United States v. Segura

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 27, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO SEGURA;
WILLIAM ENNIS; AND
CHESTER ENNIS.
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(02-CR-1430)
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:*
Alberto Segura, William “Billy” Ennis (“William”), and his father, Chester Ennis (“Chester”)
were each charged in a nine count indictment related to their involvement in a narcotics trafficking
conspiracy. Following an eight day trial, they were each found guilty as to the respective counts
against them and were consequently sentenced to varying terms of incarceration. On appeal, they
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
aver several claims of error. We have considered the arguments presented in their briefing and during
oral argument. Because the record does not suggest that their convictions are infected by reversible
error, we hold, for the reasons set forth below, that the convictions must be affirmed.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 18, 2002, Chester Ennis, William “Billy” Ennis, and Alberto Segura were
indicted in a nine count superseding indictment. The indictment contained the following counts:
i.) Count One charged that between December 11, 2001 and August 29, 2002 Chester,
William and Segura conspired to possess with intent to distribute both marijuana and cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 et seq. and 846.
ii.) Count Two charged that on April 17, 2002, Chester, William, and Segura possessed with
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
iii.) Count Three charged that on March 30, 2002, Chester knowingly and intentionally
possessed with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
iv.) Count Four charged that on January 10, 2002, Chester knowingly and intentionally
possessed with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii).
v.) Count Five charged t hat on April 11, 2002, William knowingly used a communication
facility, specifically his cellular phone in an effort to conspire to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
vi.) Co unt Six charged that on April 11, 2002, Chester and Segura used a communication
facility, a telephone to facilitate their conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843
2
and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
vii.) Count Seven provides that on April 16, 2002 Segura knowingly and intentionally used
a communication facility, a cellular phone, to conspire to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
viii.) Count Eight charged that on July 23, 2002 Chester used a communication facility to,
a cellular telephone, to conspire to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 843 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
ix.) Count Nine charged that on August 29, 2002 Chester (along with his wife Sheila Ennis
who is not involved in this appeal), knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute
more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Following the trial, the jury found Chester, William, and Segura guilty as to each count
charged against them in the indictment.
Segura was found guilty on Counts One, Two, Six, and Seven. Segura was sentenced to 240
months on Count One; 240 months on Count Two; 96 months on Count Six; and 96 months on
Count Seven. The sentences in Counts Two, Six and Seven were to run concurrently with the 240
month sentence imposed as to Count One.
Chester was found guilty on Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Six, and Nine. The district court
sentenced Chester to a term of life as to Count One; life as to Count Two; life as to Count Three; life
as to Count Four; 96 months as to Count Six; and life as to Count Nine. The sentences in Counts
Two, Three, Four, Six and Nine were to run concurrently with the life sentence imposed on Count
One.
William was found guilty on Counts One, Two and Five. The district court sentenced William
3
to a term of life imprisonment as to Count One; life as to Count Two; and 96 months as to Count
Five with the sentences in Count Two and Five to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in
Count One.
II. ISSUES
The appellants each filed a timely appeal asserting various claims of error. Because many of
the individual claims of error overlap they will, where appropriate, be considered in conjunction with
one another. These errors are enumerated as follows:
1. Whether the Government presented sufficient evidence to establish that the individual
on its wiret aps was in fact Segura, and similarly, whether there was sufficient evidence to convict
Segura for knowingly and intentionally using a telephone to facilitate a conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine
2. Whether t here was sufficient evidence to convict Chester, William, and Segura for
conspiracy?
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict William and Segura of aiding and
abetting Chester in a conspiracy to possess cocaine?
4. Whether there was prejudicial variance between the Government’s indictment and the
evidence that was presented at trial which Segura, William and Chester suggest indicated that there
were multiple conspiracies?
5. Whether the district court erred by denying William’s motion for a new trial
subsequent to court personnel inadvertently destroyed a piece of evidence – a Gateway computer box
– which the Government had argued that William used while conspiring to transport narcotics?
