U.S. v. Piedrahita-Santiago

• Decision Date: 04 March 1991
• Docket Number: PIEDRAHITA-SANTIAG,D,PELAEZ-ESCOBA,90-1356,Nos. 90-1355,s. 90-1355
• Citation: 931 F.2d 127
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robertoefendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anibalefendant, Appellant. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 127

931 F.2d 127

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto PIEDRAHITA-SANTIAGO, Defendant, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anibal PELAEZ-ESCOBAR, Defendant, Appellant.

Nos. 90-1355, 90-1356.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard March 4, 1991.

Decided April 23, 1991.

Luis A. Medina-Torres by appointment of the Court, Hato Rey, P.R., for defendant-appellant Roberto Piedrahita-Santiago.

Yolanda A. Collazo-Rodriguez, by appointment of the Court, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant Anibal Pelaez-Escobar.

Warren Vazquez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Guaynabo, P.R., with whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, was on brief, Hato Rey, P.R., for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges, and BOYLE, ^* District Judge.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Piedrahita-Santiago and Pelaez-Escobar were discovered by United States Coast Guard authorities on the high seas about 45 miles southwest of Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico. Their vessel, the "MELPO, JR.," was flagless, in poor condition, and riding low in the water. Such suspicious circumstances warranted an investigation. A search of the vessel disclosed 131 bales of marijuana. Subsequently appellants were tried and convicted under 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903 for aiding and abetting in the possession of, with intent to distribute, a controlled substance on board a stateless vessel. Appellants moved for Rule 29 dismissal based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction plus insufficient evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. Sec. 29(c). Their motion was denied, and sentences were imposed. For purposes of sentencing, Piedrahita-Santiago was characterized as a leader, and his base offense level was increased by four. Both appellants challenge the district court's disposition of their Rule 29 motion. Piedrahita-Santiago additionally appeals his sentence. We find no reason to disturb the district court's rulings, and thus we affirm.

JURISDICTION

The statute under which appellants were charged and convicted states:

It is unlawful for any person on board a vessel of the United States, or on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ... to knowingly or intentionally manufacture or distribute, or to possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.

46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903 (emphasis added). Jurisdiction was asserted over appellants because they were allegedly on board a stateless vessel. Vessels without nationality are deemed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Id. at Sec. 1903(c)(1)(A). Section 1903(c)(2) defines "stateless" as including:

(A) a vessel aboard which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry, which claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed; and

(B) any vessel aboard which the master or person in charge fails, upon request of an officer of the United States empowered to enforce applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel.

Id. at Sec. 1903(c)(2)(A)-(B). A claim of nationality may be made in one of three ways:

(A) possession on board the vessel and production of documents evidencing the vessel's nationality in accordance with article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas;

(B) [flying the ensign or flag of the vessel's flag nation]; or

(C) a verbal claim of nationality or registry by the master or person in charge of the vessel.

Id. at Sec. 1903(c)(3)(A)-(C).

When Coast Guard authorities approached the MELPO, JR., Piedrahita-Santiago took control of the situation. When Coast Guard officer Lt. Mark Ogle inquired as to the nationality of the vessel, Piedrahita-Santiago responded that he was not sure, but he believed it to be Arubian. ¹ Appellants contend that Piedrahita-Santiago's statement constituted a claim of nationality sufficient to preclude the exercise of United States jurisdiction. We do not agree.

Under 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903, jurisdiction constitutes a factual as well as legal element of the crime. The question is, therefore, appropriate for the jury. United States v. Potes, 880 F.2d 1475, 1478 n. 1 (1st Cir.1989). Provided the jury has applied the correct legal standard, this court will not overturn its determination unless, given the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the government, reasonable jurors could not have reached that conclusion. United States v. Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d 510, 513 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 208, 112 L.Ed.2d 169 (1990).

Stateless vessel cases within the First Circuit involving claims of nationality or registry can be grouped into one of three categories: (1) cases involving unequivocal claims of nationality or registry, United States v. Maynard, 888 F.2d 918, 924 (1st Cir.1989); Potes, 880 F.2d at 1478-79; (2) cases involving no claim of nationality or registry, United States v. Victoria, 876 F.2d 1009, 1010 (1st Cir.1989); and (3) cases involving ambiguous claims of nationality or registry. United States v. Passos-Paternina, 918 F.2d 979, 983 (1st Cir.1990) (a vessel spokesperson originally claimed Colombian registry; however, Panamanian registry was later claimed by the vessel's master); Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d at 514 (an initial proclamation identified the vessel as the "PECHE, PECHE, Barranquilla;" however, after Coast Guard officials came on board, knowledge of any nationality was denied). The first category clearly falls within the purview of Section 1903(c)(3), while the second category clearly falls without. As a result, there exists very little leeway for the jury in such cases. The situation before us, however, is more akin to the third category, which provides greater flexibility for the jury. Based upon surrounding factual circumstances, the jury may either choose to believe that a claim of nationality was intended, or the jury may find statements insufficient to amount to such a claim. See, e.g., Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d at 513-14.

Nothing in this case other than Piedrahita-Santiago's ambivalent statement evidenced any link with Aruba. The remainder of the evidence pointed to Colombia as the vessel's true nationality. First, all crewmembers were admittedly Colombian nationals. Second, a Colombian flag was found secreted under one of the vessel's bunks. Third, a recent Colombian newspaper was found on board, along with a nautical chart showing a track line leading from Barranquilla, Colombia. In light of these facts, it was entirely reasonable for the jury to find that Piedrahita-Santiago's statement did not amount to a claim of nationality and that the vessel was indeed stateless. Thus we see no reason to disturb that finding on appeal.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In order to establish the elements of the offense charged, the government needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the vessel was without nationality; (2) that the substance found was in fact marijuana; (3) that the defendants knowingly or intentionally possessed the substance; and (4) that possession was with intent to distribute. 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence based upon an alleged deficiency in the first and third elements. We disposed of the first element in the prior section of this opinion. We now address the third element.

Appellants maintain that they were merely crewmembers on board the MELPO, JR., and that they believed the cargo was coffee. In support of these asseverations, they point to the fact that the marijuana was well hidden below deck. In addition, they note that Piedrahita-Santiago cooperated fully with the Coast Guard to the extent that he granted permission for Coast Guard authorities to board and search the vessel.

On appeal, this court "assess[es] the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole, including all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the verdict, with a view to whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant[s] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d 14, 17 (1st Cir.1991). The evidence "may be entirely circumstantial." Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d at 17. It is the province of the jury, not this court, to determine credibility of the witnesses. Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d at 514. "We defer, within reason, to inferences formulated by the jury in the light of its collective understanding of human behavior in the circumstances revealed by the evidence." Passos-Paternina, 918 F.2d at 985. Juries " 'are [not] required to divorce themselves of common sense,' where ... the appellant[s'] portrayal of [themselves] as [ ] innocent bystander[s] is 'inherently unbelievable.' " Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d at 515 (quoting United States v. Smith, 680 F.2d 255, 260 (1st Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110, 103 S.Ct. 738, 74 L.Ed.2d 960 (1983)). "The factfinder may decide among reasonable interpretations of the evidence." Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d at 17.

The evidence in this case was largely circumstantial. It was nevertheless overwhelming. First, the MELPO, JR., was a relatively small vessel--40 ft.--which would ordinarily require a crew of only three or four. In this case, however, seven crewmembers were found on board. A larger crew than ordinarily needed for navigation purposes suggests that the crew was hired for the purpose of loading and unloading cargo rather than merely steering the vessel. See, e.g., Victoria, 876 F.2d at 1011 (larger crew than needed for ordinary fishing); United States v. Robinson, 843 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir.) (court inferred purpose of large crew was to load and unload cargo), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 834, 109 S.Ct. 93, 102 L.Ed.2d 69 (1988); Potes, 880 F.2d at 1478 (larger crew than necessary for shrimping).

Second, the vessel was carrying a large quantity of marijuana--131 bales totalling approximately 9,984 lbs.--which, although concealed, was not disguised or inaccessible. ² See, e.g., United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 869 F.2d 9, 10 (1st Cir.1989) (marijuana...