United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, No. 18-1190
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. |
Citation | 962 F.3d 1 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Josué MENDOZA-MAISONET, Defendant, Appellant. |
Docket Number | No. 18-1190 |
Decision Date | 09 June 2020 |
962 F.3d 1
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Josué MENDOZA-MAISONET, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 18-1190
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 9, 2020
Julio César Alejandro-Serrano, Guaynabo, PR, for appellant.
Antonio L. Pérez-Alonso, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for appellee.
Before Torruella, Lipez, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.
After a four-day jury trial, Defendant-Appellant Josué Mendoza-Maisonet ("Mendoza") was convicted of possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count One), and of possession with intent to distribute heroin (Count Two) and cocaine base (Count Three), both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Mendoza to ninety-nine months in prison. He now appeals his convictions and sentence. Mendoza challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, as well as the denial of his motion to suppress certain statements that he made to law enforcement officers while in custody and the evidence obtained during the search of his friend's residence where he was found spending the night. With respect to his sentence, Mendoza argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on a finding that he had perjured himself during trial, and in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on his purported minimal participation in the crime. After carefully reviewing Mendoza's claims, we affirm his convictions and sentence.
I. Background 1
A. Factual Background
1. Events Leading to Mendoza's Arrest
On March 23, 2016, Agent Víctor Marrero-Rivera ("Agent Marrero"), an agent in the Stolen Vehicles Division of the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD"), was assigned to conduct surveillance at residence C-16 of the Vistas de Atenas Housing Project in Manatí, Puerto Rico. During his surveillance, Agent Marrero observed that a blue Suzuki Vitara, which had been reported stolen, was parked in front of the residence's premises. He then observed a "dark-color-skinned individual" arrive in a white Suzuki Vitara, which had also been reported stolen. As the individual -- later identified as Joshua Valle-Colón ("Valle") -- exited the vehicle, Agent Marrero observed him adjust a pistol in his waistband and then enter the residence. Based on his surveillance, Agent Marrero obtained a
state-issued warrant to search residence C-16 and its surrounding yard for two stolen vehicles -- blue and white Suzuki Vitaras identified by license plate numbers -- and firearms.
On the early morning of March 24, 2016, PRPD agents executed the search warrant. Upon entering the residence to conduct a protective sweep, the entry team encountered Mendoza sleeping in what appeared to be a child's bedroom.2 They identified themselves as police officers and then took Mendoza to the living room.3 The entry team continued the sweep of the residence and found Valle, his wife Elizabeth Colón ("Colón"), and their small child asleep in the second bedroom. The entry team again identified themselves and took Valle, Colón, and the child to the living room.
Once the area was secured, PRPD agent Steven Pérez-Espinosa ("Agent Pérez") oversaw the execution of the search warrant. Upon entering, Agent Pérez encountered Mendoza, Valle, Colón, and the child in the living room and, after explaining that he was there to execute a search warrant, Agent Pérez asked who was responsible for the residence. Valle responded that he was, and Agent Pérez asked Valle to accompany him during the search.4 First, Agent Pérez searched the main bedroom where Valle and Colón were found, and he discovered two clear pressure-sealed bags containing marijuana in plain view on top of the dresser. Based on this discovery, Mendoza, Valle, and Colón were read their Miranda warnings and placed under arrest. Agent Pérez then resumed the search of the main bedroom with Valle present and, when he looked in the closet area, he found drug paraphernalia (clear baggies with pressure seals and a device used to cut marijuana for distribution purposes) inside an open shoebox.
Next, Agent Pérez searched the bathroom, which was close to the main bedroom, but found nothing there. He then proceeded to the child's bedroom where Mendoza had been sleeping.5 Amongst children's toys on top of the dresser, he saw an unlabeled pill bottle with what were later identified as two Percocet pills, a watch, and a necklace, all of which Mendoza admitted belonged to him. Then, in the bedroom closet, Agent Pérez found a green and orange backpack that "fel[t] ... heavy." This prompted him to open the bag, where he discovered on the inside a loaded Kel-Tec rifle, forty plastic capsules containing crack cocaine, several clear baggies that were similar to the ones found in Valle and Colón's room,6 and a toothbrush. At that point, Mendoza, who was sitting in the living room in his boxers, requested to put his pants on, which he had left folded on top of a table in the child's bedroom. Agent Pérez brought Mendoza to the child's room and, before giving him the pants, he searched its pockets and found three baggies of marijuana and $266 in
cash. The baggies looked the same as those found earlier in Valle's bedroom. Mendoza's shoes were also found by the foot of the bed in the child's room.
The search then moved to the kitchen area, where Agent Pérez saw a black pistol in plain sight on top of the kitchen cabinets.7 He accessed the top of the cabinet by climbing on a chair and discovered a box of bullets, sixty decks of heroin, and a plastic pressure-sealed bag containing $129, all together with the pistol, which was loaded. The agents then searched the residence's surrounding yard and parking area, where they identified the two stolen vehicles described in the search warrant. Inside the trunk of one of the vehicles -- in the blue Vitara -- Agent Pérez found two packages of over a thousand empty plastic capsules, along with their lids, which were identical to those found containing crack cocaine inside the backpack in the child's room.8 Alongside the capsules, Agent Pérez found a pair of sneakers that Mendoza admitted belonged to him. The agents concluded the search, seized the contraband, and transported Mendoza, Valle, and Colón to the police station.
2. Mendoza's Interviews with Law Enforcement
At the police station, Mendoza was interviewed by agents five separate times. For the first interview, Agent Pérez removed Mendoza from his cell, took him to a separate room, handed him a document that stated his legal rights, and verbally explained those rights to him. Mendoza read the document and acknowledged that he understood its contents by signing it.9 He stated that he did not have anything to say, so Agent Pérez returned him to his cell. Ten to fifteen minutes later, Agent Pérez removed Mendoza from his cell again, transferred him to the private room, and once again informed him of his rights.10 According to Agent Pérez, Mendoza then verbally confessed "freely and voluntarily" that all the property seized during the search belonged to him and Valle.11
Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") task force agent Erick del Valle ("Agent del Valle") also interviewed Mendoza at approximately 12:45 p.m. He read Mendoza his Miranda warnings in both English and Spanish and provided him with a written copy, which Mendoza signed and acknowledged that he had understood. Mendoza waived his rights, both verbally and in writing, and agreed to talk to Agent del Valle without an attorney present. During the interview, Mendoza told Agent del Valle that the marijuana and money that were found in his pants belonged to him, and he then asserted that he did not want to make any other statements, so
Agent del Valle returned him to his cell. Approximately two hours later, Agent del Valle pulled Mendoza for a second interview with him to ask about the other contraband seized during the search. He told Mendoza that if someone did not take ownership of the rest of the contraband (i.e., the guns, heroin, crack cocaine, and paraphernalia), that he, Valle, and Colón would have to be charged. Mendoza then admitted, as he had told Agent Pérez earlier, that the rest of the contraband belonged to him and Valle and that Colón had nothing to do with it.
Agent Pérez then conducted a final interview to ask Mendoza if he would put in writing what he had told him earlier regarding ownership of the seized items. He obtained a written confession that read: "The bags that were seized in the pants and the money are mine. The ones seized in the house are [Valle's] and mine. [Colón] has nothing to do with this or anything that was seized inside the house, like the drugs, the weapons, et cetera." Both Agent Pérez and Agent del Valle testified that Mendoza's written statement was consistent with his verbal confessions to them.
B. Procedural History
1. Indictment and Motion to Suppress Proceedings
On July 20, 2017, a federal grand jury returned a three-count superseding indictment12 charging both Mendoza and Valle with possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count One), and possession with intent to distribute both heroin and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts Two and Three, respectively).13
Mendoza moved to suppress all the items seized from Valle's residence and the statements he made to the interviewing agents.14 He argued that (1) the search warrant lacked the particularity necessary to justify a search of the residence and (2) his statements were involuntary as they were coerced by threats that Colón would be prosecuted. In its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Rivera-Ruiz, 19-1992
...assay the court's factfinding for clear error, and evaluate its judgment calls for abuse of discretion." United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2020) (internal quotes and cites omitted). "The clear-error standard is demanding and will be satisfied only if, ‘upon whole-r......
-
United States v. Lindsey, No. 19-2169
...either actually or constructively, a controlled substance with the specific intent to distribute." United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. García-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 2007) ). Constructive poss......
-
United States v. Norris, 19-1842
...29, see United States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 980 (1st Cir. 1992), so we review the claim de novo, United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2020). We therefore assess the evidence and "all plausible inferences drawn therefrom" in the light most favorable to the pros......
-
United States v. Norris, 19-1842
...29, see United States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 980 (1st Cir. 1992), so we review the claim de novo, United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2020). We therefore assess the evidence and "all plausible inferences drawn therefrom" in the light most favorable to the pros......
-
United States v. Rivera-Ruiz, 19-1992
...assay the court's factfinding for clear error, and evaluate its judgment calls for abuse of discretion." United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2020) (internal quotes and cites omitted). "The clear-error standard is demanding and will be satisfied only if, ‘upon whole-r......
-
United States v. Lindsey, No. 19-2169
...either actually or constructively, a controlled substance with the specific intent to distribute." United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. García-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 2007) ). Constructive poss......
-
United States v. Norris, 19-1842
...29, see United States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 980 (1st Cir. 1992), so we review the claim de novo, United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2020). We therefore assess the evidence and "all plausible inferences drawn therefrom" in the light most favorable to the pros......
-
United States v. Norris, 19-1842
...29, see United States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 980 (1st Cir. 1992), so we review the claim de novo, United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2020). We therefore assess the evidence and "all plausible inferences drawn therefrom" in the light most favorable to the pros......