III. DISCUSSION
4
The circumstances that precipitated this matter involve a confidential informant named Arthur
Portillo, who was an acquaintance of Chester Ennis. Portillo informed DEA Agent Karen Ceren that
Chester Ennis was selling large quantities of drugs. On December 11, 2001, Ceren began her
investigation in earnest. Portillo was instructed to gain Chester Ennis’ confidence, and thereafter,
Portillo was to coordinate arrangements with Chester for transporting significant quantity of
narcotics.
The first transaction between Portillo and Chester Ennis occurred on January 10, 2002,
wherein Ceren provided Portillo with $15,000 and affixed a recording device to Portillo’s person.
Portillo subsequently met with Chester Ennis that same evening and exchanged the money for one
kilogram of cocaine.
A second transaction, involved Chester Ennis, and several other individuals not implicated in
this appeal. On March 30, 2002 approximately 700 pounds of marijuana was delivered to Chester’s
residence in El Paso, Texas. It was believed that the marijuana was eventually destined to be sold in
Minneapolis, Minnesota or Columbus, Ohio.
The third transaction, around which the majority of Chester, William, and Segura’s claims
derive, involved a scheme to distribute more than 30 kilograms of cocaine from the home of Chester
, wherein Portillo, who also worked as the driver of a tractor-trailer, was to transport the cocaine
from the residence to Manhattan, New York.
A. Whether the evidence presented by the Government supported the jury’s
finding that an individual heard on the government’s tapes was in fact Segura?
Alberto Segura argues that his conviction was erroneous because the prosecution did not
sufficiently prove that the voice of the individual that was heard on the tape recorded conversations
5
was indeed the same “Alberto Segura” who was named as a defendant in this matter. Specifically,
Segura asserts that the recorded conversations from April 10, 2002 through April 17, 2002 have
never been conclusively determined to be his voice. Segura concedes that the Government provided
an explanation as to how it determined t hat the voice heard on the tapes was his, and, that one’s
identity may be proven through circumstantial evidence. However, he maintains that there was no
demonstration that the voice was in fact his own. Consequently, Segura argues that the jury
improperly concluded that the voice that was heard on the tapes was his. In addition, Segura
contends that even assuming arguendo that the voice that is heard on the tapes is his own, nothing
heard on those tapes actually suggests that he was complicit in the crimes enumerated in the
indictment.
The predicate to introducing evidence of a recorded conversation during the course of a
criminal trial first requires the Government to establish that the voices recorded accurately reproduce
statements of the individual in question; this means that it is incumbent upon the government to
establish that: (1) the recording device was operated by a competent individual; (2) the recording
equipment was in sufficient working condition; (3) the recording was bereft of any significant
alterat ions that would have compromised the principal contents of the recordings; and (4) the
speakers heard on the recordings could be identified. See United States v. Stone, 960 F.2d 426, 436
(5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1977)). The
aforementioned is not designed to be a talismanic recitation of factors that must be adhered to prior
to the introduction of tape recordings into evidence. Id. Instead while obviously the preferable course
is for the district court to comply with the factors outlined, we have never suggested that these
factors constitute a rigid or formulaic criteria. Id. Moreover, the propriety of the admission of such
6
evidence remains vested within the discretion of the district court. Id.
To be held criminally liable under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), the onus is on the Government to
establish that the accused has both knowingly and intentionally made use of a device, i.e., such as a
telephone, to facilitate the commission of a narcotics violation. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez-
Rodriguez, 966 F.2d 918, 921 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1032
(5th Cir. Unit B 1981)); United States v. Martinez, 950 F.2d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1991); accord United
States v. Dotson, 871 F.2d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 1989) (“In order to sustain a conviction under
section 843(b), the government must thus prove three formal elements: (1) a knowing or intentional;
(2) use of a communication facility; (3) to facilitate the commission of a drug offense.”). The use
of the term “facilitate” is intended to have the same import as the term is understood in general
parlance, where in the course of facilitating the narco tics offense, usage of the telephone made it
easier for the crime to occur. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 966 F.2d at 921. One’s liability pursuant to §
843(b) does not simply turn on whether the telephone was used in facilitating the possession or
distribution of one’s own narcotics transactions, the term facilitation would also encompass
facilitating the possession and distribution of narcotics held by another. Id. Moreover, as Segura’s
underlying crime is inchoate – conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine– the government
is not required to show that the crime was completed. See United States v. Rey, 641 F.2d 222, 224
n. 6 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981).
