United States v. Azael Guarin Moreno

Case: 13-14558 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14558
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20111-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AZAEL GUARIN MORENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 21, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14558 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Azael Guarin Moreno appeals his convictions for (1) smuggling 153
emeralds into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545; and (2) making
false or fraudulent statements to the Department of Homeland Security regarding
the emeralds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). On appeal, Moreno argues
the district court’s supplemental instructions to the jury in response to a question
from the jurors (1) constructively amended the indictment because it allowed the
jury to convict him for intending to defraud Colombia or a private broker, rather
than the United States; (2) repudiated or impaired the effectiveness of his defense;
and (3) misled the jurors and prejudiced him. After review of the record and
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
The district court’s response to the jury’s question did not constructively
amend the indictment. See United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298, 1309 (11th
Cir. 2012) (“A constructive amendment to the indictment occurs where the jury
instructions so modify the elements of the offense charged that the defendant may
have been convicted on a ground not alleged by the grand jury’s indictment.”
(quotation omitted)). While deliberating, the jury sent a question to the district
court asking: “Clarity: #3 the defendant acted willfully with intent to defraud the
United States.” After consulting both parties, and over Moreno’s objections, the
district court responded:
Intent to defraud is defined on Page 13 of the instructions. Basically,
it means to . . . act with the intent to deceive or cheat.
2
Case: 13-14558 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 3 of 5
Willfully is defined on Page 17. To act willfully means to act with the
intent to do something unlawful. It requires proof that the defendant
knew his conduct was generally unlawful but does not require that a
defendant knew of the specific requirement he was violating.
In context, the district court’s response did not expand the grounds on which the
jury could convict Moreno. See United States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d 1234, 1264
(11th Cir. 2013) (“In evaluating whether the indictment was constructively
amended, we review the district court’s jury instructions in context to determine
whether an expansion of the indictment occurred either literally or in effect.”
(quotations and alteration omitted)). The district court specifically referred the
jury to the court’s written instructions, which explained that Moreno could be
found guilty of the smuggling charge only if it was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that he acted willfully with intent to defraud the United States. The court
also verbally instructed the jury consistent with the written instructions. By
repeating the definitions of “intent to defraud” and “willfully” in its supplemental
instructions, the district court in no way indicated Moreno could be convicted for
intending to defraud a party or entity other than the United States and no
constructive amendment occurred.
For the same reasons, the district court’s response to the jury’s question did
not repudiate or impair the effectiveness of Moreno’s defense, which was premised
on his contention that he hid the emeralds in the lining of his jacket and in his
3
Case: 13-14558 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 4 of 5
luggage to avoid paying the Colombian government and a private broker, not to
defraud the United States. In answering the jury’s question, the district court did
not alter or modify any elements of the charged offenses or its initial instructions
such that Moreno was prevented from addressing all of the elements in his
arguments to the jury. See United States v. Descent, 292 F.3d 703, 707 (11th Cir.
2002) (explaining that the district court impaired the effectiveness of the defense’s
arguments when it modified the amount the defendant could be required to forfeit
in response to a jury question, thereby preventing counsel from addressing the
entire amount during closing argument); see also United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d
1238, 1252-54 (11th Cir. 2009). Moreno specifically argued that he was not
charged with avoiding paying a broker’s fee or intending to defraud the Colombian
government, and that the jurors should find he was not guilty if his intent was to
avoid paying a broker or paying fees to Colombia. The district court’s
supplemental instructions reiterating the definitions of the requisite mental states
for the charged offenses did not undermine or repudiate those arguments.
The district court’s supplemental instructions also did not mislead the jury or
prejudice Moreno. Although Moreno argues that, as charged by the grand jury,
“willfully” means “to act with the intent to deceive or cheat the United States
government,” the Supreme Court has held that “in order to establish a willful
violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with
4
Case: 13-14558 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 5 of 5
knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.” Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184,
191-92 (1998) (quotations omitted). The district court’s supplemental instructions
accurately stated the law, see id.; see also 11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Crim) 20
(2010), and did not mislead or confuse the jury, particularly when viewed in light
of the entire jury charge, indictment, evidence, and argument of counsel, see
United States v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A challenged
supplemental jury instruction is reviewed as part of the entire jury charge, in light
of the indictment, evidence presented and argument of counsel to determine
whether the jury was misled and whether the jury understood the issues.”
(quotation omitted)).
Accordingly, Moreno’s convictions are AFFIRMED.
5