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

45 F.4th 1118

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Alexis JAIMEZ, AKA Alexis Dominic Jaimez, AKA Alexis Dominica Jaimez, AKA Lex, AKA Lil Travieso, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50253

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed August 23, 2022

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.

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Owens

BRESS, Circuit Judge:

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

I

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.

II

"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).

A

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 [the controlled substance]; and (2) [the defendant] joined the agreement knowing of its purpose and intending to help accomplish that purpose." Perez , 962 F.3d at 444.

Jaimez does not seriously dispute that the CRO distributed methamphetamine, of which there was overwhelming evidence. Instead, Jaimez argues there was insufficient evidence that he joined the gang's drug distribution conspiracy knowing and intending to help accomplish its purpose. We disagree.

"Once the existence of the conspiracy is shown," knowledge of its purpose can be established by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a knowing, if "slight," connection between the defendant and the conspiracy. United States v. Collazo , 984 F.3d 1308, 1319 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (citation omitted). A "slight" connection can be "inferred from circumstantial evidence," and the government need not prove the defendant knew all the conspirators and details or participated in all the conspiracy's dealings. United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez , 263 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2001) ; see also Collazo , 984 F.3d at 1319 n.8. At minimum, the government must prove the defendant (1) "knew or had a reason to know of the scope of the conspiracy and ... had reason to believe that [his] own benefits were dependent on the success of the entire venture"; and (2) "inten[ded] to effectuate the object of the conspiracy." Collazo , 984 F.3d at 1319 (citations omitted).

We conclude that sufficient evidence connected Jaimez to the drug distribution conspiracy and established his knowledge of its scope. See Collazo , 984 F.3d at 1319. An admitted CRO member, Jaimez regularly discussed drugs, violence, and extortionate "taxes" with other members; praised an incarcerated CRO member for successfully dealing drugs in prison; asked that dealer how to make "happy cards"; and was put in touch with another CRO member to learn how to do so. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is more than sufficient to establish a "slight" knowing connection between Jaimez and the drug distribution conspiracy. The evidence likewise provides a sufficient basis to infer that Jaimez knew of the conspiracy's scope and object.

In addition, the government presented sufficient evidence that Jaimez acted to further the conspiracy, intended to effectuate its purpose, and sought to benefit from its success. See Collazo , 984 F.3d at 1319. Jaimez agreed to Gaitan's orders to collect extortionate taxes, and to help another CRO member collect in a new area. When someone failed to pay Gaitan, Jaimez was willing to "sock[ ]" that person "in the face."

Expert testimony characterized Jaimez's actions as those of a "foot soldier," who understood that most of the taxes he agreed to collect came from drug distribution. And the record showed that Jaimez would personally profit from the drug activities, including potentially through receipt of a firearm. Together, this was ample evidence for a jury to find that Jaimez knew the money he agreed to collect came from illegal drug sales, knew that he would personally benefit from the conspiracy, and intended to effectuate its purpose. Jaimez protests that he was never found to possess illegal narcotics. But to convict Jaimez of drug distribution conspiracy, such proof is not necessary. We therefore affirm Jaimez's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

B

We now turn to Jaimez's challenge to his conviction for money laundering conspiracy. Money laundering requires a financial transaction using proceeds knowingly derived from unlawful activity "for the purpose of either promoting an unlawful activity or for concealment." United States v. Grasso , 724 F.3d 1077, 1090 (9th Cir. 2013) ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). To convict an offender of money laundering conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) requires the government to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) There was an agreement to commit money laundering. See United States v. Kimbrew , 406 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Alghazouli , 517 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir. 2008).

(2) The defendant knew the objective of the agreement. See United States v. Moreland , 622 F.3d 1147, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010).

(3) The defendant joined the agreement with the intent to further its unlawful purpose. See Collazo , 984 F.3d at 1319.

See also United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 601 (5th Cir. 2013). We first address Jaimez's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the money laundering conspiracy charge, and then take up an issue relating to the jury instructions.

At trial, the government presented overwhelming...