There is simply no doubt that if the taped conversations were in fact Segura’s voice, the
propriety of his conviction pursuant to §843(b) would be unquestioned. However, Segura generally
asserts that the Government did not make the requisite showing that his was the voice that was heard
on the tape recorded conversations presented to the jury. This argument is specious considering: (1)
7
the testimony of law enforcement officers who identified the voice heard on the tapes as belonging
to Segura, (2) voice exemplars that were played for jurors wherein he identifies himself as “Alberto
Segura” and that he was the owner of “Roof Masters,” (3) surveillance demonstrating that Segura
drove a truck emblazoned with the “Roof Masters” logo, and (4) several telephone conversations
between Segura (using a phone subscribed to his wife) and Chester Ennis related to drug trafficking.
During one taped conversation in particular, when Chester Ennis asks to speak to “Beto” --one of
Segura’s nicknames – Segura immediately picks up the telephone receiver and begins speaking with
Chester. This backdrop essentially underscores why Segura’s assertions are without merit.
Moreover, we believe that Gonzalez-Rodriguez, is instructive as to the question presented.
In that case, the defendant, who had been implicated in a narcotics trafficking conspiracy averred that
the Government could not prove that her voice was the same one heard on the certain audio tapes
sought to be admitted at her criminal trial. Additionally, even if the voice had proven to be hers, she
argued that the Government had not shown that statements she allegedly made went towards
establishing that she had facilitated a narcotics transaction. We iterated that the question of whether
the voice heard on the tape actually belonged to the defendant was one that was expressly reserved
for the jury to resolve as the fact-finder. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 966 F.2d at 922; see also United States
v. Cuesta, 597 F.2d 903, 915 (5th Cir. 1979). Several observations were made in support of our
conclusion. First, we observed that the jurors heard several conversations in which the defendant and
her co-defendants were engaged in discussing drug trafficking via the use of code language.
Gonzalez-Ramirez, 966 F.2d at 922. Second, we also noted that the jurors heard testimony from
a law enforcement officer who testified that the one of the voices heard on the tapes belonged to the
defendant. Id. The officer also “deciphered” the conversations for the jurors’ benefit, explaining drug
8
trafficking nomenclature. Id at 922-23. We then acknowledged that based on the foregoing, the jury
was within its rights to either accept or reject the officer’s testimony involving the defendant and to
ultimately conclude that it was she who was discussing narcotics trafficking. Id. at 923.
Similarly, in this case, the jury heard Segura make a number of statements while speaking on
the telephone, which, as will be discussed in greater detail below, incontrovertibly refer to “narcotics
activities.” Id. at 922. Most importantly, it was the jury who was vested with the authority to weigh
whether Segura’s co nversations ultimately suggested that he was attempting to facilitate a drug
transaction. Consequently, we defer to the jury if the evidence presented would support the
conclusion reached.
As it pertains to the issue of whether the voice heard on the tapes was Segura’s, it should be
noted that this question may permissibly be determined through indirect evidence. In United States
v. Royals, 777 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir.1985), the defendant, who had been convicted for his involvement
in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy, argued, just as Segura does, that the prosecution never
presented any witness who identified him in court, and similarly maintained that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that he was a member of the conspiracy. Id. at 1091. We held to the contrary
and noted that one’s “identity may be proved by inference and circumstantial evidence.” Id.
Thus to summarize, in our case the jury heard voice exemplars of Segura as well as numerous
tape recorded telephone conversations made between himself and the other appellants. Morever, law
enforcement officers testified at trial that the voice heard on the tapes was Segura’s. As such, we
believe that the jury could appropriately infer that the identity of the individual heard on the tape
recorded conversations, and the individual named Alberto Segura sitting at the defendants’ table
during the trial were one and the same. Acco rdingly, we reject his argument that there was
9
insufficient evidence to support the relevant counts of conviction.
B. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Chester, William, and Segura
with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute narcotics?
In determining whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a finding of guilt related
to the counts of the indictment, we accord a tremendous degree of deference in analyzing whether
the jury erred. See United States v. Redd, 355 F.3d 866, 872 (5th Cir. 2003). Consequently, our
standard of review does not require this court to assess the saliency of the jury’s determination, but
instead we are only required to evaluate whether the decision was reasonable given the evidence
presented. Id. In our considerat ion, the sufficiency of the evidence is evaluated in a light most
supportive of the verdict rendered by the jury. United States v. Hayes, 342 F.3d 385, 389 (5th Cir.
2003). This includes the presumption that all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations
rendered were ultimately correct; and similarly, calls upon this court to determine whether the
evidence presented to the jury could properly allow it to conclude that every element of the particular
crime has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
319 (1979); Redd, 355 F.3d at 872; United States v. Sanchez-Milam, 305 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.
2002).
The elements to support a conviction for drug conspiracy are well understood. The
Government must establish: (1) that there existed an agreement between the co-defendants to violate
an existing drug law; (2) the co-defendants were aware of the agreement; and (3) the co-defendants
voluntarily participated in the agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 721 (5th
Cir. 2003); United States v. Cortinas, 142 F.3d 242, 249 (5th Cir. 1998). As such, we must uphold
a conviction on a conspiracy count if a rational jury could conclude that the evidence presented
10
satisfies the foregoing elements. This does not mean that these elements must be directly proven, as
a defendant may be found to be both cognizant of the conspiracy and to have participated in its
furtherance simply based on a collocation of circumstances. See Hayes, 342 F.3d at 390 (citation
omitted). That understood however, simply associating with conspirators is not sufficient to support
a conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 146 (5th Cir. 1999). But,
association with the conspiracy’s members, along with “other circumstantial evidence” may implicate
an individual in the conspiracy. See Turner, 319 F.3d at 721.
The jury heard a succession of recorded telephone conversations between the three
defendants. During these admittedly truncated conversations, the jury heard the parties discussing
the logistics of consummating a transaction that would have had Portillo transport approximately 30
kilograms of cocaine from Chester Ennis’ residence in El Paso, Texas to Manhattan. On April 10,
2002, Portillo had a series of conversations with Chester Ennis – some of which also involved William
Ennis. During these discussions, Portillo tells Chester that he will be able to leave the following
evening --April 11th -- and Portillo, eventually agreed that the date was amenable. William Ennis
could be heard in the background when the conversation between Chester and Portillo was taking
place.
During the course of the next day, Chester, William, Segura, and Portillo each had
conversations amongst one another in an effort to insure that the transaction proceed as planned.
For example, Chester and Portillo had a one minute conversation in which Portillo expressed concern
about being caught. Portillo told Chester to “[M]ake sure and count everything, I don’t want to be
responsible . . . [s]eal it up for me” In response, Chester Ennis, appearing to grasp Portillo’s concerns
responds by stating “yes sir.” In a later conversation that same day Portillo tells Chester that “I need
11
to pick up that load,” to which Chester responds “Okay.” Minutes later Chester calls William
informing his son that “Everybody’s ready so . . . what do you want to do?” to which William
responds “Um, you tell me I’ve been waiting on you?” During the same conversation Chester asks
William if he has made contact with “the short one” -- which was a reference to Segura. William
states that he had. Thereafter, Chester asks William, what if anything he knows about a “payment”
that was to made. Before William can fully respond, Chester states that he will have to make a call.
Minutes later Chester calls Segura, asking, “What did you find our [sic] about the payment?” Segura
responds to this inquiry by stating “Ah, I’ll call him right now. I’ve been trying to get a hold of him,
I’ll call him right now. Ah Billy was [sic] gonna be there with you right now.” Additionally, during
a telephone conversation later that evening, Segura is heard in the background instructing Chester
to tell Portillo that he (Portillo) would receive further instructions once he reached Interstate 87 just
outside of Manhattan.
