores, No. 08-10775.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • June 29, 2009
    ...cause due to health issues. See United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1135 (11th Cir.2006) (en banc); see also United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 30 (1st Cir.1999) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing two jurors for medical reasons even though one did not state that h......
  • U.S.A. v. Collazo-Aponte
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • November 4, 1999
    ...he intended to screen the jury outside the presence of the parties and counsel, as he did in the related case United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 31 (1st Cir. 1999). There, the prospective jurors completed questionnaires and the judge excused those who lacked English proficiency......
  • U.S. v. Royal, 98-1825
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 5, 1999
    ...a substantial violation of the Act." United States v. Marrapese, 610 F.Supp. 991, 1001 (D.R.I.1985); see also United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 33 (1st Cir.1999). This is so even though excusing these ten jurors was apparently done by the clerk rather than by a district court ......
  • United States v. Maryea
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 15, 2013
    ...permit a jury, under a proper set of instructions, to convict the defendant of a related, similar conspiracy. United States v. Candelaria–Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 39 (1st Cir.1999). If the defendant could be convicted of a related, similar conspiracy, the court then asks whether the variance bet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...or offenses; 2742 (5) failure to determine whether a defendant’s guilty plea is 2740. See, e.g. , U.S. v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 33 (1st Cir. 1999) (improper dismissal of prospective jurors harmless because not suff‌iciently egregious); U.S. v. Perez, 387 F.3d 201, 208 (2d Cir. 2004......
  • Beginner's Guide to Federal Forfeiture
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 70-3, March 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...1133 (10th Cir. 1998). 60. 21 U.S.C. § 853(d). 61. Fed. R. Crim. P. 31(e). 62. 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). 63. United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 42 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1559 (2000). 64. United States v. White, 116 F.3d 948, 951 (1st Cir. 1997). 65. Fed. R. Crim. P......

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