U.S. v. Londondio
| Decision Date | 24 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-3580.,No. 04-3585.,No. 04-3582.,No. 04-3579.,No. 04-3584.,04-3579.,04-3580.,04-3582.,04-3584.,04-3585. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Esequicio LONDONDIO, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Pablo Jaramillo, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Fernando Palacio, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Nahum Alcantora, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Craig E. Cascarano, argued, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant in 04-3579.
Mark D. Larsen, argued, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant in 04-3580.
William M. Orth, argued, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant in 04-3582.
Lee R. Johnson, argued, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, for appellant in 04-3584.
Kyle D. White, argued, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant in 04-3585.
Ann M. Anaya, argued, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellee.
Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
This case arises from a cocaine transaction that occurred in the Minneapolis area in early November 2003. As a result of the transaction, six men were indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Prior to trial, two of the men, Nicholas Castillo and Esequicio Londondio, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge in exchange for the government's agreement to dismiss the aiding and abetting charge. The remaining four men, Carlos Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Nahum Alcantora, Pablo Jaramillo, and Juan Palacio, were convicted of both charges at trial. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Alcantora, Jaramillo, and Palacio appeal their convictions. Alcantora, Palacio, and Londondio appeal their sentences. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the District Court1 in its entirety.
On November 5, 2003, Castillo contacted Brian Zelaya, not knowing that Zelaya was a police informant, and told Zelaya that a large shipment of cocaine had arrived in Minnesota and that he could introduce Zelaya to the cocaine's source. At the direction of the police, Zelaya arranged to meet Castillo that evening at B.J.'s Bar in Minneapolis. When Castillo arrived, he was accompanied by his roommate, Londondio. The three entered a van and therein made the initial arrangements for a cocaine sale to Zelaya.
The next day, Londondio called Zelaya, and the two agreed to meet on the morning of November 7, 2003, at a Rainbow Foods store in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, to further plan the drug exchange. At the meeting, Zelaya agreed to purchase one to two kilograms of cocaine for $28,000 per kilogram. They arranged for the delivery of the cocaine to take place the same day at an apartment in Bloomington, Minnesota. Zelaya gave Londondio hand-written directions to the apartment, which was an undercover apartment maintained by police. After the meeting, police followed Londondio as he walked to his residence a few blocks away.
A short time later, Londondio emerged from the residence with Gonzalez-Rodriguez. The two left in a Jeep Cherokee driven by Gonzalez-Rodriguez and proceeded to a Burger King restaurant near 34th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis. Waiting in the Burger King parking lot was Palacio, who was driving a Chrysler LeBaron. Londondio, Gonzalez-Rodriguez, and Palacio spoke for a short time outside the vehicles. Then, Gonzalez-Rodriguez and Palacio walked to a nearby location to look at vehicles that Palacio's boss was selling. They then returned to the Burger King, entered their respective vehicles, and drove to the vicinity of 43rd Street and Bloomington Avenue in Minneapolis. When they arrived, Palacio parked the LeBaron behind a Ford F-150 pickup truck occupied by Jaramillo. Londondio and Gonzalez-Rodriguez left the area, but returned in one or two minutes and parked the Jeep near the other two vehicles. Soon, Alcantora, carrying a white plastic bag, exited a dwelling near the vehicles. He spoke with Palacio at the driver's side window of the LeBaron and then placed the bag in the trunk of the LeBaron. Alcantora then entered the F-150 with Jaramillo.
The three vehicles traveled in caravan fashion to the parking lot of the undercover apartment in Bloomington. While en route, Londondio used Gonzalez-Rodriguez's cellular phone to call Zelaya. Londondio told Zelaya that he and another person were on their way to the apartment with the cocaine and asked about the purchase money. Because officers knew that Londondio's representation that he was with one other person was false, they suspected that Zelaya was possibly being set up for a robbery. To protect Zelaya and the public, officers decided to make immediate arrests when the vehicles arrived in the parking lot. Thus, when the vehicles entered the parking lot, officers emerged from unmarked vehicles wearing raid vests and with firearms drawn. All three vehicles attempted to leave the scene. Palacio fled the furthest in the LeBaron; he was stopped by officers approximately two blocks from the parking lot. Alcantora and Jaramillo in the F-150 were able to go only a few feet before being stopped. Londondio and Gonzalez-Rodriguez were stopped after an officer stepped in front of the Jeep and a truck driven by a deputy sheriff blocked it from behind. The five men in the vehicles were arrested. A white plastic bag containing a kilogram of cocaine was removed from the trunk of the LeBaron and the directions to the apartment given to Londondio were recovered from the floor of the Jeep.
We begin our review by addressing the challenges raised by Jaramillo, Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Alcantora, and Palacio to their convictions.
Jaramillo asserts that the District Court erred in failing to suppress a statement that he made while in police custody and before being advised of his Miranda rights. After their arrests, the five appellants were transported to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) office for booking. Because he spoke English, Jaramillo was asked by DEA Officer Randall Olson to assist in the bookings of the other four non-English-speaking arrestees. Jaramillo agreed. In the course of the booking process, Jaramillo stated that he had been promised $500.00 in exchange for his role in the cocaine transaction. At the time of the statement, Jaramillo had been in custody for approximately three hours but had not been advised of his Miranda rights. The District Court denied a pre-trial motion by Jaramillo to suppress the statement, and Olson testified about the statement at trial. Jaramillo asserts that the admission of the statement violates his Fifth Amendment rights.
"When considering an order denying a motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo." United States v. Briones, 390 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir.2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2925, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005). The requirements of Miranda arise only when a defendant is both in custody and being interrogated. United States v. Head, 407 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir.2005). Because it is undisputed that Jaramillo was in custody and had not yet been advised of his rights, the issue is whether his statement resulted from interrogation. See Briones, 390 F.3d at 612. Interrogation includes both direct questioning by officers and words or actions that officers should know are "`reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.'" Id. (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). Voluntary statements that are not in response to interrogation are admissible with or without the giving of Miranda warnings. Head, 407 F.3d at 928.
Jaramillo argues that asking him to assist in the bookings of the other suspects was a police strategy designed to elicit an involuntary and incriminating statement, particularly given the "inherently coercive" environment of custody. Jaramillo Br. at 11. We disagree. The record indicates that the only question that had been asked of Jaramillo prior to his statement was whether he was willing to assist in the bookings of his co-defendants. Then, during the course of the bookings and not in response to any question, Jaramillo mentioned the $500.00 payment. Nothing in the record indicates that Olson anticipated that his request for assistance would cause Jaramillo to make an incriminating remark. See United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 363 F.3d 788, 795 (8th Cir.2004) (). Further, nothing in the record indicates that Olson intended to circumvent Miranda by obtaining Jaramillo's assistance in booking. Cf. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2612, 2616, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (). We conclude that Jaramillo's statement was not the product of either express questioning or coercive action, and it therefore was properly admitted.
Gonzalez-Rodriguez asserts that the District Court erred in admitting evidence of an out-of-court statement by Castillo implicating Gonzalez-Rodriguez as the source of the cocaine. We review the District Court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403, 408 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 845, 120 S.Ct. 117, 312, 145...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cutbank
...and in response to interrogation. United States v. McGlothen, 556 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 783 (8th Cir. 2005)). However, Miranda's requirements only apply to interrogations of suspects who are in custody. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 (emph......
-
Hamilton v. Roehrich
...the properly admitted evidence of the defendant's guilt, and (3) any curative actions taken by the trial court.'" United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir.2005), quoting United States v. Ziesman, supra at 953, quoting, in turn, United States v. Beckman, supra at As a result, a......
-
U.S.A v. Robertson
...hearsay but maintains that the testimony was not prejudicial because it was cumulative of F.S.'s testimony. See United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 789 (8th Cir.2005) (“The admission of hearsay evidence that is cumulative of earlier trial testimony by the declarant ... is not likely t......
-
McGee v. Norman
...to which no objection was made is not likely to influence the jury and is therefore harmless error.") (quoting United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 789 (8th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Johnson, 722 F.2d 407, 410 (8th Cir. 1983) (finding admission of hearsay evidence harmless where ev......
-
Witness
...the defendant’s attorney had been warned on at least seven occasions that the matters were not preliminary. United States v. Lodondio , 420 F.3d 777, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Leading questions on direct examination when eliciting information on preliminary matters are permissible. United Sta......
-
Leading Questions
...1980); and McClard v. United States , 386 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1967); In re Leonard , 122 F.Supp. 214 (D.Cal. 1954). 14 U.S. v. Londondio , 420 F.3d 777 (8th Cir., Minn., 2005); State v. Wiggins, 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App., 2000); Southern Railway Co. v. Hall, 96 So. 73 (Ala. 1923). Seals v. St......
-
Leading Questions
...1980); and McClard v. United States , 386 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1967); In re Leonard , 122 F.Supp. 214 (D.Cal. 1954). 14 U.S. v. Londondio , 420 F.3d 777 (8th Cir., Minn., 2005); State v. Wiggins, 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App., 2000); Southern Railway Co. v. Hall, 96 So. 73 (Ala. 1923). Seals v. St......
-
Leading Questions
...1980); and McClard v. United States , 386 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1967); In re Leonard , 122 F.Supp. 214 (D.Cal. 1954). 14 U.S. v. Londondio , 420 F.3d 777 (8th Cir., Minn., 2005); State v. Wiggins, 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App., 2000); Southern Railway Co. v. Hall, 96 So. 73 (Ala. 1923). 15 U.S. v. ......