Segura, William and Chester’s conversations clearly demonstrates that they were attempting
to facilitate the drug transaction, but that the logistics associated with completing it needed to be
coordinated – principally related to loading Portillo’s vehicle with the drugs as well as insuring that
Portillo was paid. In several telephone conversations from April 16th, 2002, upon Portillo’s “arrival”
in Manhattan, Chester and Segura attempted to provide Portillo with the pager number of Segura’s
“contact” in Manhattan whom Portillo was supposed to meet. Thus, it was plainly evident that the
parties had reached an agreement. Similarly, once Portillo returned to El Paso, he received the final
installment of his payment from Segura.
There was also more than sufficient evidence beyond William’s telephone conversations,
which implicated him in the conspiracy. For example, on April 11, 2002, surveillance showed a male
12
removing a large “white” box from William’s jeep, enter into the home of Chester Ennis. Two males
then left Chester’s home, one carrying the box. An hour or so later, the drugs were loaded in the
tractor-trailer. This same box contained the cocaine that was placed in Portillo’s tractor-trailer. The
significance of the computer box, and its further nexus to William was that a few months earlier he
had purchased a computer which had the identical serial number as the box that was used to transport
the cocaine. Cf. generally United States v. Hernandez-Bautista, 293 F.3d 845, 853 (5th Cir. 2002)
(observing that law enforcement’s inability to draw a nexus between the defendant’s truck, drugs
allegedly stored in the truck, and his co-defendants, was a factor in affirming district court’s order
granting acquittal on possession with intent to distribute charge).
We also reject the contention that the conduct of the parties was insufficient to rise to the
level of affirmative conduct necessary to support a conspiracy conviction. We have previously
articulated what might be described as the outer contours of when an individual may be found to be
part of a conspiracy in United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.1997). In Torres, four
defendants were convicted in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. One of the defendants, named
Beltran, argued that the government had not produced sufficient evidence to support his conviction
for belonging to the conspiracy. We conceded that the evidence against Beltran was somewhat scant,
observing that “the prosecution presented evidence which must be deemed as just barely sufficient,
from which the jury reasonably could have inferred that Beltran was guilty.” Id. at 523 (emphasis
added). However, we found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and from
which a jury could have reasonably found that Beltran was a conspirator given that: (1) he had
attended one meeting with the conspirators in which he did not speak; (2) was present during a
second meeting during which he simply nodded his head in assent when discussions of drug
13
trafficking were taking place amongst the other conspirators, and (3) because he told an undercover
officer that it was unnecessary to pay him for drugs because he was working in concert with the other
conspirators. Id.
The evidence in this case far exceeds that which was held to be sufficient in Torres. Chester
Ennis coordinated the conspiracy. Strong evidence was presented which suggested that he loaded
the drugs onto Portillo’s truck with the assistance of William. Chester had several discussions with
both Alberto and William related to coordinating all aspects the conspiracy. He asked his son
whether he was aware if Segura had made a payment. There was evidence presented that the cocaine
was transported in a box that was delivered to Chester’s home from a male who was riding in a jeep
belonging William, and using a computer box that had belonged to William. Finally, the jury was
presented with evidence that Segura actually made the remaining payment to Portillo.
Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to ul timately
conclude that the three defendant’s were deeply involved in a drug conspiracy, particularly stemming
from their interactions in and around the days following the April 11, 2002 drug transfer.
Consequently, we hold that a rational jury could have found that the necessary elements for
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute were present. In accordance, we conclude that no error
has occurred and the jury’s determinations as to the conspiracy count against all of the defendants
are affirmed.
C. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Alberto Segura and William
Ennis for aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine?
In order to establish that a defendant has aided and abetted a conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute narcotics, the Government is required to show that: (1) the underlying criminal offense
14
actually transpired and the defendant associated with the undertaking; (2) the defendant willfully
participated in the undertaking; and (3) the defendant intended for the undertaking to succeed. See
United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 596 (5th Cir. 2001). The term “associated” means that the
defendants “shared in the criminal intent of the principal,” while the term “willful participant” means
that the defendants “engaged in affirmative conduct designed to aid the venture.” United States v.
