United States v. Leebert Ramcharan

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 1, 2009
No. 08-13211 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-20065-CR-PAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEEBERT RAMCHARAN,
Defendant-Appellant,
________________________
No. 08-13679
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-20065-CR-PAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EVERETT DONOVAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 1, 2009)
Before CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
I.
Appellants-Defendants Leebert Ramcharan (“Ramcharan”) and Everett
Donovan Williams (“Williams”), along with 12 other coconspirator defendants,
were indicted for conspiracy to import 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine into the United States,
beginning in or about 1998 and continuing until approximately January 30, 2004,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1)(B) & 963 (Count 1); conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine, beginning in or about February 1998
and continuing until January 30, 2004, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
*
Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
2
& 846(b)(1)(A)(ii) (Count 2); and knowingly and intentionally attempting to
import 5 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine into the United States, on or about August 9, 2003, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1)(B) & 963 (Count 3). The indictment also
contained a forfeiture count. Appellants-Defendants Ramcharan and Williams are
Jamaican nationals who were extradited from Jamaica to the United States in 2007.
The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss Count 3 of the
indictment as to Defendants Ramcharan and Williams.
Defendants Ramcharan and Williams proceeded to trial on Counts 1 and 2.
The government’s witnesses included three coconspirator defendants (Gabriel
Zuñiga, Cesar Augusto Mantilla Chavez, and Rafael Enrique Pereira), who had
earlier pled guilty, five unindicted coconspirators, and police officers from Jamaica
and the Bahamas. The government introduced evidence of wiretaps conducted by
the Colombian and Bahamian police, travel records, and seized drugs and money.
After a lengthy trial, Defendants Ramcharan and Williams were convicted of
Counts 1 and 2. The district court sentenced Defendant Ramcharan to 420 months’
imprisonment and five years’ supervised release, and imposed a $100,000 fine and
an assessment of $200. The district court sentenced Defendant Williams to 324
months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release, and imposed an
3
assessment of $200.
II.
Defendants Ramcharan and Williams present numerous issues for appellate
review as to their convictions. Ramcharan and Williams do not challenge their
sentences or the advisory guidelines calculation as to their sentences. The issues
presented for appellate review are:
Ramcharan and Williams
1. Whether the district court erred in denying the defense’s request for a
jury instruction on multiple conspiracies;
2. Whether the district court erred in giving a jury instruction on aiding
and abetting;
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence
of certain uncharged conduct;
4. Whether the district court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient
inquiry of the jury after the jury requested to be referred to by number
and not by name, even though each juror stated unequivocally to the
court that he or she either could keep an open mind or had not
prejudged the case;
5. Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of foreign
4
wiretaps obtained from the Colombian National Police and the Royal
Bahamian Police Force against Defendants Ramcharan and Williams,
who were nonresident aliens;
6. Whether the district court committed reversible error in refusing to
grant a mistrial where an incarcerated witness spontaneously testified
that he saw Ramcharan and Williams in the cell next to him while he
was being transported to the courthouse, and where the district court
gave an immediate curative instruction to disregard that testimony;
7. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting a
coconspirator’s testimony about the identity of voices, the meaning of
various coded words, and incidents discussed in certain recorded
telephone conversations;
8. Whether the district court committed reversible error in admitting
certain hearsay statements.
Williams
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant Williams’
conviction.
III.
After carefully reviewing the massive record in this case, reading the parties’
5
briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm Defendants Ramcharan’s
and Williams’ convictions on Counts 1 and 2.
AFFIRMED .
6