United States v. Valentin-Oquendo ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________





            No.  97-1772



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                              MADELINE VALENT N-OQUENDO,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____  _____________



                                 ____________________





                      Linda Backiel on brief for appellant.
_____________

                      Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Jose  A.
______________                             ________

            Quiles-Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel,  and Antonio  R.
_______________                                   ___________

            Bazan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
_____



                                 ____________________



                                  December 12, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                      Per   Curiam.     Madeline   Valent n-Oquendo   was
Per   Curiam.
____________



            convicted  of  three  counts  of  dealing  in  semi-automatic



            weapons  prohibited  by 18 U.S.C.   922(v)  and was sentenced



            to 51 months of incarceration.



                      She  appeals  her  conviction,  arguing  that   the



            indictment, at Count I, merged the substantive and conspiracy



            offenses such that she did not have fair notice of that which



            she  was being accused  and that, therefore,  double jeopardy



            concerns  are raised by  her conviction.   A co-conspirator's



            statement was erroneously admitted and there were other trial



            errors, she says, and she complains that  she was not given a



            theory of the defense instruction.  Her sentence is improper,



            she also argues, because she  should not have received a two-



            point upward adjustment as an organizer or supervisor and she



            should  have  been  given a  downward  departure  for extreme



            family hardship.



                      Many of  the claimed errors were not objected to in



            the trial  court and  Valent n's arguments  fail for  reasons



            which require only brief explanation.



                                          I



                      Valent n worked as a manager at a weapons shop, the



            Armer a  del Oeste  in  Bayam n, Puerto  Rico.   The  federal



            firearms  license for the shop was  issued to Carmen V squez-



            V squez.   Valent n wanted to  assume the business and  had a



            pending application to obtain her  own license.  The  undoing







                                         -2-
2



























            of Valent n  and her  co-defendants, including  Jose S nchez-



            Toledo,  came when  a package,  sent though  the U.S.  Mails,



            arrived at the Bayam n Post Office with the muzzle of a rifle



            sticking out.  It was addressed to the post office box of the



            Armer a del  Oeste, but the  return address, in  Florida, was



            fictitious.  Valent n  claimed the package and turned it over



            to S nchez, an  employee of the Puerto Rican  Police, who put



            the package into  a police car and drove  to another location



            where he returned  the package to  Valent n.  [S nchez  would



            later plead guilty and provide evidence against Valent n.]



                      Within  two weeks a  second package arrived  at the



            Bayam n Post Office from the same fictitious Florida address.



            This package was  picked up by co-defendant  Maritza Emerson-



            de-Jes s, who  presented false identification.   Emerson also



            worked at the Armer a.  Emerson used Valent n's pick-up truck



            to get  the package.   She  also turned  the package  over to



            S nchez,  who again  put it  into  his police  car, in  which



            Gonz lez-Rom n  was a passenger.  The postal authorities, who



            had  been   monitoring  these  transactions   with  interest,



            immediately arrested the two men, and later, the women.



                      These transactions  were not recorded on  the books



            of  the  Armer a.   Indeed,  documents  appear to  have  been



            falsified in  an effort to  show that the transaction  in the



            weapons  was  authorized.   The  two  packages  contained six



            Norinco rifles  and two large  capacity magazines, prohibited







                                         -3-
3



























            by law.  The two women acknowledged receiving $750.00 for the



            transactions,  but  argued  that  they  thought  the  weapons



            belonged  to the  Puerto Rican  Police and  had been  sent to



            Miami for repair.  The jury rejected that theory.



                                          II



            The Indictment



                      While  not   artfully  drafted,  Count  I   of  the



            Indictment alleged that the defendants did "unlawfully engage



            in the business of dealing in firearms as the term is defined



            in Title 18,  United States Code, Section 921(3),  that is, a



            conspiracy to violate  Title 18, United States  Code, Section



            922(a)(1)."  The  indictment went on to allege  the object of



            the conspiracy  and a series  of overt acts,  giving specific



            places and times.  Valent n never objected to  the indictment



            before the  trial court,  so review is  for plain  error. See
___



            United States  v. Olano, 507 U.S.  725 (1993).  There  was no
_____________     _____



            plain error.



                       The   combination   of  the   references   in  the



            indictment   to  the  statutory  sections  involved  and  the



            description of the  overt acts gave Valent n  ample notice of



            the  charges.    To  the  extent  Valent n  argues  there was



            ambiguity as to  whether the transaction was  illegal because



            she   was  unlicensed  or   because  she  was   licensed  but



            nonetheless  engaged in an  illegal transaction, Valent n was



            given  discovery showing that  the government would  show she







                                         -4-
4



























            did  not  have   a  valid  license  at  the   time  of  these



            transactions.  There was no  due process notice problem.  The



            district court  sensibly construed  Count I  as a  conspiracy



            count and so instructed, without objection.



                      As to any  hypothetical double jeopardy  issue, the



            issue is at present exactly that:  hypothetical.  If there is



            a  future prosecution, Valent n may raise the double jeopardy



            issue at that time.



            Co-Conspirator Statement and Other Alleged Trial Errors



                      Applying  this  circuit's  oft-recited  test  under



            United  States v.  Petrozziello, 548  F.2d 20,  23 (1st  Cir.
______________     ____________



            1977), the district  court conditionally held  admissible the



            statement of  Gonz lez-Rom n, as reported  by S nchez-Toledo.



            The statement concerned the relationship between Valent n and



            Gonz lez,   that  they  had made  arrangements  to  send  the



            packages from  Florida to Puerto  Rico and that all  of those



            involved were  aware that the packages contained weapons.  At



            the  end  of  the trial,  the  district  court revisited  the



            question and again determined the statements were admissible.



            Valent n argues  that there was  no evidence of  a conspiracy



            other than these statements and so admission of the testimony



            was error.  The argument  is without merit, as the recitation



            of the evidence demonstrates.



                      Nor  was Valent n entitled to an instruction on the



            defense theory  that these transactions  were legitimate  and







                                         -5-
5



























            the guns were intended for the Puerto Rico Police.  There was



            no evidence to support the theory.  The document proffered in



            support  were not established  to be official  documents from



            San Juan Police; rather, they  appear to have been falsified,



            and rather ineptly at that.



                      We have reviewed the remaining alleged trial errors



            and find the arguments to be without merit.



            Sentencing



                      The district court found that Valent n was a leader



            or organizer  in the  offense and  accordingly increased  the



            offense level  by two points  under U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(c).   On



            the  evidence, this conclusion was plainly correct.  Valent n



            gave Gonz lez  the address  to which the  weapons were  to be



            shipped,  twice called S nchez-Toledo to pick up the weapons,



            appeared herself to pick up the guns, and let Emerson use her



            truck when  Emerson picked up the  guns.  As to  the downward



            departure argument  made here,  no request  was  made to  the



            district court for a downward departure and there is no clear



            error.



                      Affirmed.
________



























                                         -6-
6