United States v. Dominguez ( 2018 )

17-914-cr
United States v. Dominguez
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 27th day of February, two thousand eighteen.
PRESENT:
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
PETER W. HALL,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. No. 17-914-cr
ALVARADO DOMINGUEZ, AKA JOCHI,
Defendant-Appellant,
MARTIN AVALO, ANDY MACCOW, CARLOS VALLEJO,
AKA YAYO, KROUCHE DELEON,
Defendants.
Appearing for Appellee: HAGAN SCOTTEN, Assistant United States Attorney,
(David W. Denton, Jr., Daniel B. Tehrani Assistant
United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Geoffrey S.
Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, New York, N.Y.
1
Appearing for Appellant: MEREDITH S. HELLER, Law Office of Meredith S. Heller,
PLLC, (Ira D. London, London & Robin, on the brief),
New York, N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Pauley, III, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Defendant Alvarado Dominguez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered
upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, one count of attempted Hobbs Act robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and one count of firearms possession during the Hobbs
Act conspiracy and attempted robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of
the case, and the issues on appeal.
Dominguez asserts that the district court erred in conditionally ruling that
cross-examination of a cooperating government witness about the authenticity of the
gun used in the conspiracy and attempted robbery would open the door for the
government to introduce evidence relating to a 2006 home invasion robbery under
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We conclude Dominguez’s failure to challenge the
district court’s adverse decision about the Rule 404(b) evidence, by pursuing the
defense and having the evidence admitted, constitutes a waiver of any claim of error
2
in the court’s decision. See United States v. Ortiz, 857 F.2d 900, 906 (2d Cir. 1988).
The court ruled that it would admit evidence of Dominguez’s prior participation in
the 2006 home invasion robbery if defense counsel pursued a defense of the firearm
not being real or operable, but the effect of the court’s decision remained inchoate
because defense counsel did not insist on making that argument, and the evidence of
the previous robbery was never admitted. This Court is therefore precluded from
reviewing this claim on appeal. See id. at 905–06. As the panel in Ortiz held, the
proper method to “preserve a claim of error in similar circumstances is to take the
position that leads to the admission of the adverse evidence, in order to bring a fully
developed record to this Court. Otherwise, as in Luce, the reviewing court is obliged
to indulge in unacceptable appellate speculation.” Id. at 906 (citing Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984)). For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Dominguez
waived any appellate claim based on the district court’s conditional ruling regarding
the Rule 404(b) other acts evidence.
Having considered Dominguez’s double jeopardy and collateral estoppel
claims, we conclude they also lack merit. Dominguez was neither prosecuted for, nor
convicted of, the instant conspiracy and attempted robbery charges in the proceeding
in which he pled guilty to conspiring to burglarize pharmacies before Judge Carter.
Even if Judge Carter considered the conspiracy and attempt in sentencing
Dominguez for the pharmacy burglaries, that consideration does not implicate double
jeopardy concerns. See Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 398 (1995) (“[W]e
specifically have rejected the claim that double jeopardy principles bar a later
3
prosecution or punishment for criminal activity where that activity has been
considered at sentencing for a separate crime.” (citing Williams v. Oklahoma, 358
U.S. 576 (1959))). Nor did the district court in the instant case try or punish
Dominguez on any charges but the conspiracy and attempted Hobbs Act robbery and
gun charges relating to the home invasion.
For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply:
(1) the issues in both proceedings must be identical, (2) the issue
in the prior proceeding must have been actually litigated and
actually decided, (3) there must have been a full and fair
opportunity for litigation in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue
previously litigated must have been necessary to support a valid
and final judgment on the merits.
Gelb v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1986). The burden is on the
defendant “to establish that the issue he seeks to foreclose from litigation in the
present prosecution was necessarily decided in his favor by the prior verdict.” United
States v. Citron, 853 F.2d 1055, 1058 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Cala,
521 F.2d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 1975)). Dominguez pled guilty in the pharmacy burglaries
case, and, as a result, the district court in that case never litigated any issues relating
to Dominguez’s participation in the instant and unrelated Hobbs Act conspiracy and
attempted robbery. It is necessarily the case, therefore, that Dominguez is unable to
establish that collateral estoppel should preclude his prosecution. See United States
v. Chestaro, 197 F.3d 600, 609 (2d Cir. 1999); Gelb, 798 F.2d at 44.
4
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court against Dominguez is
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
5