Pedroza, 78 F.3d 179, 183 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
“‘The evidence supporting a conspiracy conviction typically supports an aiding and abetting
conviction.’” United States v. Tenorio, 360 F.3d 491, 495 (quoting United States v. Montgomery,
210 F.3d 446, 450 (5th Cir. 2000)). Consequently, the evidence that we held to be supportive of the
parties’ conspiracy convictions, is therefore clearly germane to the question of whether Segura and
William’s conduct satisfies the elements of an aiding and abetting conviction. We believe that it is
fairly obvious that Segura and William shared a mutual criminal intent with Chester. Similarly, the
evidence presented also supports that William and Segura were willful participants in this highly
coordinated drug trafficking conspiracy, “[g]iven that ‘[c]oncert of action may indicate . . . voluntary
participation’ in a drug conspiracy.” United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 723 (5th Cir. 2003)
(quoting United States v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 858, 866 (5th Cir. 1995)). Finally, the degree
to which Chester, William, and Segura sought to avoid detection clearly suggests that they intended
for the conspiracy to succeed.
Many factors further support affirming the jury’s conviction. Segura, paid Portillo the
remaining amount of money that he was owed for transporting the 30 kilograms of cocaine. More
than sufficient evidence was also presented to suggest to a reasonable jury that William Ennis also
directly aided and abetted the conspiracy. He had discussions with Chester regarding making
15
payments to Portillo and highly incriminating circumstantial evidence was presented to suggest that
William provided the means for transporting the cocaine to Manhattan. It is also evident that the
parties were desirous of the conspiracy’s success given the truncated nature of the phone calls (most
likely to avoid prolonged exposure to wiretapping), the coded references to the drugs in these
conversations, and the succession of phone calls between Chester, William, and Segura regarding
the progress of the conspiracy. As such, we believe that their actions are all earmarks of the desire
to insure the conspiracy’s success, since members of a drug conspiracy must often act in secrecy and
with great synchronization in order to achieve their desired ends. See generally, e.g., United States
v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1470 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Sutherland, 463 F.2d 641, 646 (5th
Cir. 1972). Therefore, we conclude that the counts of the indictment related to whether William and
Segura aided and abetted the conspiracy must be affirmed.
D. Whether there was a prejudicial variance between the indictment which stated
that Alberto Segura, Chester Ennis, and William Ennis, were involved in a
single conspiracy, and the evidence that was presented at trial which they
believe suggested that the parties were involved in multiple conspiracies?
The defendants aver that they were prejudiced by the Government’s presentation of its case
-in-chief primarily because there was a material variance between the evidence that was presented at
trial and the indictment itself. We proceed with the understanding that a determination as to whether
there was “material variance” between the indictment and the proof offered at trial is reviewed for
harmless error. See United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1991). The defendants
contend that the Government’s case suggested that they were involved in multiple conspiracies. In
our assessment of whether the evidence presented established more than one conspiracy, we look to:
“(1) whether there was a common goal, (2) the nature of the scheme, and (3) the overlap among the
16
participants in the various dealings.” Id. at 831. Our reference to a “common goal” is intended to be
read expansively, such that, for example, a generalized conspiracy to distribute narcotics could satisfy
this criteria. See United States v. Therm-All, Inc., 373 F.3d 625, 637 (5th Cir. 2004). Similarly, the
“nature of the scheme” refers to whether the parties’ “agreement contemplates bringing to pass a
continuous result that will not continue without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators to
keep it up, [if so,] then such agreement constitutes a single conspiracy.’” Id. (quoting United States
v. Morris, 43 F.3d 410, 415-16 (5th Cir. 1995)). The “overlap” prong is intended to encompass
those situations where a “ringleader” may control a matrix of narcotics activities involving several
associates, who themselves may never interact with any other members of the conspiracy but the
central figure. Id. Consequently associates in a much broader conspiracy who have never met,
could properly be held to be members of the same conspiracy. See Sigers v. United States, 321 F.2d
843, 846 (5th Cir. 1963).
The defendants believe that due to the Government’s conduct, they were prejudiced to such
a degree that they are entitled to a new trial. We disagree. We have observed that where a defendant
maintains that there was significant variance between the indictment and the proof offered at trial,
such variance does not warrant reversal unless it is shown that the accused’s substantial rights were
affected to some appreciable degree. See United States v. Cyprian, 197 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir.
1999) (citing United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1128 (5th Cir. 1997)). The rationale
undergirding our concern against countenancing a material variance between the indictment and the
proof offered at trial derives from our apprehension that the accused might be prejudiced in preparing
his defense. See United States v. Hernandez, 962 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1992). Additionally, we
also believe that the accused should not be exposed to the troubling specter that even if he
17
successfully defends himself against the specific charges contained in the conspiracy indictment, the
jury will nevertheless transfer guilt onto him simply because he at some time interacted with other
members of the conspiracy. Id. The determination of whether the prosecution presented proof of
a single, or conversely, multiple conspiracies turns on analyzing such factors as: “‘(1) the time period
involved; (2) the persons acting as co-conspirators; (3) the statutory offenses charged in the
indictment; (4) the nature and the scope of the criminal activity; and (5) the places where the events
alleged as the conspiracy took place.’” Lokey, 945 F.2d at 833 (quoting United States v. Devine,
934 F.2d 1325, 1333 (5th Cir. 1991)). It is of course permissible for the jury to “draw reasonable
inferences from the evidence presented at trial.” Id. at 831.
Our analysis of these factors suggests that it was clearly reasonable to conclude that the
defendants were members of a single conspiracy to distribute narcotics. It is not necessary for every
member of the conspiracy to be intimately involved with all of the particulars of the conspiracy,
because, as we have observed, when a defendant works in concert with those who may properly be
described as “core conspirators” to effectuate the central objectives of the conspiracy, that person
may be characterized as belonging to the conspiracy. See id. at 833. In this instance, the central
purpose of the conspiracy was to further distribute narcotics.
It was no great leap for the jury to conclude that Segura and William were deeply involved
with Chester Ennis in the distribution of narcotics, and the record certainly supports such findings.
We have referenced the degree to which the parties coordinated their activities in the period from
April 11 through April 17, 2002. The record does not support the suggestion that there was any
material variance between the indictment and the case presented against the respective defendants.
And assuming arguendo that there was such variance, there has been no argument made that any of
18
the defendant’s substantial rights were contravened to such an extent warranting reversal. The jury
heard the tape recorded conversations, principally outlining the nature of the conspiracy. Chester and
Segura discussed coordination of a payment that Portillo was to receive. At varying times Segura
mentioned the need to get in contact with William in order to secure his assistance with the plot.
Moreover, a man was seen leaving William’s jeep from the driver’s side, carrying a large computer
box, which, from aerial surveillance appeared to be white. The box that was removed from the jeep
was later used in the transport of approximately 30 kilograms of powder cocaine. The principal harm
that we seek to avoid in our material variance analysis is the failure to apprise the defendant of the
charges against him and moreover to insure that the case presented by the prosecution is identical to
the charges referenced in the indictment. See Lokey, 945 F.2d at 834. Because Chester, William,
and Segura were cognizant of the charges against them prior to trial, the trial itself did not offer any
surprises in that regard. Clearly then their respect ive convictions were not premised on facts that
could be construed as dissimilar from those articulated in the indictment itself. Id. Therefore, we do
not find that there was a material variance warranting a reversal.
Moreover, the defendants, particularly William Ennis, take issue with the instructions that the
jury received related to whether or not the evidence presented suggested one conspiracy or multiple
conspiracies. When objections are raised related to jury instructions during the course of the trial,
they are reviewed by this court for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168,
183 (5th Cir. 2002), whereas when no objections are raised, challenges to jury instructions are
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Partida, 385 F.3d 546, 559 (5th Cir. 2004). An abuse of
discretion is defined as occurring when an error “materially prejudice[s] [the] defendant.” United
States v. Miller, 513 F.2d 791, 793 (5th Cir. 1975). “Plain error is defined as (1) an error; (2) that
19
is clear or plain; (3) that affects the defendants’ substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the
fairness , integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.” United States v. Vasquez, 216
F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2000). Under either standard of review, we find that the instructions as
presented to the jury were neither materially prejudicial, nor compromised the basic integrity of the
proceeding, given the overwhelming facts presented in this case. Accordingly, we find the
contentions related to the instructions received by the jury to be without merit.
E. Whether the district court erred by denying William Ennis’ motion for a
mistrial following the inadvertent destruction of the Gateway computer box?
William contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial because
courthouse cleaning personnel inadvertently destroyed the Gateway computer box that was used to
carry the 30 kilograms of cocaine from Chester’s El Paso residence to Manhattan. A determination
regarding whether the denial of a motion for a mist rial was in error, is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Coveney, 995 F.2d 578, 584 (5th Cir. 1993). A defendant’s due
process rights are implicated in an instance when evidence becomes lost prior to trial, if the defendant
establishes: (1) the government acted in bad faith; (2) the evidence is material in the sense that its
exculpatory character was self-evident prior to being lost; and (3) as a consequence of the missing
evidence the defendant is unable to prove his innocence. See United States v. Thompson, 130 F.3d
676, 686 (5th Cir. 1997); see also California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984) (discussing
when lost evidence should be construed as material to the defense).
We are not dealing with a situation wherein the government should be held liable for the
missing evidence, or be found to have acted in bad faith. Instead, we confront an issue of apparent
first impression, regarding the degree to which a defendant’s due process rights are infringed when
20
evidence that was presented during the course of trial, but was lost while the jury was engaged in its
deliberations, warrants a new trial.
Following the first day of the jury’s deliberations, it was brought to the court’s attention that
some of the boxes that the Government argued were used by the defendants to transport marijuana
and cocaine -- including the Gateway computer box -- were lost. The judge informed the jurors that
the boxes were missing and that once more information became available he would inform the jurors.
After further deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge informing him that they had reached
verdicts as to two of the defendants -- Chester and Segura-- but that they had reached an impasse
regarding two counts against William, and that they needed direction as to how they were to proceed.
Moreover, the jury asked the judge if they could view the boxes during their remaining deliberations.
The judge explained to the jury what had occurred with the boxes, and instructed the jury “to recall
all testimony relative to those exhibits and [to] assign such weight and value to that testimony as you
deem appropriate.” This instruction was memorialized, and signed by the judge, the government, and
counsel for all three defendants. Shortly, after receiving the instruction, the jury found William guilty
of all the counts against him.
We believe that it is relevant that the jury had the Gateway box before it throughout the entire
trial and had it in the jury room during the first day of its deliberations. There has been no
demonstration that if the jury had the Gateway box throughout its entire deliberations that this would
have proven beneficial to William. See generally United States v. Villalon, 605 F.2d 937, 938 (5th
Cir. 1979) (observing that evidence that is not beneficial to the defense does not necessarily have to
be preserved). Our review of the record indicates that rather than being exculpatory, it would have
tended to inculpate William. Again, recall that the jury heard testimony of how he purchased a
21
computer some months earlier. The box that the computer was contained in was the same box that
the cocaine was transported in. William’s jeep pulled into Chester’s residence shortly before 6:00
p.m. on April 11, 2002. A male exited William’s jeep carrying what appeared from aerial
surveillance’s perspective to be a white-looking box. William’s counsel makes much of the fact that
the Gateway box’s exterior was actually white and black, similar to a Holstein cow. However, it
should also be recalled that the box was being surveilled from some distance, so the lack of exactitude
regarding the box’s exterior is far from fatal. More than an hour later, the box was then loaded onto
Portillo’s tractor-trailer. Thus, we do not see how the absence of the Gateway box implicated
William’s due process rights, and if anything, had the box been present throughout the entire
deliberations this would have proven to detrimental to his defense. Accordingly, we hold that the
district court did not err by denying the motion for a mistrial.
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to find the defendants guilty
as to all the counts charged in the indictment. Accordingly, each conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
22