United States v. Gonsalves, s. 15-1194 & 15-1838
| Decision Date | 07 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 15-1194 & 15-1838,s. 15-1194 & 15-1838 |
| Citation | 859 F.3d 95 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joshua GONSALVES; Stanley Gonsalves, Defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Larry J. Ritchie for appellant Joshua Gonsalves.
Joshua L. Gordon , with whom Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon , Concord, NH, was on brief, for appellant Stanley Gonsalves.
Randall Ernest Kromm , Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Carmen M. Ortiz , United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.
Before Lynch, Thompson, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Brothers Stanley and Joshua Gonsalves (to keep the Gonsalveses straight, we call them Stanley and Joshua but mean no disrespect) were convicted on multiple counts stemming from their operation of an oxycodone-trafficking ring on Cape Cod. Both now challenge their convictions, and Stanley challenges his sentence. Finding none of the brothers' plaints have merit, we affirm.
The Gonsalves brothers' trial spanned eighteen days and included testimony from thirty-four witnesses. We decline to recount it all now (and to explain the brothers' claims on appeal, we don't have to). But to put everything in its necessary context, here is the Cliff's-Notes version of what happened; we will detail the rest later, when we assess the brothers' respective arguments.1
The story of the Gonsalves brothers' drug-trafficking conspiracy begins around the end of 2009, when Stanley (Joshua wasn't on board yet) started buying oxycodone pills in bulk from Florida resident John Willis. Stanley's objective: to get (and resell for profit) as many pills as possible. Here's how the operation worked: both Stanley and Willis paid runners who carried money down to Florida to buy oxycodone pills from Willis, Stanley's primary supplier. Willis (or other members of his Florida operation) hid the pills in vitamin bottles, doctored to look never-opened, then gave the bottles to the runners to carry back to Stanley in Massachusetts. Stanley (and members of his Massachusetts-based crew) counted the pills and packaged them into lots of 100. Stanley then sold those lots to lower-level drug dealers. At first, Stanley paid Willis $14 per thirty-milligram pill and sold them to dealers for $19 each. Over time, the wholesale and the resale prices went up to $17 and $21, respectively. Dealers sold the pills on the street for $30 a pop.
Joshua joined his brother's conspiracy in 2010, shortly after he was released from jail on an unrelated charge. At first Joshua worked as a runner, but he eventually took over some of Stanley's responsibilities in the conspiracy, such as buying pills from suppliers. He sold some pills on his own, too.
The runners for the Gonsalves brothers—all friends, family, girlfriends, and exes—made regular trips to Florida. At first, they flew. Then they switched to driving after one of the runners was busted in the airport on his way back to Massachusetts carrying a bottle of about 8,000 pills. The runners each transported at least 1,000 pills per trip, though some reported as many as 8,000 or 9,000 per trip, and one reported that she once carried almost 20,000 pills. The brothers' operation "flooded" the Cape Cod market, bringing in an estimated 371,327 pills in under three years (and that's an allegedly conservative estimate).
Now, (presumably) unbeknownst to Stanley and Joshua, Willis was the subject of a multi-agency criminal investigation originally initiated by the FBI's Asian Organized Crime Task Force to target two other, Boston-area crime lords. (The Willis-specific branch of the investigation was known as "Operation White Devil.") While they were looking into the Willis operation, the FBI-led task force (that also included ATF and IRS2 agents, Massachusetts State Police, plus some Boston police officers to boot) found out about Willis' top customers—the Gonsalves brothers. The FBI-led task force also learned that the Barnstable Police Department and a DEA-led Cape Cod Drug Task Force were already looking into the Gonsalveses' activities, so the task forces joined forces. Operation White Devil culminated in the May 2011 arrest of Willis and some of his henchmen, which turned off the Florida-to-Massachusetts pill faucet. Undeterred, the Gonsalves brothers regrouped and started selling oxycodone bought from new suppliers. But, the post-Willis era did not last long because by this point, law enforcement had new information from arrested Willis crew members, as well as from their own posse of confidential informants ("CIs"), clueing them in on more of the particulars of the Gonsalves brothers' illegal dealings.
A tip from one informant, CI-1, led to the February 2012 arrest of Joshua and crew member Katelyn Shaw (Joshua's then-girlfriend) and the seizure of over twenty grand in cash, drug paraphernalia, and a good lot of oxycodone pills. About a month later, police seized another $75,000 from another Gonsalves crew member (turned informant) which had been earmarked for an oxycodone resupply; and since that was "the end of the money," the seizure brought the Gonsalveses' operation to a near-halt.
On November 1, 2012, a grand jury indicted the brothers on a charge of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. A second superseding indictment, issued eighteen months later on May 8, 2014, further charged (1) Money Laundering Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) ; (2) multiple counts of Concealment Money Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) ; (3) Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ; (4) Drug and Money Laundering Forfeiture allegations under 21 U.S.C. § 853 and 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) ; and, against Stanley only, (5) Unlawful Monetary Transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
In pretrial proceedings, Joshua moved to suppress all items seized during the February 2012 traffic stop. The district court denied the motion. For its part, the government moved in limine to admit evidence of the brothers' prior incarceration. That motion got denied, too. The Gonsalveses' trial finally got underway on September 8, 2014. Here are some of the highlights of the proceeding that animate the brothers' appellant challenges. During the trial, Joshua moved for a mistrial three times after government witnesses mentioned that he had done prison time-testimony which violated the trial court's pre-trial ruling excluding any mention of either brother's prior incarceration. Stanley made his own mistrial motion after the government referenced Stanley's stint in the slammer in closing arguments. All four motions were denied.
Strategically, the brothers mounted a credibility defense throughout the trial and in their closing arguments. They contended that the government's witnesses could not be believed because some were addicted to drugs, some were "jilted" lovers who wanted revenge, and many had taken the stand in exchange for lesser sentences or deferred prosecution for their own roles in the conspiracy. Despite these credibility challenges, both brothers were found guilty on all of the charges except the § 924(c) count-Stanley was convicted of using a rifle in furtherance of the conspiracy but acquitted of using a pistol, and Joshua was acquitted as to both guns.
Guilt determined, the proceedings entered phase two—forfeiture. Responding to additional instructions from the trial court, the jury found that two cars, a house, and the drug-deal cash seized from Joshua and Shaw were all subject to forfeiture. The jury also calculated that over five million dollars was "generated as proceeds of the [brothers'] oxycodone trafficking conspiracy"—attributing 1.5 million to Joshua and the rest to Stanley.
Following the trial's end, Joshua was first up for sentencing and received twenty years to serve. (He does not challenge his sentence here, so we do not get into the details.) Stanley was next up. His pre-sentence investigation report ("PSR") calculated a Guidelines sentencing range of life in prison, plus sixty months for his gun conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The parties and the judge, in the end, agreed that life wasn't called for, so Stanley was sentenced to twenty-five years—twenty years for the drug-trafficking conspiracy, money laundering, and unlawful monetary transactions, plus five years for the gun charge. This appeal followed.
The brothers challenge the following aspects of their convictions and sentences: (1) Joshua argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence seized the night of his February 2012 arrest, (2) both brothers challenge the district court's denial of their motions for mistrial, (3) Stanley contends that the government presented insufficient evidence against him to support his conviction, and (4) Stanley argues that the court incorrectly calculated his Guidelines sentencing range. We address each issue in turn.
Joshua contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress all of the evidence seized the night of his February 2012 arrest (the drugs, the money, and the digital scale). We begin with the background information necessary to explain that night's events, presenting the facts in the light most favorable to the government. See Burgos-Montes , 786 F.3d at 99.
As we briefly mentioned before, on February 27, 2012, police acted on a tip they received from CI-1. The informant who provided the information leading to the arrest of Joshua and Shaw and the seizure of illegal contraband claimed to be a regular enough oxycodone buyer that he or she knew when Joshua and Shaw's supply was running low—and when they planned to restock. CI-1 had proved his or her bona fides over time:3
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hernandez-Mieses
...Accordingly, "[t]he government bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the search," United States v. Gonsalves, No. 15-1194, 859 F.3d 95, 103, 2017 WL 2456798, at *5 (1st Cir. June 7, 2017) (cit ing United States v. Lopez, 380 F.3d 538, 543 (1st Cir. 2004) ).In the case at hand, the l......
-
United States v. Maldonado-Peña
...the findings were clearly wrong), and upholding the denial "if any reasonable view of the record supports it." United States v. Gonsalves, 859 F.3d 95, 103 (1st Cir. 2017). Stated slightly differently, "[u]nder this rubric we can likewise affirm a denial on any basis apparent in the record.......
-
United States v. Rodríguez-Torres
...trafficking crime" or possessing a gun "in furtherance of any such crime." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) ; see also United States v. Gonsalves, 859 F.3d 95, 111 (1st Cir. 2017) (explaining that to secure a conviction under the statute, the government must show that the defendant "(1) possessed a......
-
United States v. Steed
...II . See Ball, 870 F.3d at 3 ; United States v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 129, 131 (1st Cir. 2017) (per curiam); United States v. Gonsalves, 859 F.3d 95, 114 n.9 (1st Cir. 2017) ("Although the government conceded in its brief that the Guidelines' residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, this ......
-
Witness
...answers are forthcoming, the party and witness will have to deal with the judge, not you. CASES FEDERAL CASES United States v. Gonsalves , 859 F.3d 95, 108 (1st Cir. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 367, 199 L. Ed. 2d 270 (2017), and cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 691, 199 L. Ed. 2d 568 (2018). ......