United States v. Jaimez
| Decision Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-50253 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexis Jaimez, AKA Alexis Dominic Jaimez, AKA Alexis Dominica Jaimez, AKA Lex, AKA Lil Travieso, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2022 Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00390-RGK-12 R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Verna Wefald (argued), Pasadena, California; Devin Burstein, Warren &Burstein, San Diego, California; for Defendant-Appellant.
Chelsea Norell (argued) and Kathy Yu, Assistant United States Attorneys; Bram M. Alden, Chief, Criminal Appeals Section Tracy L. Wilkison, Acting United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: John B. Owens and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges and Sidney A. Fitzwater, [*] District Judge.
Affirming Alexis Jaimez's convictions for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, money laundering conspiracy, and RICO conspiracy, the panel held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and that Jaimez's challenges to the jury instructions lacked merit.
The evidence at trial showed that Jaimez was a "foot soldier" for the Canta Ranas Organization, or CRO, a violent street gang. The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence that Jaimez joined the gang's drug distribution conspiracy knowing its scope and object and intending to help accomplish its purpose.
The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez's conviction for money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), which required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit money laundering, the defendant knew the objective of the agreement, and the defendant joined the agreement with the intent to further its unlawful purpose. Jaimez did not dispute that the CRO conspired to launder money by transferring extortionate "taxes" collected by foot soldiers to incarcerated gang leaders. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Jaimez himself knew of and intended to support the CRO's money laundering, and that he was not convicted solely on the basis of his CRO membership.
The panel held that, as related to the money laundering conspiracy charge, the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury, in the course of generally defining the term "knowingly," that the government was "not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful."
The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez's conviction for RICO conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), which required the government to present adequate proof of an overall conspiracy to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the RICO enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering. A pattern of racketeering activity requires proving at least two predicate acts of racketeering. The panel held that because there was sufficient evidence for the drug distribution and money laundering conspiracies, at least two RICO predicates were sufficiently established for purposes of the RICO conspiracy conviction. The panel further concluded that extortion served as another sufficient predicate act. The panel held that a conspiracy conviction can stand if one of the objects is only factually, but not legally, insufficient. Thus, even if there had been insufficient evidence for money laundering conspiracy, the RICO conviction would still stand because there was sufficient evidence for the other two valid predicate activities, drug distribution conspiracy and extortion.
The panel addressed additional issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Owens concurred in Parts I and II.A of the majority opinion, providing an overview of the evidence presented at trial and addressing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, along with most of Part II.C, addressing the RICO conspiracy conviction. Judge Owens dissented from Part II.B, addressing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the money laundering conviction, and the sections of Part II.C that implied that the evidence showed that Jaimez knew the objective of the money laundering conspiracy or joined with the intent to further that purpose. Judge Owens wrote that the government had to prove that Jaimez knew the purpose of the money laundering agreement was to conduct a financial transaction (sending money to incarcerated gang members) and that the transaction was intended to conceal the unlawful sources of the funds (extortion and drug distribution). But the evidence introduced at trial did not show that Jaimez, in his role as a low-ranking foot soldier, either knew that objective or joined the money laundering agreement with the intent to further its purpose.
Alexis Jaimez appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). We hold that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and that Jaimez's challenges to the jury instructions lack merit. We therefore affirm his convictions.[1]
We provide an overview of the evidence presented at trial and then elaborate on aspects of the government's case when addressing Jaimez's specific objections to his convictions.
The Canta Ranas Organization (CRO) is a violent street gang headquartered in Southern California that is involved in drug dealing and other crimes. The CRO, comprised of approximately 140 members, operates in association with the Mexican Mafia, another criminal organization, which functions both inside and outside California's prison system. A multi-agency investigation into the CRO resulted in an indictment charging 51 defendants, including Jaimez, with numerous crimes. The indictment included a RICO conspiracy charge with drug distribution conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and extortion as predicate acts.
The evidence at trial established that Jaimez was a CRO "foot soldier," including in the Riverside, California area. He agreed to extort "taxes" from local drug dealers on behalf of the gang, and discussed smuggling drugs into prison using so-called "happy cards." The government's expert testified that a "happy card is a greeting card . . . saturated in a narcotic" that is used to transport drugs into prison. Happy cards are "extremely valuable" and can be sold for ten to twenty times more than the street value of the drug. Jaimez and two companions also violently assaulted an individual in a parking-lot altercation. During the assault, one of Jaimez's companions yelled out "Canta Ranas," and took off his shirt to reveal a gang tattoo. Jaimez himself had a tattoo denoting his CRO membership, and his brothers were members of the gang as well.
The jury received extensive evidence and heard expert testimony about the CRO's hierarchical structure and illegal financial operations. In particular, the jury heard that the CRO's primary activity and source of profits was dealing drugs, including methamphetamine, and that the gang also engaged in extortion and money laundering. Foot soldiers like Jaimez dealt drugs and collected extortionate taxes from street-level dealers who operated in the gang's geographic territory. They then turned over their tax proceeds to Jose Loza, the CRO's "shot caller" outside of prison, or to David Gaitan, Loza's "right-hand man." Gaitan and Loza then transferred some of the collected funds to "secretaries," who covertly transmitted money from the CRO to the prison account of David Gavaldon, the CRO's incarcerated leader who was a member of the Mexican Mafia.
After a six-day trial, the district court denied Jaimez's motion to acquit, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on all charges. The district court denied Jaimez's renewed motion to acquit and his motion for a new trial. The district court sentenced Jaimez to 200 months in prison on each count, to run concurrently. Jaimez timely appeals.
"When the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is preserved by making a motion for acquittal, we review the district court's denial of the motion de novo." United States v. Jackson, 24 F.4th 1308, 1311 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). We "view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, [asking whether] any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Perez, 962 F.3d 420, 446 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We review challenges to a district court's jury instructions for plain error when, as here the defendant did not object below. United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
We first address Jaimez's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. To convict a defendant for this offense the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "(1) there existed an agreement between two or more persons to possess with intent to distribute or to distribute ...
To continue reading
Request your trial