United States v. Velasquez

Decision Date30 January 2018
Docket NumberNo. 15-51164,15-51164
Citation881 F.3d 314
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal VELASQUEZ, also known as Little Cris; Raul Rodriguez, also known as Fat Boy; George Sanchez, also known as Curious; Mike Cassiano, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Mark Randolph Stelmach, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Case J. Darwin, Case Darwin & Associates, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant CRISTOBAL VELASQUEZ.

Nelson Ebaugh, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant RAUL RODRIGUEZ.

Shane John Stolarczyk, Esq., Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant GEORGE SANCHEZ.

Reginald Van Wade, Esq., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant MIKE CASSIANO.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises from the convictions of Defendants-Appellants Cristobal Velasquez, also known as Little Chris ("Velasquez"), Raul Rodriguez, also known as Fat Boy ("Rodriguez"), George Sanchez, also known as Curious ("Sanchez"), and Mike Cassiano ("Cassiano") (collectively, "Defendants") because of their involvement in racketeering activities centrally involving violence, murder, and the distribution of drugs on behalf of the Texas Syndicate gang in Uvalde, Texas. Defendants-Appellants challenge on appeal, jointly and individually, a number of issues concerning their trials, convictions, and sentences. Defendants' arguments do not convince this court that their convictions and sentences should be overturned. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Defendants-Appellants' convictions and sentences.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Factual Background from the Evidence Presented

At both trials,1 the evidence presented described the overall structure of the Texas Syndicate gang in Uvalde, Texas, specific instances of violent conduct including three different murders, and drug distribution activity involving Defendants.2

1. General Information Presented About the Texas Syndicate

The Texas Syndicate was spawned in the California prison system in the late 1970s by Texas inmates. The Texas Syndicate's presence has now spilled over to prisons throughout the United States, and to the Texas cities of Houston, Hondo, Dallas, Austin, Seguin, Uvalde, San Antonio, Belton, Corpus Christi, McAllen, and Brownsville. The gang is referenced by its members in various ways that play on the letters "T" and "S"Ese Te , Tejano Style , Sindicato Tejano . Texas Syndicate members also refer to themselves as the cuernos , which is Spanish for "horns."

Chapters of the Texas Syndicate exist in different prisons and cities. Each chapter operates under the Texas Syndicate umbrella, but is autonomously led by the respective Texas Syndicate leadership of the chapter. If a member moves to a different chapter, he has to be cleared by the prison or city that he has moved to before he can continue to participate in Texas Syndicate business. This process, resembling a background check, is called "running the lights."

Texas-born Mexican-American males are the predominant members of the Texas Syndicate. One of the rules in the Texas Syndicate constitution, or reglas del ese te , is that "to become a cuerno you must be a Tejano/Mexicano." Other reglas del ese te provisions that crowd upon the facts of this case include:

• Once you become a cuerno del ese te you must put the copia on ... (revised—not anymore your choice) [sic];
• Once you become a cuerno del ese te you must know its por vida ... (no way out) [sic];
• A cuerno del ese te will come first in everything, there will be no excuses—no one, friends, homies, cousins, blood family or god will come before el ese te [sic];
• All decisions will be made by majoria, every cuerno has the right to vote ... [sic];
• When a cuerno requests a vote to be taken for someone to enter el ese te and that person becomes a cuerno then the cuerno sponsoring him (the new cuerno) will be responsible for him, be careful whom you recruit ... [sic];
• If there's any deals with drugs, money, or any type of profit, we will share with the cuernos, if you use your personal money you get your money back first make sure you tell the cuernos what your doing so there won't be no misunderstandings ... [sic]; and
• Every prospect will be investigated throughout the system and where ever there are cuernos [sic].

Each Texas Syndicate chapter is led by a top carnal , essentially acting as the chairman of the chapter, called a sillon . One is not a full member of the Texas Syndicate until he is a carnal and an individual has to be a prospect for a probationary period of one to three years before becoming a carnal . The sillon is followed in rank by a lieutenant, sergeant, representative, treasurer, carnal , and prospect. To become a member, an individual must be sponsored and recruited by a current member in good standing, who will serve as that individual's padrino or godfather.

After becoming a Texas Syndicate member by unanimous vote of the chapter, that individual is a Texas Syndicate member for life and permitted to participate in all Texas Syndicate business and privileges. Membership includes the ability to vote at Texas Syndicate meetings. Only a Texas Syndicate member is permitted to pose as a Texas Syndicate member with other members in photographs. At trial, testimony revealed that Texas Syndicate chapters frequently disseminate group pictures to one another with the members' names on the back of the photographs to keep track of the different members across the Texas Syndicate organization. An additional rite of passage to becoming a member is getting the Texas Syndicate copia , which is a tattoo showing allegiance to the gang. The prototypical copia to signify Texas Syndicate membership is a stacked, intertwined "TS." If someone has the Texas Syndicate tattoo without actually being a member, he could be killed. Other forms of tattoos signifying membership span from the plain spelling of the words "Texas Syndicate" or "cuernos" to depictions of horns, longhorns, a serpent shaped in the letter "S," the University of Texas's longhorn logo, and the NFL team Houston Texans's logo.

2. Defendants' Alleged Participation in the Conspiracy

Facing the prospect of jury trials, eleven of the fifteen indicted co-conspirators pled guilty. The four individuals who did not plead guilty are Defendants. Some of the co-conspirators became Government witnesses to testify against Defendants.3 At both trials, the co-conspirators testified that they could be killed for testifying against another Texas Syndicate member.

Testimony from trial revealed that Velasquez, Rodriguez, Sanchez, and Cassiano are members of the Texas Syndicate in Uvalde and began their membership in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Rodriguez, Cassiano, and Sanchez also served as padrinos for prospects. At different points from January 2002 to September 2011, Defendants were stated to have actively participated in selling and distributing cocaine on behalf of the Texas Syndicate. Ervey testified that on one occasion he was commissioned by his padrino , Sanchez, to pick up a kilogram of cocaine for Sanchez behind a movie theater. The cocaine had a street value of $24,000. After Ervey brought the cocaine to Sanchez's house, Sanchez took Ervey to Sanchez's brother-in-law's house to break down the cocaine. Sanchez compensated Ervey in cocaine for picking up the drugs.

3. Rogelio Mata ("Mata") Murder; October 2002

In October 2002, Rodriguez, Sanchez, and other Texas Syndicate members were said to have voted at a Texas Syndicate meeting to have fellow Texas Syndicate member, Mata, murdered. Mata owed a drug debt to another Texas Syndicate chapter. Because Mata was a member in the Uvalde chapter, the Uvalde chapter was responsible for him. Testimony at both trials from members who claimed that they were at the meeting, indicated that the vote in favor of killing Mata was at least seven out of eight votes, and that Rodriguez and Sanchez voted "yes" to kill Mata.

Rodriguez and his brother John Rodriguez ("John"), also a Texas Syndicate member, volunteered to execute the murder. After the vote was conducted, the members took a photograph to memorialize the meeting. Rodriguez, John, and Sanchez were in the photograph.

On October 13, 2002, in the early evening, Rodriguez and John picked up Mata in John's truck. Later that night, Mata's body was found in a grassy bar ditch next to a highway two miles west of Uvalde. Mata had gunshot wounds to his chest and head. John was said to have shot Mata with Rodriguez in attendance. Testimony at trial revealed that Rodriguez and John then went to their uncle's house, who was also a Texas Syndicate member, to clean the gun John used by placing it in a bucket of bleach.

The Uvalde County Sheriff's Department collected an empty beer bottle at the scene where Mata's body was found. A DNA test conducted in 2004 indicated that the DNA on the bottle could not have come from Mata or John. The partial DNA profile results, however, could not eliminate Rodriguez as being the source of the DNA obtained from the bottle.4

4. Jose De La Garza ("De La Garza") Murder; December 2005

In 2005, Cassiano was the acting sillon in Uvalde. During this era, the Texas Syndicate members were said to be Cassiano's "enforcers." In December 2005, Cassiano's roommate had a radio stolen from his vehicle. De La Garza purchased the stolen radio and would not return it. De La Garza's failure to return the radio caused a problem with Cassiano.

After a series of retaliatory acts, Cassiano began to push for De La Garza's murder. Cassiano then gathered enough votes from Texas Syndicate members to seal De La Garza's fate.

On Christmas Eve 2005, Cassiano, Velasquez, Cassiano's prospect Jesse James Polanco ("Polanco"), Caleb Velasquez ("Caleb") and Josue Velasquez ("Josue"), approached Mexican Mafia...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • United States v. Portillo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 5, 2020
    ...position in an enterprise." United States v. Owens , 724 F. App'x 289, 296 (5th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 332 (5th Cir. 2018).1 "Proof that a defendant was merely associated with a criminal, or that [he] was present at the scene of a crime ......
  • El Bey v. Dominguez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • November 20, 2020
    ...or act must exhibit three qualities: (1) testimonial communication; (2) compulsion; and (3) incrimination. See United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 337 (5th Cir. 2018). "[I]n order to be testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual as......
  • State v. Colston
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • July 27, 2020
    ...States v. Greer, 631 F.3d 608, 612(2nd Cir. 2011); United States v. McCarthy, 473 F.2d 300, n.3 (2nd Cir. 1972); United States v. Velasquez, 881 F.3d 314, 338 (5th Cir. 2018); State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 195-196; State v. Buck, 1st Dist. Hamilton ......
  • United States v. Sanders
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 2, 2020
    ...erred in refusing to declare a mistrial.B. We usually review a denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion. See Velasquez , 881 F.3d at 343. But where counsel does not object contemporaneously to the actions that form the basis for the mistrial motion, plain error review follo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Basics of Demonstrative Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2020 Demonstrative evidence
    • August 2, 2020
    ...independently relevant piece of substantive evidence. That is, a diagram of an apartment that has been United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 105 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 652 (5th Cir., 2018). The admission of demonstrative evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not b......
  • Basics of demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2019 Demonstrative evidence
    • August 2, 2019
    ...in the use of demonstratives to assist in the jury’s understanding of the issues to be decided at trial. United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 105 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 652 (5th Cir., 2018). The admission of demonstrative evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not......
  • Basics of Demonstrative Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2021 Demonstrative evidence
    • August 2, 2021
    ...in the use of demonstratives to assist in the jury’s understanding of the issues to be decided at trial. United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 105 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 652 (5th Cir., 2018). The admission of demonstrative evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not......
  • Basics of demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part IV. Demonstrative Evidence
    • May 1, 2022
    ...in the use of demonstratives to assist in the jury’s understanding of the issues to be decided at trial. United States v. Velasquez , 881 F.3d 314, 105 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 652 (5th Cir., 2018). The admission of demonstrative evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT