United States v. Rose, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Rose, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/32

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 152513- 168313- 242013- 2460

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

RUSSELL C. ROSE;KELVI N FRYE,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Rosemar y Cur r an Scapi cchi o f or appel l ant Kel vi n Frye.J amesa J . Dr ake and Dr ake Law, LLC, f or appel l ant Russel l C.Rose

Ki r by A. Hel l er , At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on, Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Car men M. Or t i z,Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, J ames E. Ar nol d and Davi d J . D' Addi o,Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys, Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s,Lesl i e R. Cal dwel l , Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , and Davi d A.


2/32

O' Nei l , Act i ng Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

September 18, 2015


3/32

- 3 -

HOWARD, Chief Judge. Russel l Rose and Kel vi n Fr ye appeal

convi ct i ons st emmi ng f r om t hei r r espect i ve rol es i n a Cape Cod

based dr ug- di st r i but i on conspi r acy. Thei r cl ai ms chal l enge

sever al aspect s of t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow. Fi ndi ng no r ever si bl e

er r or , we af f i r m.

I.

We begi n wi t h a br i ef over vi ew of t he case, savi ng a

det ai l ed r eci t at i on of t he f acts f or t he appl i cabl e anal yt i cal

sect i on bel ow. We pr esent t he f act s i n an obj ect i ve manner . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos- Mont es, 786 F. 3d 92, 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

The government char ged Rose, Fr ye, and f our t een ot hers

wi t h conspi r i ng t o di st r i but e, and t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e, cocai ne and her oi n. See 21 U. S. C. 846, 841( a) ( 1) ,

841( b) ( 1) ( B) . The conspi r acy was al l eged t o have l ast ed f r om

approxi mat el y Mar ch 2008 unt i l November 2010, and Rose and Fr ye

wer e pur por t edl y l eader s i n i t .

The gover nment ' s i nvest i gat i on i nt o Rose and Fr ye pi cked

up st eam i n mi d- 2010, and t he t wo wer e ul t i mat el y ar r est ed,

i ndi ct ed, and t r i ed. At t r i al , t he gover nment r el i ed on t he

t est i mony of t he case agent ( Agent Ti mothy Qui nn) , r ecor di ngs of

wi r et apped phone cal l s bet ween t he co- conspi r ators, and t est i mony

f r om co- conspi r at or s Del r i co Gr aham and St ef an Pi na. The

pr osecut i on al so i nt r oduced physi cal evi dence, i ncl udi ng

cont r aband di scover ed at Rose' s r esi dence.


4/32

- 4 -

A j ur y ul t i matel y convi ct ed both Rose and Fr ye on t he

dr ug- conspi r acy charge, and t he j udge sent enced each of t hem t o

t went y- f i ve year s i n pr i son. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II.

Af t er car ef ul l y consi der i ng each of t he def endant s'

cont ent i ons and ext ensi vel y r evi ewi ng the recor d, we f i nd f our

argument s t o be wort hy of di scussi on; t he r emai nder l ack arguabl e

mer i t . We t her ef or e l i mi t our f ocus t o: ( 1) t he def endant s'

compl ai nt s r espect i ng t he gover nment ' s wi r et appi ng of t hei r

phones; ( 2) Rose and Fr ye' s ar gument s concer ni ng Agent Qui nn' s

t est i mony; ( 3) Rose' s chal l enge t o t he sear ch of hi s home; and ( 4)

both def endant s' sent enci ng chal l enges grounded on Al l eyne v.

Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) .

A. Wiretaps

At t r i al , t he gover nment r el i ed heavi l y on t he t apes of

i nt er cept ed phone cal l s bet ween t he co- conspi r at or s. Bot h

def endant s ar gue t hat t he phone wi r etaps t hat pr oduced t he t apes

wer e unnecessary and wer e t heref ore i mpr oper l y aut hor i zed.

1. Background

Near l y t wo year s i nt o t he gover nment ' s i nvest i gat i on,

agent s r equest ed per mi ssi on t o i nt er cept cal l s t o or f r om t he

t el ephones of Frye and Mi chael Andr ews ( anot her co- conspi r at or ) .

To suppor t t hat r equest , Agent Qui nn submi t t ed an 89- page af f i davi t

t hat det ai l ed t he al l eged cr i mi nal act i vi t i es of Frye and Andr ews,


5/32

- 5 -

t he sour ces of i nf or mat i on t hat l ed t o t hat backgr ound knowl edge,

and det ai l s of t he i nvest i gat i on i t sel f . The af f i davi t

speci f i cal l y enumer at ed t he pr i or , unsuccessf ul use of var i ous

ot her i nvest i gat i ve met hods, i ncl udi ng: physi cal sur vei l l ance;

r evi ew of pr i son t apes; use of conf i dent i al i nf or mant s; use of pen

r egi st er s, t r ap and t r ace devi ces, and t ol l r ecor ds; execut i on of

sear ch war r ant s; use of gr and j ur y subpoenas; i nt er vi ews;

i nt el l i gence f r omunder cover agent s; and exami nat i ons of di scar ded

t r ash. Agent Qui nn al so expl ai ned why t he government bel i eved

t hat t her e was pr obabl e cause f or i nt er cept i ng t he cal l s.

Agent Qui nn event ual l y f i l ed si x addi t i onal , anal ogous

r equest s t arget i ng phones bel ongi ng t o Frye, Gr aham, and Rose.

Al t hough each af f i davi t was ext ensi ve i n i t s own r i ght , each al so

i ncor por at ed t he f act s f r omt he pr evi ousl y submi t t ed r equest s. As

i n t he i ni t i al appl i cat i on, Agent Qui nn met i cul ousl y descr i bed t he

pr i or i nvest i gat i ve t echni ques and t hen expl ai ned why the phone

i nt er cept s wer e necessar y. Based on t hese descr i pt i ons, t he

war r ant j udge ( Sar i s, C. J . , D. Mass. ) , aut hor i zed each wi r et ap.

Pr i or t o t r i al , t he def endant s moved t o suppr ess t he

wi r et aps, see 18 U. S. C. 2518( 1) ( c) , and t he cour t deni ed t he

mot i on. At t r i al , r ecor di ngs of sever al of t he cal l s wer e pl ayed,

wi t h a si gni f i cant number capt ur i ng t hese def endant s ( al ong wi t h

ot her co- conspi r at or s) di scussi ng, al bei t i n code, t hei r pl ans t o

pur chase or sel l dr ugs.


6/32

- 6 -

2. Discussion

Our i nqui r y i s gui ded by Ti t l e I I I of t he Omni bus Cr i me

Cont r ol and Saf e St r eet s Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. 2510- 2522, whi ch

gover ns t he r ul es f or f eder al t el ephone wi r et aps. The l aw r equi r es

an of f i cer t o obt ai n j udi ci al pr ecl ear ance bef or e i nst i t ut i ng a

wi r et ap by f i l i ng "a f ul l and compl et e st at ement as t o whet her or

not ot her i nvest i gat i ve pr ocedur es have been t r i ed and f ai l ed or

why they reasonabl y appear t o be unl i kel y to succeed i f t r i ed or

t o be t oo danger ous. " I d. at 2518( 1) ( c) . Thi s apt l y- named

"necessi t y" pr ong requi r es t he government t o have "made a

r easonabl e, good f ai t h ef f or t t o r un t he gamut of nor mal

i nvest i gat i ve pr ocedur es bef or e r esor t i ng t o means so i nt r usi ve as

el ect r oni c i nt er cept i on of t el ephone cal l s. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Car t agena, 593 F. 3d 104, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

When a def endant chal l enges on appeal a cour t ' s

"necessi t y" det er mi nat i on, we ask whet her " t he f act s set f or t h i n

t he appl i cat i on wer e mi ni mal l y adequate t o support t he

det er mi nat i on t hat was made. " Uni t ed St ates v. Yej e- Cabr er a, 430

F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . Li kewi se, when a def endant asser t s that t he r equest i ng

of f i cer omi t t ed cri t i cal i nf or mat i on f r omt he af f i davi t t hat woul d

have ot her wi se al t er ed t he cour t ' s necessi t y anal ysi s, we onl y

consi der "whet her , had the omi t t ed i nf or mat i on been i ncl uded,


7/32

- 7 -

t her e woul d st i l l have been a ' mi ni mal l y adequat e' basi s f or

det er mi ni ng t hat t he wi r et ap was necessary. " Bur gos- Mont es, 786

F. 3d at 103.

Rose and Fr ye begi n wi t h a br oad at t ack on Agent Qui nn' s

af f i davi t . They ar gue t hat Qui nn wi t hhel d cri t i cal i nf or mat i on

f r om t he j udge when appl yi ng f or t he wi r et aps, namel y, t hat t he

government had pl aced a GPS t r acki ng devi ce on Fr ye' s car .

Al t hough Agent Qui nn t heor i zed about t he possi bl e,

f ut ur e use of a GPS- t r acki ng devi ce, he was f ar f r om Gol df i nch-

i an i n t he l evel of det ai l he pr ovi ded about hi s act ual , past

r el i ance on i t . Nonet hel ess, he di d adequatel y expl ai n why t he

t el ephone i nt er cept s woul d have st i l l been necessar y even i f t he

of f i cer s wer e t o ut i l i ze a t r acker i n t he f ut ur e. That expl anat i on

cl ar i f i ed why a GPS- t r acki ng devi ce was i nf er i or t o a t el ephone

i nt er cept and why t he GPS- devi ce was i nsuf f i ci ent f or t hi s

i nvest i gat i on. For i nst ance, Qui nn wr ot e t hat "t her e i s a

si gni f i cant r i sk t hat any GPS devi ce[ ] woul d be di scover ed, " and

t hat such devi ces " pr ovi de no i nf or mat i on about who ( i f anyone)

[ an i ndi vi dual ] i s meet i ng wi t h, why he [ or she] t r avel ed t o a

par t i cul ar l ocat i on, and what happened once he [or she] was t her e. "

Mor e speci f i cal l y, Agent Qui nn, awar e f r om a wi r et apped cal l t hat

an i ndi vi dual had pr evi ousl y i nf or med Frye t o check hi s car f or a

"t r acker , " not ed t hat "Fr ye ( or at l east one of hi s associ at es) i s

wel l awar e of t hi s l aw enf or cement t echni que. "


8/32

- 8 -

Agent Qui nn' s r easoni ng equal l y expl ai ns why t he

wi r et aps wer e necessary, even gi ven the gover nment ' s act ual use of

t he GPS devi ce. I ndeed, i f Agent Qui nn had wr i t t en hi s st atement s

i n t he past t ense, r at her t han as a hypot het i cal , t he j udge' s

necessi t y i nqui r y woul d have r emai ned exact l y t he same. I f

anythi ng, t he f ai l ur e t o put mor e i nf or mat i on about t he GPS t r acker

act ual l y under sol d t he pr obabl e cause t hat exi st ed t o suppor t t he

appl i cat i on. We ul t i mat el y " f i nd no r eason t o concl ude t hat t he

i ncl usi on of [ mor e i nf or mat i on r espect i ng past use of t he GPS

t r acker ] woul d have pr event ed t he j udge f r om deci di ng that a

wi r et ap shoul d [ have been] i ssued. " Cart agena, 593 F. 3d at 111.

Af t er t hat br oad pi t ch, Rose speci f i cal l y nar r ows i n on

wi r etap appl i cat i ons #4 ( Gr aham' s phone) and #7 ( Rose' s phone) .

He not es t hat Agent Qui nn' s pr of f er ed j ust i f i cat i on f or t appi ng

phone #4 was t o di scover t he "sour ce of suppl y" of t he dr ug

conspi r acy. Tappi ng phone #7, meanwhi l e, was al l egedl y necessary

i n or der t o l ear n mor e i nf or mat i on about anot her co- conspi r at or ,

"Papa Doc. " But , Rose says, t hese j ust i f i cat i ons wer e over l y

br oad, and t he appl i cat i ons sought i nf ormat i on t hat t he gover nment

al r eady possessed.

The cent r al f l aw i n Rose' s ar gument i s t hat he

i ncor r ect l y assumes t hat any "par t i al success of t he

i nvest i gat i on" el i mi nat es the need f or f ur t her evi dence. Uni t ed


9/32

- 9 -

St at es v. Cao, 471 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . 1 As Agent Qui nn

per suasi vel y demonst r at ed, however - - and i n suf f i ci ent det ai l ,

despi t e Rose' s pr ot est at i ons ot her wi se - - t he gover nment was st i l l

seeki ng a weal t h of i nf or mat i on at t he t i me t hat i t submi t t ed t he

wi r et ap appl i cat i ons. Fur t her , Agent Qui nn adequat el y descr i bed

why any other i nvest i gat i ve t echni que woul d not yi el d t he evi dence

obt ai nabl e by a wi r et ap.

For exampl e, Qui nn not ed t hat "al t hough agent s have

observed Gr aham i n the pr esence of Rose and Fr ye on mul t i pl e

occasi ons, I know ver y l i t t l e about t he nat ur e of hi s r el at i onshi p

wi t h t hem. " As f or " Papa Doc, " Agent Qui nn wr ot e t hat " my

i nf or mat i on about Papa Doc i s qui t e l i mi t ed, as I do not know hi s

t r ue i dent i t y, " and t hat he was unaware of t he amount of pr oduct

t hat came f r om "Papa Doc. " He al so i ndi cat ed t hat t he wi r et aps

coul d pr ovi de i nf or mat i on as t o how t he conspi r at or s obt ai ned t he

dr ugs, t he r ol e t hat each i ndi vi dual pl ayed i n t he conspi r acy, and

t he "means, and met hods of t he oper at i on of t he conspi r acy. " As

Agent Qui nn wr ot e,

I bel i eve t hat Gr aham, who has ser ved asRose' s nar cot i cs cour i er and has beeni nt er cept ed di scussi ng di st r i but i on

quant i t i es of cocai ne wi t h Fr ye . . . [ wi l lassi st ] i nvest i gat or s [ t o] obt ai n a mor e

1 I ndeed, such a r ul e woul d make l i t t l e sense. An af f i antseeki ng a wi r et ap i s r equi r ed t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause. I nor der t o do so, one woul d expect f or ot her i nvest i gat i ve t echni quest o have been somewhat successf ul at t he t i me of t he wi r etapappl i cat i on.


10/32

- 10 -

det ai l ed under st andi ng of Gr aham' s r ol e [ and]t o i dent i f y mor e f ul l y t he member s of t heconspi r acy, i t s methods and manners ofoper at i ons, sour ces of suppl y, associ at es,customer s, and i l l i ci t pr of i t s .

These det ai l ed r epresent at i ons t o t he cour t wer e mi ni mal l y

adequat e t o suppor t t he war r ant - j udge' s deci si on. 2

Ul t i mat el y, gi ven Agent Qui nn' s ext ensi ve decl ar at i ons,

combi ned wi t h t he def er ent i al st andar d of r evi ew appl i cabl e t o

t hi s wi r et ap chal l enge, we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat no er r or occur r ed.

B. Overview Testimony

Fr ye and Rose next contend t hat t he gover nment

i mpr oper l y ut i l i zed Agent Qui nn as an "over vi ew wi t ness, " t hat i s,

he al l egedl y pr ovi ded a br oad summary of t he government ' s ent i r e

case and di scussed evi dence not t hen i n t he r ecord.

2 Frye advances t wo ot her ar gument s t hat f al l wi t hi n t hepenumbr a of t hi s chal l enge. Fi r st , he chal l enges t he use of t heGPS t r acki ng devi ce i t sel f under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i nUni t ed St at es v. J ones, 132 S. Ct . 945, 949 ( 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hatsuch an i nvest i gat i ve t echni que const i t ut es a sear ch f or Four t hAmendment pur poses) . As i n Uni t ed St at es v. Sparks, however , t hegood- f ai t h except i on t o t he excl usi onar y r ul e woul d appl y t o t hi spr e- J ones use of a GPS t r acker . 711 F. 3d 58, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)( concl udi ng t hat bef or e J ones, i t was r easonabl e f or an of f i cer t obel i eve t hat t he Four t h Amendment di d not appl y t o i nvest i gat i onsof vehi cl es on publ i c ways) . Second, Frye asser t s t hat a Frankshear i ng was r equi r ed t o i nvest i gat e Agent Qui nn' s deci si on t o omi ti nf or mat i on about t he past use of t he GPS t r acker i n hi s wi r et apappl i cat i on. Gi ven t he dear t h of evi dence r ef l ect i ng ani nt ent i onal or r eckl ess omi ssi on, no cl ear er r or exi st ed i n t hedeni al of t hat r equest . See Uni t ed St at es v. Hi cks, 575 F. 3d 130,138 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .


11/32

- 11 -

1. Background

The gover nment ' s cent r al wi t ness was Agent Qui nn. The

gover nment cal l ed hi m on t he t hi r d day of t r i al , and hi s t est i mony

descr i bed act i vi t i es cover i ng t he ent i r e l engt h of t he conspi r acy.

Most not abl y, he spent a si gni f i cant per i od of t i me t est i f yi ng

about t he t aped phone cal l s bet ween the co- conspi r at or s.

To l ay a proper f oundat i on, Agent Qui nn f i r st expl ai ned

how t he phone wi r et aps oper at ed l ogi st i cal l y. He t hen cl ar i f i ed

t he r ol e t hat he pl ayed i n r evi ewi ng t he cal l s and t est i f i ed t hat

he hear d near l y 90% of t he cal l s i n r eal t i me. Fr om t hi s

exper i ence, Agent Qui nn sai d t hat he became f ami l i ar wi t h t he

voi ces of t he key pl ayer s i n t he conspi r acy, al ong wi t h t he t er ms

t hat t hey used. He al so noted t hat he was conver sant i n t he dr ug-

di st r i but i on " l i ngo" f r om pr i or i nvest i gat i ons.

Hi s t est i mony devel oped a consi st ent r hythm. Af t er t he

pr osecut or pl ayed a tape r ecor di ng of an i nt er cept ed cal l bet ween

co- conspi r at or s, Agent Qui nn woul d answer quest i ons r espect i ng

what he hear d. As cal l s were pl ayed, Agent Qui nn not ed whom he

bel i eved was t al ki ng and t hen descr i bed hi s under st andi ng of t he

di scussi on' s cont ext . I n doi ng so, he def i ned hi s under st andi ng

of t er ms such as " t he shop, " "a bal l , " "hal f a r ope, " "br own, " and

"t uck or swal l ow" - - al l common nomencl atur e i n t hi s and other

dr ug conspi r aci es.


12/32

- 12 -

The def endant s f ast i di ousl y preser ved t hei r obj ect i ons

t o t hi s t est i mony and moved f or a mi st r i al . The di st r i ct cour t

over r ul ed thei r obj ect i ons and deni ed t he mot i on.

2. Discussion

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ngs f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez- Ri ver a, 665 F. 3d 351, 357

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Freeman,

208 F. 3d 332, 339 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( deni al of a mot i on f or a

mi st r i al ) .

Bot h Rose and Frye ar gue t hat Agent Qui nn' s t est i mony

essent i al l y " l i nk[ ed] t oget her t he t est i mony pr ovi ded by l aw

enf orcement and ot her non- cooperat i ng wi t nesses and t wo

cooper at i ng wi t nesses. " I n t he def endant s' vi ew, Agent Qui nn

"pl aced an i mpr i mat ur of ver aci t y" on t he ot her wi t nesses'

st at ement s. Compoundi ng al l of t hi s, t hey say, was t hat hi s

t est i mony "was pr esent ed ear l y dur i ng t r i al t o descr i be t he

gover nment ' s t heor y of t he case. "

We have consi st ent l y admoni shed agai nst t he use of an

"over vi ew wi t ness" by t he gover nment . Such a wi t ness i s t ypi cal l y

"a gover nment agent who test i f i es as one of t he pr osecut i on' s f i r st

wi t nesses and, as t he t er mi mpl i es, pr ovi des an over vi ew or r oadmap

of t he pr osecut i on' s case t o come. " Uni t ed St at es v. Et i enne, 772

F. 3d 907, 913 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Mei ses,

645 F. 3d 5, 13- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- de-


13/32

- 13 -

J ess, 569 F. 3d 8, 20- 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Casas,

356 F. 3d 104, 117- 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . An over vi ew wi t ness i s

gener al l y pr obl emat i c as he or she may i nf l uence t he j ur y' s

det er mi nat i on of f act s or credi bi l i t y assessment s not yet i n

evi dence; he or she may al so pr ovi de t est i mony di f f er i ng f r om what

i s t o come; and t he j ur y may pl ace gr eater wei ght on t he wi t ness' s

t est i mony si nce i t "has t he i mpr i mat ur of t he gover nment . "

Et i enne, 772 F. 3d at 913 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Over vi ew t est i mony cust omar i l y cont ai ns "concl usory

st atement s t hat are not based on t he wi t ness' per sonal knowl edge,

and whi ch ar e unr el i abl e because t hey of t en consi st of i nadmi ssi bl e

hear say evi dence, " r at her t han t est i mony t hat i s " squar el y based

on [ a wi t ness' ] per sonal knowl edge. " Uni t ed St at es v. D az- Ar i as,

717 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Wher e an of f i cer t est i f i es

excl usi vel y about hi s or her r ol e i n an i nvest i gat i on and speaks

onl y t o i nf or mat i on about whi ch he or she has f i r st - hand knowl edge,

t he t est i mony i s gener al l y (bar r i ng a di f f er ent evi dent i ar y i ssue)

per mi ssi bl e. See i d. ( not i ng t hat such t est i mony i s admi ssi bl e

si nce i t i s not t he t ype of br oad, over ar chi ng di scussi on about

"t he r esul t s of a cri mi nal i nvest i gat i on, usual l y i ncl udi ng

aspect s" t he agent di d not par t i ci pat e i n) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Rosado- Pr ez, 605 F. 3d 48, 55

( 1st Ci r . 2010) .


14/32

- 14 -

We do not f i nd Agent Qui nn' s t est i mony (whi ch, i t shoul d

be not ed, occur r ed on t he t hi r d of seven days of t r i al , and t hus

was not t he f i r st t est i mony t hat t he j ur y hear d) t o be over vi ew

t est i mony, l et al one i mpr oper over vi ew t est i mony. Agent Qui nn

t est i f i ed excl usi vel y f r om hi s per sonal knowl edge, and he based

hi s st at ement s on hi s f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he i nvest i gat i on and hi s

exposur e t o t he voi ces on t he cal l s. I ndeed, he f i r st t est i f i ed

t hat he had hear d 90% of t he cal l s as t hey came i n and, as a

r esul t , became i nt i mat el y f ami l i ar wi t h t he voi ces and t er ms t hat

were used. Whi l e hi s t est i mony may have canvassed t he ent i r e

br eadt h of t he conspi r acy, he l i mi t ed hi s di scussi on t o hi s

speci f i c rol e i n t he i nvest i gat i on and hi s f i r st - hand

under st andi ng of t he event s. That Agent Qui nn was actual l y

i nvol ved t hr oughout t he ent i r e i nvest i gat i on, and t hus was abl e t o

pr ovi de such det ai l about i t , i s si mpl y not a r eason t o r e-

char act er i ze hi s st at ement s as i nappr opr i at e over vi ew t est i mony.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Laur eano- Pr ez, - - F. 3d - - , 2015 WL 4577763

at *15 ( 1st Ci r . J ul y 30, 2015) ( "Appr opr i at e t est i mony does not

become i mproper over vi ew t est i mony j ust because one l aw

enf or cement of f i ci al was present t hr oughout t he ent i r e

i nvest i gat i on and i s t hen cal l ed t o wal k the j ur y t hr ough t he

i nvest i gat i on f r ombegi nni ng t o end. " ) . Nor , we not e, di d he vouch

f or ot her wi t ness' credi bi l i t y, di scuss evi dence not yet i n t he

r ecor d, or pr ovi de t est i mony t hat woul d ot her wi se rai se r ed f l ags


15/32

- 15 -

i n t hi s cont ext . See, e. g, Et i enne, 772 F. 3d at 913; Mei ses, 645

F. 3d at 15.

Fi ndi ng nothi ng t o gi ve us concer n, we need go no f ur t her

t o r ej ect t hi s chal l enge. 3

C. Search of Rose's Home

We next t ur n to Rose' s ar gument t hat of f i cer s

i mper mi ssi bl y sear ched t he cur t i l age of hi s home, and t hat t he

gover nment t hen obt ai ned a war r ant f or t hat pr opert y based sol el y

on t he sear ch.

1. Background

On November 16, 2010, Rose and Frye wer e overhear d on a

wi r et apped cal l di scussi ng a pl an t o pur chase two ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne f r om "Papa Doc. " Rose and Fr ye t hen met at a pharmacy

where Fr ye gave Rose $28, 000 f or t he deal . Rose subsequent l y dr ove

home and ar r anged f or Omay Ford ( anot her co- conspi r at or ) t o pi ck

up t he dr ugs. Lat er i n t he day, For d dr ove t o a gas st at i on near

Rose' s r esi dence and wai t ed f or r oughl y t went y- f i ve mi nut es unt i l

3 The par t i es, par t i cul ar l y Rose, al so appear t o make asl i ght l y di st i nct t hough over l appi ng ar gument . They suggest t hatAgent Qui nn' s t est i mony vi ol ated Feder al Rul es of Evi dence 701 and702 because he bot h l acked per sonal knowl edge and because hi st est i mony di d not ai d t he j ur y. As noted, however , Agent Qui nnt est i f i ed excl usi vel y f r om hi s per sonal knowl edge. Mor eover , hi st est i mony pl ai nl y assi st ed t he j ur y i n t hat i t hel ped t o pl ace asi gni f i cant number of cal l s i nt o cont ext . The di st r i ct cour t di dnot abuse i t s di scr et i on i n admi t t i ng t hi s evi dence. See D az-Ar i as, 717 F. 3d at 11- 15.


16/32

- 16 -

an Acura SUV par ked next t o hi m. Ford approached t he SUV, l eaned

i n, and appear ed t o r et r i eve somet hi ng.

Gover nment agent s wer e survei l l i ng For d and f ol l owed hi m

t o Rose' s home. Af t er For d ent er ed t he r esi dence, agent s, l ed by

Detect i ve Br i an Cohoon, t ook up a per i meter around t he house.

Detect i ve Cohoon crouched near t he f r ont door and peer ed t hr ough

i t s gl ass. Af t er obser vi ng f or a per i od of t i me, Det ect i ve Cohoon

saw Rose car r yi ng a st ack of cash. Cohoon t hus appr oached t he

door , knocked, and announced, "Pol i ce, can you open t he door ?"

Rose r esponded by scr eami ng, cl osi ng the bl i nds, gr abbi ng sever al

i t ems, and r unni ng upst ai r s wi t h For d. Bel i evi ng t hat Rose and

For d wer e about t o dest r oy cont r aband, t he of f i cer s ent er ed t he

home. They t hen ar r est ed Rose and Ford bef ore secur i ng t he scene.

The f ol l owi ng day, Agent Qui nn obt ai ned and execut ed a

sear ch warr ant f or t he home. That sear ch yi el ded r oughl y t wo

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, 440 gr ams of mar i j uana, and more t han $75, 000

i n cash.

Rose moved t o suppr ess t he f r ui t s of t he sear ch.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t per f unctor i l y st at ed t hat t he of f i cer s

ent er ed t he pr oper t y i n "bad f ai t h, " i t nonet hel ess deni ed t he

mot i on. I t hel d t hat t he agent s' ent r y on November 16 was

j ust i f i ed by exi gent ci r cumst ances, and t hat t he war r ant obt ai ned

on t he 17t h was saved by t he i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne.


17/32

- 17 -

2. Discussion

We revi ew l egal quest i ons under pi nni ng t he deni al of t he

mot i on t o suppr ess de novo and any f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear

er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Si l va, 554 F. 3d 13, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Rose hi ghl i ght s t wo al l eged er r or s i n t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on. Fi r st , he f ocuses on t he ni ght of November 16

and ar gues t hat t he of f i cer ' s pr esence on t he cur t i l age of t he

pr oper t y const i t ut ed an i mper mi ss i bl e sear ch. He t hen cont ends

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o consi der t he ef f ect of t hi s

i l l egal act i vi t y on t he al l eged exi gent ci r cumst ances t hat

f ol l owed. Second, Rose ar gues t hat t hi s i mper mi ssi bl e sear ch was

t he pr i mary i mpet us f or t he sear ch war r ant t he f ol l owi ng day and,

accor di ngl y, t ai nt ed any physi cal evi dence obt ai ned f r om t hat

sear ch.

As we expl ai n, we ar e not abl e t o def i ni t i vel y r esol ve

t he l egal mer i t s of Rose' s ar gument . Even assumi ng t hat Rose i s

cor r ect i n hi s asser t i on of er r or , however , any er r or was

ul t i mat el y har ml ess. To r each t hat end poi nt , we br i ef l y exami ne

t he t wo r el evant except i ons t o t he excl usi onar y rul e: t he exi gent

ci r cumst ances and i ndependent sour ce doct r i nes. We begi n wi t h t he

f or mer .

The excl usi onary r ul e i s i nappl i cabl e where " ' t he

exi genci es of t he si t uat i on' make t he needs of l aw enf orcement so

compel l i ng t hat t he war r ant l ess sear ch i s obj ect i vel y r easonabl e


18/32

- 18 -

under t he Four t h Amendment . " Mi ncey v. Ar i zona, 437 U. S. 385, 394

( 1978) ( quot i ng McDonal d v. Uni t ed St ates, 335 U. S. 451, 456

( 1948) ) . A r ecent case i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t appl i ed t hi s

doct r i ne was Kent ucky v. Ki ng, 131 S. Ct . 1849 ( 2011) . Ther e,

of f i cer s appr oached a resi dence wi t h t he i nt ent t o knock on a door

and chat wi t h t he i nhabi t ant s. I d. at 1854. However , t he of f i cer s

bel i eved t hat t hey heard t he def endant s dest r oyi ng evi dence, and

t hus ent er ed t he pr oper t y. I d. The Cour t hel d t hat t he exi gent

ci r cumst ances doct r i ne appl i ed si nce, i nt er al i a, i n appr oachi ng

t he door and knocki ng, t he of f i cer s di d nothi ng more t han any

or di nar y ci t i zen had a r i ght t o do. I d. at 1862.

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on Ki ng when appl yi ng

t he exi gent ci r cumst ances doct r i ne. But t he di st r i ct cour t appear s

not t o have addr essed t he t hr eshol d i ssue of whet her t he of f i cer s

"vi ol at [ ed] t he Four t h Amendment , " i d. at 1858, by conduct i ng a

sear ch ar ound t he cur t i l age of Rose' s home and, i f so, whet her

t hat vi ol at i on spar ked t he exi gent ci r cumst ances. The out come of

t hat t hr eshol d i nqui r y depends on "whet her t he of f i cer ' s conduct

was . . . obj ect i vel y r easonabl e, " t hat i s, "whet her t he of f i cer s

had an i mpl i ed l i cense t o ent er " t he cur t i l age and t hen st at i on

t hemsel ves ar ound t he house. Fl or i da v. J ar di nes, 133 S. Ct . 1409,

1417 ( 2012) . I f not , and i f "t hei r behavi or obj ect i vel y r eveal [ ed]

a pur pose t o conduct a search, whi ch i s not what anyone woul d t hi nk


19/32

- 19 -

he [ or she] had l i cense t o do, " i d. at 1417, t hen t hei r pr esence

on t he pr oper t y was i mper mi ss i bl e.

Thi s r ecor d l eaves us unabl e t o det er mi ne preci sel y what

t he of f i cer s wer e doi ng when they ent er ed the pr oper t y on t he

eveni ng of November 16. The di st r i ct cour t br i ef l y not ed t hat t he

of f i cer s ent er ed t he pr oper t y i n "bad f ai t h"; a concl usor y

st at ement wi t hout any pr edi cat e f act ual f i ndi ngs, and one t hat i s

not di sposi t i ve as t o whet her t he of f i cer s' pr esence vi ol at ed t he

Const i t ut i on. See Ki ng, 131 S. Ct . at 1859. Ot her t han t hat

si ngl e st at ement , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not f i nd any addi t i onal

f act s t hat shed l i ght on t he l engt h of t i me t hat t he of f i cer s

sur vei l l ed bef or e knocki ng on t he door , or t hat descr i bed t he

of f i cer s' i nt ent , or t hat ot her wi se establ i shed t he of f i cer s'

preci se movement s. Si mpl y st at ed, we do not know whet her t he

of f i cer s observed Rose' s i ncr i mi nat i ng act i ons because t hey wer e

wai t i ng t o appr oach t he suspect s unt i l t hey had pr oof of

cont r aband, or whet her t he of f i cer s wer e j ust posi t i oni ng

t hemsel ves ar ound t he pr oper t y i n ant i ci pat i on of a knock and t al k.

See J ardi nes, 133 S. Ct . at 1415 ( " [ The Four t h Amendment ] woul d be

of l i t t l e pr acti cal val ue i f t he St at e' s agent s coul d st and i n a

home' s por ch or si de garden and t r awl f or evi dence wi t h i mpuni t y;

t he r i ght t o r et r eat woul d be si gni f i cant l y di mi ni shed i f t he

pol i ce coul d ent er a man' s pr oper t y t o observe hi s r epose f r om

j ust out si de t he f r ont wi ndow") ; see al so Ki ng, 131 S. Ct . at 1858


20/32

- 20 -

( "The exi gent ci r cumst ances r ul e j ust i f i es a war r ant l ess sear ch

when t he conduct of t he pol i ce pr ecedi ng t he exi gency i s r easonabl e

i n t he same sense. " ) ; cf . Hor t on v. Cal i f or ni a, 496 U. S. 128, 136-

40 ( 1990) .

Gi ven t hat absence of f act ual f i ndi ngs on t he i ssue of

l awf ul pr esence, we pr oceed under t he assumpt i on t hat t he of f i cer s'

ent r y on November 16 was i mproper . As such, we next ask whet her

t he sear ch war r ant obt ai ned t he f ol l owi ng day was t her eby t ai nt ed.

As t he di st r i ct cour t not ed, t hat cl ai m hi nges on whet her t he

warr ant was obt ai ned i ndependent l y of any i mper mi ssi bl e pol i ce

conduct and t hus saved by t he i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne. To

eval uat e an i ndependent sour ce cl ai m, we ask whet her " t he agent s'

deci si on t o seek t he war r ant was pr ompted by what t hey had seen

dur i ng t he i ni t i al [ i l l egal ] ent r y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Dessesaur e,

429 F. 3d 359, 369 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Mur r ay v. Uni t ed St at es,

487 U. S. 533, 542 ( 1988) . That subj ect i ve i nqui r y t hus t ur ns on

whet her t he par t i cul ar of f i cer woul d have st i l l sought t he war r ant

absent t he unl awf ul l y- obt ai ned i nf or mat i on. " I n maki ng [ t hat ]

f act ual det er mi nat i on . . . t he di st r i ct cour t i s not bound by

af t er - t he- f act assur ances of [ t he of f i cer ' s] i nt ent , but i nst ead

must assess t he tot al i t y of t he at t endant ci r cumst ances t o


21/32

- 21 -

ascer t ai n whet her t hose assurances appear i mpl ausi bl e. " I d.

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . 4

I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he

i ndependent sour ce doct r i ne appl i ed. I t not ed t hat " t he evi dence

Agent Qui nn marshal ed i n support of t he sear ch war r ant appl i cat i on

came f r om sources whol l y unconnect ed wi t h the ent r y and was known

t o t he agent s wel l bef or e t he i ni t i al ent r y. " Whi l e t hat

obser vat i on i s t r ue enough, i t r eveal s l i t t l e about Agent Qui nn' s

subj ect i ve i nt ent . That i s, t her e was no f i ndi ng t hat Agent Qui nn

woul d have sought t he war r ant i r r espect i ve of t he November 16

sear ch.

As we see i t , t he r ecor d ( speci f i cal l y Agent Qui nn' s

decl ar at i ons i n t he wi r et ap appl i cat i ons t hat he woul d seek a

warr ant f or Rose' s r esi dence as soon as dr ugs wer e connect ed t o

hi s house) "pr ovi de[ s] [ some] suppor t f or t he Gover nment ' s

posi t i on. Mur r ay, 487 U. S. at 543. But , as t he Supr eme Cour t

r emi nded i n Mur r ay, "i t i s t he f unct i on of t he Di st r i ct Cour t

r at her t han t he Cour t of Appeal s t o det er mi ne t he f act s. " I d.

Thi s i s t r ue even where a cour t of appeal s coul d t heor et i cal l y

4 I n addi t i on t o t he subj ect i ve pr ong of t he anal ysi s, weexami ne whether " i nf ormat i on obt ai ned dur i ng t he ent r y waspr esent ed t o t he Magi st r at e and af f ect ed hi s [ or her ] deci si on t oi ssue t he war r ant . " I d. at 365 ( quot i ng Mur r ay, 487 U. S. at 542) .Thi s aspect of t he anal ysi s i s "whol l y obj ect i ve. " I d. On t hi sf act or , our r evi ew of t he war r ant appl i cat i on l eaves l i t t l e doubtt hat t he i ndependent i nf or mat i on was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hej udge' s deci si on t o i ssue t he war r ant .


22/32

- 22 -

cobbl e t oget her var yi ng aspect s of t he r ecor d t o i nf er t he

of f i cer ' s subj ecti ve i nt ent . See i d. ( concl udi ng t hat whi l e t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat one coul d "per haps i nf er f r om[ t he f act s]

t hat t he agent s who made t he ent r y al r eady pl anned t o obt ai n t he

' cr i t i cal evi dence t hr ough a war r ant - aut hor i zed sear ch' i t was not

st r ong enough f or t he cour t of appeal s t o f i nd t he f act on i t s

own) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Wr i ght , 493 F. App' x 265, 271- 72

( 3d Ci r . 2012) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Cor der o- Rosar i o, 786 F. 3d 64,

78 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Thus, even i f we wer e i ncl i ned t o say t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t woul d l i kel y have f ound an i nt ent t o seek t he

war r ant gi ven t he cour t ' s ul t i mat e adopt i on of t he i ndependent

sour ce doct r i ne, t he absence of such a f i ndi ng hi nder s our abi l i t y

t o concl usi vel y r ul e on t hi s chal l enge.

As noted, however , r emand i s not necessar i l y r equi r ed

even wer e we t o cr edi t t he def endant ' s ar gument s. I nst ead, we

must ask whet her t he "government can pr ove beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t hat t he [ put at i ve] er r or compl ai ned of di d not cont r i but e

t o t he ver di ct obt ai ned. " Uni t ed St at es v. Gr een, 698 F. 3d 48,

53- 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

I n t hi s case, t he gover nment r ef er r ed t o t he

pot ent i al l y- t ai nt ed physi cal evi dence i n i t s openi ng and cl osi ng

argument s. But , such evi dence pl ayed a mi ni mal r ol e i n t he l arger

cont ext of t he gover nment ' s case. We ar e t her ef or e conf i dent t hat


23/32

- 23 -

t he remai ni ng evi dence was so over whel mi ng t hat , even i f t hi s

evi dence shoul d have been excl uded, i t s i ncl usi on di d not af f ect

t he ver di ct s. A br i ef summary shows why.

The gover nment pr esent ed compel l i ng evi dence r ef l ect i ng

t he l engt h and br eadt h of t he conspi r acy, al ong wi t h t he speci f i c

r ol e t hat each def endant pl ayed. That evi dence begi ns wi t h t he

det ai l ed t est i mony of t wo eyewi t nesses, co- conspi r at or s Pi na and

Gr aham.

Gr aham t est i f i ed t hat he agr eed t o, and di d, di st r i but e

bot h cocai ne and heroi n wi t h Rose and Fr ye. I ndeed, Gr aham

di scussed a number of occasi ons on whi ch he del i ver ed dr ugs

di r ect l y t o both def endant s, and to occasi ons when he saw both

i ndi vi dual s wi t h l ar ge quant i t i es of cocai ne. He i ndi cat ed t hat

he had known Fr ye f or t wel ve years, t r anspor t ed cocai ne on hi s

behal f , and was of t en pai d i n cocai ne f or hi s ser vi ces. He al so

di scussed a speci f i c i nst ance i n whi ch he had t r anspor t ed cocai ne

f r omRhode I sl and to a condomi ni umwhere Frye and Rose were wai t i ng

f or t he del i ver y. Fi nal l y, he i dent i f i ed For d as Rose' s suppl i er .

For hi s par t , Pi na t est i f i ed i n si gni f i cant det ai l about

t i mes i n whi ch he had obt ai ned dr ugs f or Frye. He f ur t her

t est i f i ed t hat he r ecei ved an "ei ght - bal l " of her oi n f r om Rose and

Frye. Si gni f i cant l y, he di scussed an i nst ance when Rose and Frye

came t o hi s house and obt ai ned a ki l o of cocai ne, t hen pr essed i t ,

bl ended i t , cut i t up, and bagged i t f or sal e.


24/32

- 24 -

Cr uci al l y, t he gover nment ' s case di d not r est on t he

admi t t edl y suf f i ci ent , but ar guabl y al ways open t o chal l enge,

t est i mony of cooper at i ng wi t nesses. Rat her , t hat t est i mony was

cor r obor at ed and r epeat edl y rei nf or ced by t he vi vi d por t r ai t of

def endant s pai nt ed i n t hei r r ecor ded conver sat i ons and sur vei l l ed

act i ons, as wel l as t he physi cal cont r aband unconnect ed wi t h t he

chal l enged sear ch or i t s ar guabl e f r ui t s. Thi s evi dence easi l y

est abl i shed f our cent r al event s t hat f or med t he hear t of t he

government ' s case.

Fi r st , t he gover nment i nt r oduced evi dence that on t he

eveni ng of Sept ember 19, 2010, Rose was i n cont act wi t h hi s sel l er ,

Omay For d. Rose t hen sent Gr ahamt o pi ck up a ki l ogr amof cocai ne

f r omFord. Gr ahamsubsequent l y di d so and t hen del i ver ed t he dr ugs

t o Rose. Rose, however , was di spl eased wi t h t he pr oduct . He t hus

ordered Gr ahamt o retur n t he bag because t he pr oduct was " no good. "

He al so pai d Gr aham f or t hese ser vi ces i n cocai ne t hat was, i n

cont r ast t o t he cocai ne obt ai ned f r omFor d, descr i bed as "bangi ng. "

Second, t he government est abl i shed t hat on Sept ember 21,

2010, Fr ye and Pi na at t empt ed t o mai l a package of heroi ne t o

Ant hony Vaughn. Fr ye and Pi na went t o a phar macy and purchased an

i t em i n whi ch t o hi de t he dr ugs. Frye t hen ar r anged f or an

associ at e t o mai l t he package, but a post al i nspect or r ecover ed

t he package mi d- t r anspor t . The i nspect or f ound near l y 10 gr ams of

her oi n i nsi de of t he package.


25/32

- 25 -

The gover nment al so hi ghl i ght ed an event f r oml at er t hat

same mont h i n whi ch Frye and Pi na were awai t i ng a del i ver y of

cocai ne. Law enf orcement had been sur vei l l i ng t he van maki ng t he

del i ver y. A st at e t r ooper pul l ed t he van over f or a dr i vi ng

vi ol at i on, sear ched t he vehi cl e, and di scover ed near l y 200 gr ams

of her oi n. The co- conspi r at or s wer e l at er over hear d dur i ng

wi r et apped conver sat i ons di scussi ng t hi s event . 5

The f i nal , cent r al event , previ ousl y di scussed, occur r ed

j ust bef or e t he put at i vel y i l l egal sear ch on November 16. The

gover nment est abl i shed t hat bef or e the of f i cer s even ent er ed

Rose' s pr opert y, Rose and Fr ye had agr eed t o purchase t wo ki l ogr ams

of cocai ne f or $28, 000. The t wo t hen t ook mul t i pl e over t st eps -

- most not abl y, t r ansf er r i ng money f r omone i ndi vi dual t o t he ot her

- - t o accompl i sh t hat goal .

On t he whol e, we are sat i sf i ed beyond a reasonabl e doubt

t hat a j ur y woul d have convi ct ed t hese t wo def endant s even i f t he

evi dence r ecover ed f r om t he sear ch of Rose' s home was i mpr oper l y

admi t t ed. The chal l enged evi dence was cumul at i ve; t here was

al r eady suf f i ci ent t est i mony and physi cal evi dence r espect i ng bot h

5 Even def endant ' s use of code wor ds of t he " t r ade" ( i t sel fan i ncul pat or y behavi or ) di d not conceal t he pr obat i ve f or ce oft hei r conver sat i ons. Thus, f or exampl e, i n descr i bi ng t he t r uckt hat was pul l ed over and what was f ound i n t he t r uck, Adal ber t oGr aci ani sai d t o Frye, "Ah, est i mat e about 40, 40, 000 I t hi nk i nher oi n, and - - I mean, $40, 000 wor t h i n t he st r eet s and she he - -t hey was sayi n. "


26/32

- 26 -

t he conspi r acy i t sel f and t he vast quant i t y of dr ugs f l owi ng

t hr ough i t . Nor , gi ven al l of t hi s ot her evi dence, do we t hi nk

t hat t he br i ef ment i on of t he physi cal cont r aband dur i ng ar gument s

at t r i al af f ect ed t he r esul t . 6 Thus, quest i ons about t he l egal i t y

of t he of f i cer s' conduct i n ent er i ng Rose' s home on November 16,

2010, ar e not suf f i ci ent t o di sr upt t he convi ct i ons.

D. Alleyne

Thi s br i ngs us t o t he def endant s' sentences. Rose and

Frye ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t , r at her t han t he j ur y, made

cer t ai n dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ngs, and t hat t he cour t t hen i mposed a

6 Ear l y i n i t s openi ng st at ement t o t he j ur y, t he gover nmentdi d appear t o emphasi ze t he physi cal evi dence. But , t hepr osecut or ' s r ef er ence t o the i t ems sei zed on November 16 qui ckl yt r ansi t i oned i nt o a di scussi on of t he event s and evi dence t hat l edt o t he gover nment ' s sear ch t hat day. I ndeed, of t he near l y t hi r t y

mi nut e openi ng st at ement , t he government spent r oughl y f i vemi nut es di scussi ng t he event s of t he 16t h. Onl y about one mi nut eof t hat t i me di scussed t he physi cal cont r aband.

The cl osi ng ar gument even mor e pl ai nl y mani f est s t he mi ni malr ol e t hat t he physi cal cont r aband pl ayed i n t he case. Thegover nment began i t s cl osi ng ar gument by r emi ndi ng t he j ur y of t heevi dence t hat i t had hear d. The pr osecut or speci f i cal l y r ef er encedt he t aped phone cal l s and t he l i ve t est i mony, whi l e onl y obl i quel yr ef er r i ng t o "al l of t he exhi bi t s. " Fol l owi ng t hi s, t he gover nmentdi scussed t he event s of November 16 and emphasi zed t hat Rose andFrye' s act i ons on t hat day wer e suf f i ci ent by t hemsel ves f or t hej ury t o f i nd t he t wo gui l t y. I n maki ng t hat ar gument , t hegovernment agai n f ocused on t he phone cal l s and t he event s l eadi ngup t o t he sear ch; not t he physi cal evi dence. I n t ot al , t hegover nment spent r oughl y one thi r d of i t s t hi r t y- t hr ee mi nut ecl osi ng argument on t he event s of November 16. Of t hat t i me, i tdevot ed about one mi nut e t o t he physi cal cont r aband. Al t hough t hegover nment t her eaf t er r ef er r ed t o the physi cal evi dence ( i ncl udi ngcont r aband i ndependent of t he event s of November 16) , i t si mpl ydi d so spor adi cal l y and as i ci ng on an al r eady- baked cake.


27/32

- 27 -

st at ut or y mandat ed sent ence based on t hose f i ndi ngs, i n vi ol at i on

of Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) .

1. Background

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence that Rose was r esponsi bl e f or at

l east 9 gr ams of cocai ne, 20 gr ams of her oi n, and 1. 77 ki l ogr ams

of mar i j uana. Those quant i t i es subj ect ed Rose t o a mandatory

mi ni mum sent ence of 20 years, 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) &( B) & 846,

al t hough nei t her t he cour t nor t he part i es ment i oned t hat mandatory

mi ni mum at sent enci ng. I n cont r ast t o t he 240- mont h st at ut or y

mi ni mum, cal cul at i ons pur suant t o the sent enci ng gui del i nes

r esul t ed i n a r ecommended 360- mont h t o l i f e i ncarcer at i ve

sent ence. The di st r i ct cour t , f i ndi ng t hat t he gui del i nes range

was i nf l at ed, i mposed a bel ow- gui del i nes sent ence of 300 mont hs.

Li kewi se, t he cour t concl uded t hat Fr ye was r esponsi bl e

f or 14 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and 923. 05 gr ams of her oi n, whi ch al so

subj ect ed hi mt o a 20- year mandat ory mi ni mum. At Fr ye' s sent enci ng

hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t not ed i n passi ng t hat t hi s mandat or y

mi ni mumappl i ed. Li ke Rose, Fr ye' s gui del i nes r ange was 360 mont hs

t o l i f e. The cour t , r el yi ng on t he f act or s enumer at ed i n 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) , var i ed bel ow t he gui del i nes r ange and al so sent enced

Fr ye t o 300 mont hs i n pr i son.


28/32

- 28 -

2. Discussion

Typi cal l y, we r evi ew de novo whether a sent ence was

i mpr oper under Al l eyne. See Et i enne, 772 F. 3d at 922. But

unpr eserved cl ai ms of Al l eyne er r or , such as t hose her e, ar e

r evi ewed f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88,

94 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; see Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 775 F. 3d

483, 499 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( pl ai n er r or r equi r es a showi ng of an

er r or t hat "was cl ear or obvi ous, and t hat i t bot h af f ect ed [ t he

def endant ' s] subst ant i al r i ght s and ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he

f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. ") . 7

The gover nment st at es t hat " [ t ] he di st r i ct cour t

vi ol at ed Al l eyne by concl udi ng t hat Rose [ and Frye wer e] subj ect

t o a mandatory mi ni mum based on j udge- f ound dr ug quant i t i es. "

Despi t e t hat apparent concessi on, we quest i on whether any Al l eyne

er r or act ual l y occur r ed. See Et i enne, 772 F. 3d at 922 ( "Al t hough

t he par t i es agr ee an Al l eyne er r or occur r ed, t hei r st i pul at i on on

t hi s quest i on of l aw i s of no i mpor t . ") . I n Uni t ed St at es v.

7 Rose concedes t hat he di d not pr eserve hi s Al l eyne cl ai mand t hus pl ai n er r or r evi ew appl i es. Frye, by cont r ast , goes t osome l engt h t o show t hat he pr eserved t he i ssue. Yet , i n t hedi st r i ct cour t bel ow, he obj ect ed onl y t o "t he quant i t i es set f or t hi n t he PSR and r equest [ ed] an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he i ssue ofquant i t y. " He di d not ar gue t hat t he j ur y, r at her t han t he cour t ,was r equi r ed t o make t he dr ug quant i t y determi nat i on beyond ar easonabl e doubt . Accor di ngl y, Frye has not pr eserved t he pr eci secl ai m t hat he now assert s. See Uni t ed St ates v. Samboy, 433 F. 3d154, 161 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .


29/32

- 29 -

Ram r ez- Negr n, we not ed t hat " f ai l i ng t o pr ove an i ndi vi dual i zed

dr ug quant i t y i s an Al l eyne er r or onl y i n cases i n whi ch t he

def endant has been convi ct ed and sent enced under t he aggravat ed

ver si on of t he st at ut e - - t hat i s, wher e an enhanced mandat or y

mi ni mumappl i es. " 751 F. 3d 42, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( emphasi s added)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Wi t h r espect t o

one of t he def endant s i n t hat case, we concl uded t hat " [ t ] he r ecor d

pr ovi des no evi dence t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made any f i ndi ngs t o

t r i gger a . . . mandat or y mi ni mum; r at her , i t shows t hat t he cour t

i mposed a Gui del i nes sent ence. " I d. at 50. We f ound i t r el evant

t hat "nei t her t he j udge nor ei t her par t y at sent enci ng even

ment i oned that a mandatory mi ni mum was under consi der at i on . . . .

I nst ead, t he sent ence was based onl y on Gui del i nes consi der at i on. "

I d.

The r ecor d here - - ot her t han a br i ef r ef er ence t o t he

mandat or y mi ni mum i n Frye' s case - - i s qui t e si mi l ar . For bot h

def endant s, t he cour t excl usi vel y based i t s sent ence on t he

gui del i nes, and thus seemed to avoi d sent enci ng the def endant s

under the aggr avat ed st at ut or y pr ovi si ons. I ndeed, when

di scussi ng t he dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ngs, t he cour t f r amed t he

quest i on as one t hat sol el y af f ect ed t he gui del i nes i nqui r y. The

cour t st at ed t hat i t woul d "use t hat [ i t s f i ndi ngs] as [ t o] t he

number of ki l os to est abl i sh t he base of f ense l evel . " Ut i l i zi ng

t hat base of f ense l evel , and t he f act or s r ef er enced i n 18 U. S. C.


30/32

- 30 -

3553( a) , t he cour t t hen i mposed sent ences based pur el y on

gui del i nes consi der at i ons. Whi l e t he cour t ' s si ngl e r ef er ence t o

t he mandat ory mi ni mum perhaps makes Fr ye' s case a bi t cl oser , we

ar e nonet hel ess i ncl i ned t o say t hat Al l eyne was not i mpl i cat ed

her e. See Uni t ed St ates v. Lanza- Vzquez, __ _ F. 3d __ _, 2015 WL

5042806, at *14 ( 1st Ci r . Aug. 27, 2015) ( "Al t hough t he di st r i ct

cour t i n t hi s case made a passi ng r ef er ence that t he amount of

dr ugs ' i s t he mi ni mum pur suant t o t he st at ut or y mi ni mum, ' i t s

act ual sent enci ng deci si on was based pur el y on Gui del i nes

consi der at i ons and t he f act or s enumer at ed i n 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) . ") .

Ei t her way, nei t her par t y can est abl i sh t he necessary

pr ej udi ce t o sust ai n t hei r cl ai m. Fol l owi ng Al l eyne, we have

r epeat edl y emphasi zed t hat no pr ej udi ce exi st s when " i t can f ai r l y

be sai d . . . t hat t he assi gned er r or di d not cont r i but e t o t he

r esul t of whi ch appel l ant compl ai ns, " and " [ i ] n dr ug cases,

over whel mi ng evi dence of t he requi si t e dr ug t ypes and quant i t i es

gener al l y ser ves as a pr oxy f or det er mi ni ng whet her t he Al l eyne

er r or cont r i but ed t o t he r esul t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mor r i s, 784

F. 3d 870, 874 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Ram r ez- Negr n, 751 F. 3d at 51 n. 8.

I n t hi s case, t he gover nment est abl i shed t hat bot h

def endant s wer e i ndi vi dual l y responsi bl e f or conspi r i ng t o

di st r i but e mor e t han f i ve ki l ogr ams of cont r ol l ed subst ances ( even


31/32

- 31 -

excl udi ng t he dr ugs f ound at Rose' s r esi dence) . Some of t he

evi dence t o est abl i sh dr ug quant i t y pr esent ed at t r i al i ncl uded:

Rose and Frye' s agr eement t o pur chase t wo ki l ogr ams of cocai ne on

November 16 ( i r r espect i ve of t he l egal i t y of t he sei zur e of t hose

dr ugs) ; Gr aham' s t est i mony t hat he t r anspor t ed a ki l ogr am of

cocai ne f or Fr ye "every thr ee weeks, t wo a mont h, every mont h" f or

a year ; Pi na and Gr aham' s t est i mony t hat t hey obser ved bot h Rose

and Frye "pr essi ng, cut t i ng, and baggi ng" ki l ogr ams of cocai ne f or

di st r i but i on; Gr aham' s t est i mony t hat he was pai d i n cocai ne by

Rose and pi cked up appr oxi matel y one ki l ogr amof cocai ne f r omRose

"pl ent y" of t i mes; Gr aham' s t est i mony t hat Rose or der ed hi m t o

r et ur n a ki l ogr am of cocai ne because i t was " no good" ; Gr aham' s

t est i mony t hat he met For d on f our t o f i ve occasi ons at Rose' s

r esi dence t o t r anspor t cocai ne; t est i mony r el at i ng t o 200 gr ams of

her oi n t hat Frye was expect i ng f or del i ver y; and t est i mony f r om

anot her co- conspi r at or , Bonni e Bear se, t hat Rose st ashed

si gni f i cant quant i t i es of cocai ne at her house. Gi ven t hi s

over whel mi ng evi dence, t he def endant s cannot est abl i sh pl ai n er r or

j ust i f yi ng r el i ef . 8

8 Frye al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mper mi ssi bl yut i l i zed a pr i or of f ense ( conspi r i ng t o pr ovi de cont r aband t o af eder al i nmate, 18 U. S. C. 371) t o move hi m i nt o t he gr asp of t hegui del i nes' car eer of f ender pr ovi si on. Al t hough t he st at ut eper t ai ni ng t o hi s pr i or convi ct i on was di vi si bl e, he ar gues t hatt he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o engage i n t he appr opr i at e anal ysi s t odet er mi ne whet her t he pr i or of f ense was act ual l y a dr ug cr i me.See Descamps v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2276, 2283 ( 2013) ;


32/32

III.

Fi ndi ng no r eason t o di st ur b t he convi ct i ons or

sent ences, we affirm.

Shepard v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13, 19 ( 2005) . We need notdet er mi ne i f an er r or occur r ed, si nce any mi st ake was har ml ess.Fi r st , t he car eer of f ender cl assi f i cat i on had no i mpact on Frye' sbase of f ense l evel . Second, whi l e t he of f ense di d move Frye' scr i mi nal hi st or y f r om cat egor y V t o cat egor y VI , t hat desi gnat i onul t i mat el y had no i mpact on t he gui del i nes r ecommendat i on, whi chul t i mat el y dr ove t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent enci ng deci si on.I ndeed, gi ven t he sever i t y of t he of f ense, t he gui del i nes st i l lr ecommended 360 mont hs t o l i f e, i r r espect i ve of Frye' s cr i mi nalhi stor y. U. S. S. G. ch. 5, pt . 8.

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

United States v. Rose, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents