United States v. Canales ( 1999 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-40503
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL EDUARDO PEINADO-CANALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(97-CR-390-4)
_________________________________________________________________
September 13, 1999
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Primarily at issue in Daniel Eduardo Peinado-Canales’ appeal
from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy and possession with
intent to distribute cocaine is whether the district court’s
unobjected-to questioning of Peinado and Government witnesses
deprived Peinado of a fair trial. We AFFIRM.
I.
A jury found Peinado guilty of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court denied Peinado’s motion for
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
new trial and sentenced him to concurrent 188-month terms of
imprisonment.
II.
Peinado contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions; that the district court’s questioning of him and
other witnesses deprived him of a fair trial; that he is entitled
to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and that his
Sentencing Guidelines offense level should have been reduced, based
on his role in the offense.
A.
In reviewing a properly-preserved sufficiency challenge, we
must determine whether “any reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt”. United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir.
1992) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 943 (1993).
The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict. E.g., United States v. Resio-
Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995). “All credibility
determinations and reasonable inferences are to be resolved in
favor of the verdict.” Id. at 911. The evidence need not “exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent
with every conclusion except that of guilt”. Id. In short, we
determine only whether the jury made a rational decision, not
whether the jury’s verdict was correct on the issue of guilt or
innocence. E.g., United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1134 (1995).
- 2 -
To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the Government
must prove: “1) the existence of an agreement between two or more
persons to violate federal narcotics laws; 2) the defendant’s
knowledge of the agreement; and 3) the defendant’s voluntary
participation in the agreement”. United States v. Gonzalez, 79
F.3d 413, 423 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 869 (1996). To
establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the Government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly
possessed a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it.
Id.“When evidence is sufficient to establish the defendant’s
participation in a conspiracy to possess narcotics, the defendant
will be deemed to possess the drugs through the co-conspirator’s
possession.” Id. Possession may be actual or constructive.
United States v. Ayala, 887 F.2d 62, 68 (5th Cir. 1989).
Constructive possession is “the knowing exercise of, or the knowing
power or right to exercise, dominion and control over the
proscribed substance”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “One who ... exercises control over a motor vehicle in
which contraband is concealed may be deemed to possess the
contraband.” United States v. Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d 1346,
1349 (5th Cir. 1988).
There was ample evidence to establish Peinado’s knowing
possession of cocaine and participation in a cocaine-distribution
conspiracy. The Government’s witnesses included two co-defendants
who had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, as well as DEA
- 3 -
Agents who were involved in conducting surveillance and an
undercover police officer to whom the cocaine was delivered.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was
evidence that Peinado served as a “contact” between the cocaine
supplier and the purported purchaser, and was to have received
$20,000 from the supplier for his services; that he attended a
meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, at which the sale of 100 kilograms
of cocaine was discussed; that he came to McAllen, Texas, on 10
October 1997, to arrange for the delivery of the cocaine; and that,
after a car containing the cocaine arrived in McAllen, he
accompanied the undercover officer (posing as the purchaser) to the
parking lot where the car was parked and gave the car keys to the
officer, and then observed the officer open the trunk of the car,
which contained burlap sacks containing “bricks” of cocaine.
In addition, Peinado’s arrival at the McAllen motel where some
of the co-conspirators were staying and the parking lot transaction
were videotaped by a DEA Agent conducting surveillance; the
videotape was admitted into evidence. The Government also
introduced into evidence audio tapes of telephone conversations
between the co-conspirators, including Peinado, and the undercover
officer.
B.
Peinado contends that the district court impermissibly
questioned him and Government witnesses. But, as he concedes,
because he did not object at trial, we review only for plain error.
See United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996).
- 4 -
“Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), this court may correct forfeited errors
only when the appellant shows (1) there is an error, (2) that is
clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. If
these factors are established, the decision to correct the
forfeited error is within the sound discretion of the court, and
the court will not exercise that discretion unless the error
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” United States v. Waldron, 118 F.3d 369, 371
(5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
“[A] federal judge is not a mere moderator of proceedings”.
Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 1979). He “may
comment on the evidence, may question witnesses and elicit facts
not yet adduced or clarify those previously presented, and may
maintain the pace of the trial by interrupting or cutting off
counsel as a matter of discretion”. Id. (citations omitted); see
also FED. R. EVID. 614(b) (“The court may interrogate witnesses,
whether called by itself or by a party.”).
Nevertheless, “[b]ecause it is the government’s
responsibility—not the district court’s function—to prove all
elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court
must maintain an appearance of impartiality and detachment”.
United States v. Filani, 74 F.3d 378, 385 (2d Cir. 1996). Our
court has cautioned against extensive questioning of a defendant by
a district court because, “[w]hen a defendant takes the stand in
his own behalf, any unnecessary comments by the court are too
likely to have a detrimental effect on the jury’s ability to decide
- 5 -
the case impartially”. United States v. Middlebrooks, 618 F.2d
273, 277, modified on reh’g on other grounds, 624 F.2d 36 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 (1980). “This is particularly
true during a defendant’s direct examination, when his credibility
is being established.” United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, 709
(5th Cir. 1998).
It is “[o]nly when the judge’s conduct strays from neutrality
[that] the defendant [is] denied a constitutionally fair trial”.
United States v. Carpenter, 776 F.2d 1291, 1294 (5th Cir. 1985)
(district judge’s comment that he “had yet to hear a defense” not
reversible error). “In determining whether the trial judge
overstepped the limits imposed on the judge’s conduct, [we] must
view the proceedings as a whole”, id., “considering factors such as
the context of the remark, the person to whom it is directed, and
the presence of curative instructions”. United States v. Lance,
853 F.2d 1177, 1182 (5th Cir. 1988). To rise to the level of
error, “the district judge’s actions, viewed as a whole, must
amount to an intervention that could have led the jury to a
predisposition of guilt by improperly confusing the functions of
judge and prosecutor”. United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342, 1360
(5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 825, 1022 (1996).
1.
When asked on direct examination about the purpose of his trip
to McAllen, Peinado responded that it was to take delivery of a
used pickup truck he was purchasing from “Aron” (one of the alleged
- 6 -
co-conspirators). The following colloquy between Peinado and the
district court ensued:
THE COURT: Sir, we heard a lot of tapes
in your presence and people identified that
voice as being yours. Was it your voice?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: So you’re not on that tape at
all?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Well, you’re going to be
asked these things, you understand? We saw a
videotape, and in the videotape, it appears
that you’re present, including the time when
the keys are delivered to somebody and the
trunk is opened. It appears.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is that you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you hand the keys to that
person?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you were present?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Why did you hand the keys to
that person? What was your intention?
THE WITNESS: I talked to the person who
was going to take the pickup truck to me,
which was Mr. Renato, and he told me to go to
the Whataburger restaurant, for us to meet
there. And so that when we were there, he
told me that the pickup truck was going to be
about a half hour in coming. So then he told
me that he was going to leave me the key to a
vehicle so that the person who would -- who
would arrive in the pickup truck, that he
could go back in that vehicle.
- 7 -
THE COURT: How do you explain that the
trunk was opened in your presence, if that
vehicle was only there so that somebody could
return once they delivered the pickup truck to
you?
THE WITNESS: When that person arrived,
the one we see in the video, I asked him where
the pickup truck was. And he said to me that
the pickup truck was at his hotel.
THE COURT: That’s what the man who just
testified told you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That turned out to be a law
enforcement officer?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct, sir.
THE COURT: By the way, have you seen the
pickup?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: And they were going to
deliver it to you and you were going to take
it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Had you paid for it?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Aron and I had agreed.
THE COURT: How could you agree on
something if you hadn’t seen it?
THE WITNESS: That’s why I came over
here, to see it and see if I liked it. If I
liked it, I was going to take it.
THE COURT: All right. You’re going to
be asked these questions. You understand
that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And is that your explanation
as to why you were there?
- 8 -
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is it your testimony that you
didn’t know anything about what was in that
trunk?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is it your testimony that
everybody is coming here and saying that they
started this whole transaction with you in
Guadalajara, and you came over here with them
and you were in different hotels, that all of
that is not true?
THE WITNESS: No, that we saw each other
in Guadalajara and I came over to the hotel, I
did come over.
THE COURT: No, they said that you
actually got involved in this matter for the
sale and purchase of this big amount of
cocaine in Guadalajara. They said that you
were the point man.
THE WITNESS: That’s not the way it is,
sir.
THE COURT: That’s what I’m asking you.
THE WITNESS: No, what happened is, they
always talked about a cigar business. I never
did know what they were doing.
THE COURT: A cigar business in the
United States?
THE WITNESS: No, in Reynosa.
THE COURT: Okay.
After this questioning, counsel concluded the direct examination by
asking Peinado about his contacts with the co-conspirators who had
testified against him. The court then asked two more questions:
THE COURT: Is it your testimony that you
knew nothing whatsoever about what turned out
to be cocaine in that vehicle?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
- 9 -
THE COURT: Is it your testimony further
that you had nothing whatsoever to do with any
transaction involving the cocaine in question?
THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
In support of his new trial contention, Peinado relies on
Saenz, 134 F.3d 697, which involved the same district judge, and in
which our court found plain error and reversed Saenz’s conviction
because of the judge’s overinvolvement in questioning witnesses,
including the defendant. In so doing, our court relied on the
following factors: (1) the questioning had the effect of
expressing the judge’s disbelief in the defendant’s explanation of
events, id. at 710-13; (2) the questioning of Saenz was
particularly damaging because the case turned on a credibility
choice between Saenz and one government witness (an alleged co-
conspirator), regarding Saenz’s involvement in the alleged
narcotics conspiracy, id. at 712-13; (3) the questions did not
address collateral matters, but instead went to the heart of the
case, id.; and (4) the jury instructions that the court had no
opinion about the case were not curative in the light of the
prejudicial impact the questioning may have had on Saenz’s defense.
Id. at 713. Our court also noted that, because “the trial was
short and the disputed issues were neither confusing nor complex”,
there was less “need for the court frequently or actively to
question witnesses” than in “a complex or lengthy case with
multiple witnesses”. Id. at 703, 704.
The Government counters that Saenz is limited by its unique
circumstances, relying on United States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198 (5th
- 10 -
Cir. 1999), another case involving the same district judge. Cantu
contended that his conviction should be reversed because the
judge’s questioning of the Government’s witnesses “was pervasive,
often leading, and designed to rehabilitate the credibility of
government witnesses or undermine counsel for Defendant’s
questioning on cross-examination”. Id. at 203 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Our court disagreed, stating that Cantu was
distinguishable from Saenz in three important respects: (1) rather
than resting on the testimony of a single witness, as in Saenz, the
case against Cantu featured numerous substantive witnesses,
including both co-conspirators and law enforcement officers; (2)
unlike Saenz, Cantu did not testify in his own defense, so the
district court did not have the opportunity to question him; and
(3) the judge’s questioning of witnesses in Cantu was not as
extensive as in Saenz, where the court’s questioning of the
defendant constituted almost one quarter of the direct examination.
Id. at 203 & n.22. Our court concluded: “[A]lthough the district
court’s questioning in the present case may bear some similarity to
that in Saenz, the unique combination of factors that led to a
reversal in Saenz is absent here”. Id. at 203.
Two of the factors relied on by our court to distinguish Cantu
from Saenz are not present here. As in Saenz, and unlike in Cantu,
Peinado testified and asserted a lack of knowledge of the
conspiracy. Before Peinado’s counsel was able to elicit his
defense, however, the district judge took over the examination, and
his questioning constituted approximately one third of the direct
- 11 -
examination; thus, the judge’s involvement was even more extensive
than in Saenz. And, as in Saenz, Peinado’s trial lasted only two
days, the disputed issue (whether Peinado knowingly was involved in
the conspiracy) was neither confusing nor complex, and the record
does not reflect that counsel were unprepared or wasting time. See
Saenz, 134 F.3d at 704, 713. Thus, there was little need for the
court’s extensive involvement in questioning Peinado.
The other factor mentioned in Cantu, however, also serves to
distinguish this case from Saenz. As in Cantu, and unlike in
Saenz, the Government presented the testimony of several co-
conspirators concerning Peinado’s involvement in the conspiracy,
the testimony of law enforcement officers who surveilled the scene
of the drug transaction, and physical evidence (audio and video
tapes) of Peinado’s presence at the scene of the transaction.
It is well to remember that we are reviewing only for plain
error. Arguably, there was error. But, viewing the proceedings as
a whole, and considering the overwhelming evidence of Peinado’s
guilt, including audio and video tapes of his involvement in the
drug transaction, the fact that the trial as a whole was conducted
in an impartial manner, and the court’s jury instructions that it
had no opinion about the case,2 we are convinced that the district
2
In its preliminary instructions to the jury before the
Government called its first witness, the court stated:
“[A]lthough we are in Federal Court and
Federal Judges can express their opinion, I
don’t have an opinion about the case. And I
hope to remember to tell you this at the
conclusion of the case. In Federal Court, I
can ask questions. Don’t give it any more or
- 12 -
judge’s error (questioning of Peinado), if any, did not “amount to
an intervention that could have led the jury to a predisposition of
guilt by improperly confusing the functions of judge and
prosecutor”. See Flores, 63 F.3d at 1360. Accordingly, under our
plain error standard, the error, if any, was not so substantial or
prejudicial as to require reversal. See Carpenter, 776 F.2d at
1296. In any event, under the final prong of our plain error
review (not necessary to reach here), our refusal to correct the
forfeited error would not affect the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.3
less importance than if anybody else asks it.
You see, I don’t want to invade what is your
province. So if I lead you to believe that I
have an opinion about the case, you disregard
it. I do not have an opinion about the case.
And if I remember, I’m going to tell you that
at the conclusion of the case. If I do
anything to lead you to believe that I do,
please disregard it.
In the jury charge, the court stated:
Remember I told you when we started this
case that ... I did not have an opinion about
the case. I still don’t. So if I did
anything that led you to believe that I have
an opinion about the case, you disregard it.
Remember, that’s your thing, and I don’t want
to get involved with your thing.
We recognize, of course, that some questioning of witnesses or
the defendant by a district judge may be “so prejudicial that even
the strongest instructions to the jury to disregard” it is
inadequate. See Carpenter, 776 F.2d at 1295-96. But, viewing the
proceedings as a whole, we conclude that such is not the situation
here.
3
The court’s questioning of Peinado, although not reversible
plain error, was very closely akin to cross-examination; and it is
quite possible that some of the questions could have been construed
by the jury as indicating the judge’s disbelief of Peinado’s
- 13 -
2.
Peinado also challenges, again for the first time on appeal,
the propriety of the district court’s questioning of several of the
Government’s witnesses. For example, he complains of the questions
to co-conspirators concerning Peinado’s identity, his presence with
the other co-conspirators at times during the conspiracy and what
he may have heard about the cocaine transaction, and each co-
conspirator’s prior involvement in drug trafficking. He also
challenges the questioning of law enforcement officers, including
questions about identifying the parties that were the subject of
the surveillance, verifying the times the recordings were made,
estimating the number of officers involved in the investigation,
and the average street value per kilogram of cocaine.
Although this questioning was quite extensive, none of the
questions complained of rise to the level of infringing on
Peinado’s right to a fair trial. Even assuming that the
questioning was improper, we conclude that it did not affect
Peinado’s substantial rights. Again, there was no plain error.
C.
Post-conviction, Peinado moved for a new trial, contending
that co-conspirator Arias’ attempt to withdraw his guilty plea
testimony. As in Saenz and Cantu (both rendered after trial of
this case, so the district judge did not have the benefit of their
analyses), such overinvolvement in the questioning of witnesses,
especially criminal defendants, provides fertile ground for appeals
and places convictions at risk of reversal.
No doubt, for the trial of the case at hand, the length and
type of questioning challenged on appeal would not have occurred
had the district judge had the benefit of Saenz and Cantu.
- 14 -
after testifying at Peinado’s trial constituted newly discovered
evidence. “[M]otions for new trial on the basis of newly
discovered evidence are disfavored ... and therefore are viewed
with great caution”. United States v. Ugalde, 861 F.2d 802, 808
(5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1097 (1989). Such motions
are generally “suited to cases in which the proffered evidence goes
directly to proof of guilt or innocence”. Id. at 807-08 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
We consider four factors in determining whether a new trial
should be granted: (1) whether the evidence was newly discovered
and was unknown to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) whether
the defendant exercised due diligence in discovering the evidence;
(3) whether the evidence is material, and not merely cumulative or
impeaching; and (4) whether the evidence is likely to produce an
acquittal. E.g., United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 180, 183 (5th
Cir. 1997).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a
new trial. At a hearing on Arias’ attorney’s motion to withdraw as
counsel, Arias informed the court that he wished to reinstate his
guilty plea. During the ensuing plea colloquy, Arias provided no
exculpatory evidence concerning Peinado’s role in the conspiracy
and, in fact, testified (consistent with his testimony at Peinado’s
trial) that Peinado helped make arrangements for the cocaine
delivery.
D.
- 15 -
Finally, Peinado bases error on the denial of a reduction in
his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines based on his
minimal participant role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a).
Peinado had the burden of proving this minimal role. See United
States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1160 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993). The
factual finding to the contrary is reviewed only for clear error,
see United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.
1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 923 (1990), and is entitled to “great
deference”. United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1340 (5th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 929, 1047, 1064, 1065, 1092, 1104
(1992).
A “minimal participant” is one who is “plainly among the least
culpable of those involved in the conduct of the group”. U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2, comment. (n.1). Because most offenses are committed by
participants of roughly equal culpability, it is intended that the
minimal-role adjustment “be used infrequently”. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,
comment. (n.2); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245
(5th Cir. 1989).
At sentencing, the court disagreed with Peinado’s minimal
participation objection, finding that “he can’t get any more points
or any less points either because of his conduct”. This finding is
not clearly erroneous.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Peinado’s convictions and sentence
are
AFFIRMED.
- 16 -