united states v. bobadilla-pagan, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Bobadilla-Pagan, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1447

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J OS LUI S BOBADI LLA- PAGN,a/ k/ a J os Lui s Bombadi l l a- Pagn,

Def endant - Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Bal dock, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Ani t a Hi l l Adames f or appel l ant .J ohn A. Mat hews I I , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

Appel l at e Di vi si on, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Mar ch 28, 2014

* Of t he Tent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/24

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. When i l l l uck began f or J os

Lui s Bobadi l l a- Pagn ( "Bobadi l l a") , i t came not i n spr i nkl es, but

i n shower s. Fi r st , Bobadi l l a had t he mi sf or t une t o l i ve one f l oor

above hi s sketchy br ot her - i n- l aw, suspect ed dr ug deal er Hct or

Pat r n. Second, when f eder al agent s came l ooki ng f or Pat r n,

Bobadi l l a went out t o gr eet t hem. And t hi r d, t he day t he agent s

came, Bobadi l l a had l ef t hi s dr i ver ' s l i cense i n hi s mi ni van. As

so of t en happens, one t hi ng l ed to another , and soon enough t he

agent s f ound t he mar i j uana and unl i censed gun that Bobadi l l a had

st ashed i n hi s vehi cl e. Bobadi l l a now comes bef or e us appeal i ng a

j ur y ver di ct convi ct i ng hi m of possess i ng cont r ol l ed subst ances

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e and possessi ng a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance

of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense. He says t he evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o convi ct hi m of ei t her cr i me. Because we di sagr ee,

we must r ej ect hi s appeal .

BACKGROUND

We begi n by recount i ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most

f l at t er i ng t o t he ver di ct , consi st ent wi t h r ecor d suppor t . See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Pol anco, 634 F. 3d 39, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Echever r i , 982 F. 2d 675, 676 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

Bef ore dawn on Sept ember 27, 2011, Bobadi l l a and hi s wi f e

wer e abr upt l y awakened by l oud noi ses out si de thei r home i n Bar r i o

Cacao, Car ol i na, Puer t o Ri co. U. S. Dr ug Enf or cement Admi ni st r at i on

( "DEA") agent s i nvest i gat i ng a dr ug t r af f i cki ng r i ng had shown up

-2-


3/24

at t hei r house t o sear ch t he gr ound- f l oor apar t ment of al l eged dr ug

deal er Pat r n. Bobadi l l a and hi s wi f e l i ved i n a separ at e

apar t ment on t he second f l oor . When t hey hear d t he commot i on, t hey

r ushed out si de t o see what was goi ng on. I n r et r ospect , Bobadi l l a

pr obabl y wi shes he had st ayed i n bed. But wi t hout t he benef i t of

20/ 20 hi ndsi ght , he wander ed di r ect l y i nt o t he agent s' cr oss- hai r s.

The agent s asked Bobadi l l a who he was and how ( or i f ) he

knew t hei r i nt ended t ar get , Pat r n. Bobadi l l a gave hi s name and

sai d t hat Pat r n who was not home at t he t i me was hi s wi f e' s

br ot her . When asked f or hi s i dent i f i cat i on, he expl ai ned t hat hi s

dr i ver ' s l i cense was i n hi s mi ni van, whi ch was par ked a l i t t l e ways

down t he road. 1 An agent went wi t h hi m t o get hi s l i cense and

br i ng i t back t o t he house. And t hi s was when Bobadi l l a' s l uck

r eal l y took a t ur n f or t he wor se.

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , ot her agent s br ought a cani ne uni t t o

check out Bobadi l l a' s van. The dog al er t ed t he agent s to t he

pr esence of nar cot i cs i n t he t r unk. Bobadi l l a t hen gave per mi ssi on

f or t he agent s t o search t he vehi cl e and al so admi t t ed t her e was

mar i j uana i nsi de. 2 Wi t h t he agent s watchi ng, Bobadi l l a opened t he

1 At t r i al , one agent t est i f i ed t hat par ki ng f ar away f r omt hehouse mi ght i ndi cat e t hat Bobadi l l a was t r yi ng t o hi de or

di sassoci at e hi msel f f r om t he vehi cl e or i t s cont ent s. Bobadi l l ai nsi st ed t hat he par ked hi s van away f r om t he house because i t semergency br ake di d not wor k and hi s home was on a hi l l .

2 Bobadi l l a f i l ed a pr e- t r i al mot i on t o suppr ess evi dence f r omt he sear ch, ar gui ng hi s consent was coer ced. The t r i al j udgedeni ed t he mot i on. Bobadi l l a does not r ai se t hat ar gument agai n on

-3-


4/24

van and pul l ed a bag cont ai ni ng roughl y 210 gr ams ( about 7. 5

ounces, or j ust under hal f a pound) of mar i j uana f r om beneat h t he

dr i ver ' s seat . He al so l et on t hat he kept an i l l egal f i r ear m i n

t he van and pr oceeded t o f i sh out a par t i al l y l oaded ni ne-

mi l l i met er Ber et t a f r om a f anny pack i n t he mi ddl e consol e. The

gun was about t hr ee f eet f r om where he st owed t he mar i j uana, and

bot h t he gun and t he dr ugs wer e wi t hi n r each of t he dr i ver ' s seat .

At t he scene, Bobadi l l a tol d t he agent s t hat t he mar i j uana bel onged

t o hi m and sai d t he gun was f or hi s pr ot ect i on.

The onl y ot her t hi ngs t he agent s f ound i n t he f anny pack

wi t h t he gun wer e a si ngl e "Phi l l i es" ci gar , a ni ckel , a pack of

gum, and some mi scel l aneous document s. They di d not f i nd any

addi t i onal i l l i ci t or suspi ci ous i t ems i n Bobadi l l a' s mi ni van or

hi s home, such as dr ugs, cash, or r un- of - t he- mi l l dr ug- pr ocessi ng

par apher nal i a, l i ke scal es or pl ast i c bags. But , as we wi l l see,

what t he agent s had al r eady f ound was enough t o si nk Bobadi l l a.

A coupl e of weeks l ater , t he gover nment charged Bobadi l l a

wi t h ( 1) possessi on of a cont r ol l ed subst ance ( speci f i cal l y, a

mi xt ur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amount of mar i j uana)

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) ,

841( b) ( 1) ( D) ( "Count One") ; and ( 2) possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

appeal , and at oral argument Bobadi l l a' s counsel conceded t hatconsent - t o- sear ch was not at i ssue.

-4-


5/24

f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 924( c) ( "Count Two") .

A t wo- day j ury t r i al began on December 14, 2011. Among

ot her wi t nesses, DEA Speci al Agent Chr i st opher D az, a nar cot i cs

exper t , t est i f i ed on t he gover nment ' s behal f . 3 Agent D az was par t

of t he t eamt hat sei zed t he mar i j uana f r omBobadi l l a' s mi ni van. He

obser ved that , when i t was conf i scat ed, t he mar i j uana was wet ,

gr een, sof t , and cont ai ned r ed hai r s, st ems, and seeds. 4 Based on

i t s condi t i on, he opi ned t hat t he mar i j uana was not r eady t o be

used t hat day; r at her , i t needed t o be cur ed f or sever al weeks i n

a cool envi r onment and t he st ems and seeds needed t o be r emoved

bef ore i t coul d be smoked. He cont i nued t o say t hat gi ven t he

amount of mar i j uana, i t s r ough condi t i on, and t he f act t hat i t was

st or ed i n a l ar ge Zi pl ock bag i n a hot van he bel i eved t he

mar i j uana was i nt ended f or di st r i but i on, not f or per sonal use.

Fur t hermore, when asked about t he r ol e of weapons i n dr ug

t r af f i cki ng, Agent D az sai d t hat dr ug t r af f i cker s use f i r ear ms t o

3 Bobadi l l a obj ect ed at t r i al t o Agent D az' s qual i f i cat i on asan exper t i n t he pecul i ar i t i es of mar i j uana- smoki ng i n Puer t o Ri co,but he does not r enew t hi s chal l enge on appeal . The gover nmental so cal l ed DEA Speci al Agent Ri car do Ramos, DEA Speci al Agent

Mar i sol Pagn, and San J uan Muni ci pal Pol i ce Of f i cer J uan Val ent nMar r er o, who par t i ci pat ed i n t he Sept ember 27 i nvest i gat i on; aswel l as DEA Seni or For ensi c Chemi st Pet er Echevar r a, who t est edt he dr ugs conf i scat ed f r om Bobadi l l a' s van.

4 By the t i me of t r i al , t he mar i j uana had dr i ed up and wasl ess gr een.

-5-


6/24

pr ot ect t hemsel ves and t hei r merchandi se and somet i mes even t o ki l l

peopl e.

On cross, Bobadi l l a' s counsel quest i oned Agent D az about

t he r el at i onshi p bet ween a Phi l l i es ci gar and mar i j uana. Agent

D az r esponded t hat a Phi l l i es ci gar , l i ke t he one f ound i n

Bobadi l l a' s van, coul d be used t o smoke mar i j uana by removi ng t he

t obacco and r epl aci ng i t wi t h about 0. 5 gr ams of mar i j uana. Lat er ,

based on t hi s t est i mony, t he gover nment cal cul at ed t hat Bobadi l l a

had enough mar i j uana t o make a whoppi ng 420 j oi nt s ( by di vi di ng the

210 gr ams of mar i j uana t hat he possessed i nt o 0. 5 gr ams per j oi nt ) .

At t he cl ose of t he gover nment ' s case, def ense counsel

moved f or a j udgment of acqui t t al under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal

Procedur e 29 ( "Rul e 29" ) , argui ng t her e was no evi dence Bobadi l l a

i nt ended t o di st r i but e mar i j uana. See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 29( a) ( "The

cour t . . . shal l or der t he ent r y of j udgment of acqui t t al . . . i f

t he evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o sust ai n a convi cti on. ") . The t r i al

j udge deni ed t he mot i on, not i ng ( out of t he j ur y' s ear shot ) t hat

t her e was "over whel mi ng evi dence of di st r i but i on. "

Bobadi l l a t hen t ook t o t he st and i n hi s own def ense. He

st r essed t hat t he mar i j uana f ound i n hi s van was f or hi s own

per sonal use and cl ai med he smoked bet ween 10 and 12 j oi nt s per

day, wi t h each j oi nt cont ai ni ng 1 t o 2 gr ams of mar i j uana. He

est i mat ed t hat , af t er he r emoved t he st ems and seeds, t he 7. 5- ounce

bag f ound i n hi s car woul d yi el d onl y 5 or 5. 5 ounces of usabl e

-6-


7/24

drug. Thus, he f i gur ed he onl y had enough mar i j uana t o make about

50 j oi nt s, whi ch he sai d woul d l ast hi m a week or t wo. 5 He

expl ai ned t hat buyi ng hi s mar i j uana i n bul k was more economi cal ,

more conveni ent , and r educed t he r i sk of get t i ng caught . 6

Cont i nui ng hi s di r ect t est i mony, Bobadi l l a admi t t ed t hat

what he sai d on t he st and about hi s dai l y mar i j uana i nt ake di d not

j i be wi t h what he had t ol d t he pr e- t r i al ser vi ces of f i cer t he day

he was ar r est ed. That day, havi ng t est ed posi t i ve f or mar i j uana as

wel l as oxycodon ( commonl y known as " Per cocet " ) , he had sai d he

onl y smoked a si ngl e j oi nt per day. 7 Whi l e t est i f yi ng, Bobadi l l a

expl ai ned t hat he had l i ed t o t he of f i cer because he was ner vous

and di d not want t o get i n t r oubl e. I n t r ut h, he sai d, he smoked

f ar more of t en t han he had pr evi ousl y conf essed.

5 Thi s mat h doesn' t qui t e add up. Even cr edi t i ng Bobadi l l a' sasser t i ons t hat onl y 5 ounces i . e. , 140 gr ams of t he mar i j uanahe had wer e usabl e and t hat he used 1 t o 2 gr ams t o make eachj oi nt , he possessed enough mar i j uana t o make 70 t o 140 j oi nt s.However , hi s poi nt was t hat t he government over est i mat ed how manyj oi nt s he coul d pr oduce f r om t he bag.

6 To i l l ust r at e t he r i sk of pur chasi ng mar i j uana, Bobadi l l avol unt eer ed hi s own ar r est f or possessi on of mar i j uana i n t he l at e1990' s as an exampl e. Accordi ng t o Bobadi l l a, he and t wo or t hr eef r i ends wer e st opped by pol i ce af t er one of t he f r i ends bought

mar i j uana f or t hem t o shar e. However , onl y t he f r i end whopur chased t he mar i j uana was char ged.

7 Pr e- Tr i al Ser vi ces Of f i cer Tanya Cor r ea Her nandez, whoconduct ed Bobadi l l a' s pr e- t r i al i nt er vi ew, conf i r med t hat Bobadi l l asai d he onl y smoked one j oi nt per day and sai d that he appear edner vous dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew.

-7-


8/24

Bobadi l l a went on t o say t hat t he i l l egal f i r ear mi n hi s

mi ni van bel onged t o a f r i end who was t r avel i ng. He sai d he kept

t he gun i n hi s van i nst ead of i n hi s house because he di d not want

hi s young daught er t o f i nd i t .

On cr oss- exami nat i on, government counsel conf r ont ed

Bobadi l l a about l yi ng t o t he pr e- t r i al ser vi ces of f i cer r egar di ng

hi s dai l y mar i j uana consumpt i on. He al so quest i oned Bobadi l l a' s

pr of essed wi l l i ngness t o hol d a gun f or a " f r i end" about whom

Bobadi l l a woul d r eveal f ew det ai l s appar ent l y wi t hout aski ng when

t he f r i end woul d col l ect t he gun or why he needed Bobadi l l a t o

st or e i t . Counsel f ur t her pressed Bobadi l l a as to how he coul d

suppor t such an expensi ve mar i j uana habi t af t er l osi ng hi s j ob as

a ci vi l engi neer sever al mont hs bef or e hi s ar r est . Counsel al so

chal l enged Bobadi l l a' s asser t i on t hat he had no t i es t o hi s bad-

news br ot her - i n- l aw and nei ghbor , Pat r n, f or whomt he agent s wer e

l ooki ng t he day Bobadi l l a was ar r est ed.

Gover nment counsel went on t o pr obe how Bobadi l l a coul d

smoke so of t en wi t hout shi r ki ng hi s f ami l y r esponsi bi l i t i es. I n

r esponse t o a ser i es of quest i ons about how Bobadi l l a managed t o

f i t smoki ng 10 t o 12 j oi nt s i n hi s dai l y schedul e, Bobadi l l a

ment i oned t hat he somet i mes smoked mar i j uana wi t h hi s f r i ends. He

-8-


9/24

went on t o admi t t hat , on such occasi ons, he somet i mes shar ed hi s

own mar i j uana wi t h t hose f r i ends. 8

Bobadi l l a' s wi f e t ook t he st and next on her husband' s

behal f . She t est i f i ed t hat Bobadi l l a di d not t al k wi t h her

br ot her , Pat r n. She sai d Bobadi l l a smoked mar i j uana al l t he t i me.

She al so sai d she had seen some Phi l l i es wr apper s i n t hei r

apar t ment , t hough not "10, 20, 30, or 40" on a par t i cul ar day.

At t he end of t r i al , Bobadi l l a' s counsel r enewed hi s Rul e

29 mot i on, agai n ar gui ng ther e was absol ut el y no evi dence of

di st r i but i on. The t r i al j udge deni ed t he mot i on, and, af t er

del i ber at i ng f or r oughl y two hour s, t he j ur y convi ct ed Bobadi l l a on

bot h count s. Af t er t r i al , Bobadi l l a f i l ed a t hi r d Rul e 29 mot i on

and t he j udge agai n deni ed i t .

On Mar ch 16, 2012, t he j udge sent enced Bobadi l l a, who had

no pr i or convi ct i ons, t o zer o mont hs f or Count One ( possessi on of

a cont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e) and t he

st at ut or i l y mandat or y si xty mont hs ( f i ve year s) f or Count Two

( possessi on of a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

of f ense) . J udgment ent er ed on March 19, 2012. Bobadi l l a t i mel y

appeal ed.

8 Li ke many unf ami l i ar wi t h t he l aw, Bobadi l l a di d not seemt or eal i ze t hat shar i ng dr ugs wi t h f r i ends, as we di scuss l at er ,qual i f i es as di st r i but i on. On r e- di r ect , def ense counsel at t empt edt o cl ar i f y t hat Bobadi l l a di d not sel l mar i j uana t o hi s f r i ends,but , as t he t r i al j udge r ul ed, whet her Bobadi l l a was compensat ed i snot det er mi nat i ve.

-9-


10/24

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

On appeal , Bobadi l l a cont ends t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

pr esent suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on on ei t her

count .

We r evi ew hi s preser ved suf f i ci ency cl ai ms de novo,

consi der i ng t he evi dence, bot h di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al , i n t he

l i ght most f r i endl y t o t he ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Howar d, 687

F. 3d 13, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . 9 Our r ol e at t he st age i s "qui t e

l i mi t ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Her nndez, 218 F. 3d 58, 64 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) ) . I t i s not our j ob t o r e- wei gh t he evi dence or second-

guess t he j ur y' s credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons. Uni t ed St at es v.

Pol anco, 634 F. 3d 39, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Rat her , we wi l l r ever se

onl y i f we f i nd t hat "even af t er ' cr edi t i ng t he gover nment ' s

wi t nesses and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n i t s f avor , ' no

l evel headed j ur y coul d have f ound [ Bobadi l l a] gui l t y" of t he

char ged cr i mes. Uni t ed St at es v. Guer r i er , 669 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ar anj o, 603 F. 3d 112, 116 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ) . I n ot her wor ds, i f t he ver di ct i s "suppor t ed by a

pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of t he r ecor d, " we must uphol d i t . Cor t s-

Cabn, 691 F. 3d at 16 ( quot i ng Hernndez, 218 F. 3d at 64) .

9 Suf f i ci ency cl ai ms ar e pr eser ved by movi ng f or j udgment ofacqui t t al at t he cl ose of t he gover nment ' s case and at t he end oft r i al , as Bobadi l l a di d her e. See Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 674 F. 3d88, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

-10-


11/24

Because Bobadi l l a cannot surmount t hi s f ormi dabl e

st andar d as t o ei t her count of hi s convi ct i on, hi s appeal f ai l s.

A. Count One: Possession With Intent To Distribute

Fi r st , Bobadi l l a says t her e was not enough evi dence t o

convi ct hi m of possessi ng a cont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o

di s t r i but e.

I n or der t o pr ove Bobadi l l a possessed a cont r ol l ed

subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( D) , " t he gover nment must show t hat

[ Bobadi l l a] knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y possessed, ei t her act ual l y

or const r uct i vel y, a cont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h t he speci f i c i nt ent

t o di st r i but e i t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Car r asqui l l o, 483 F. 3d

124, 129 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I t i s undi sput ed t hat Bobadi l l a

possessed 210 gr ams of mar i j uana, a cont r ol l ed subst ance. The

quest i on t hen i s whet her he possessed i t wi t h t he r equi si t e i nt ent

t o di str i but e.

Cour t s, i ncl udi ng t hi s one, i nt er pr et t he t er m

"di st r i but e" as used i n 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) qui t e br oadl y.

Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d at 17- 18 ( col l ect i ng cases) ; see, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St ates v. Washi ngt on, 41 F. 3d 917, 919 ( 4t h Ci r . 1994)

( " [ I ] n enact i ng t he 1970 Act , Congr ess i nt ended t o pr oscr i be a

r ange of conduct br oader t han t he mer e sal e of narcot i cs. " ) . The

stat ut e def i nes "di str i but e" as "t o del i ver . . . a cont r ol l ed

subst ance. " Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d at 17 ( quot i ng 21 U. S. C.

-11-


12/24

802( 11) ) . "Del i ver " i s f ur t her def i ned as "t he act ual ,

const r uct i ve, or at t empt ed t r ansf er of a cont r ol l ed subst ance. "

I d. ( quot i ng 21 U. S. C. 802( 8) ) . Not hi ng i n t he st at ut e l i mi t s

di st r i but i on t o sal e; r at her , "[ i ] t i s wel l accept ed t hat dr ugs may

be di st r i but ed by gi vi ng t hem away f or f r ee. " I d. at 19 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Cor mi er , 468 F. 3d 63, 71 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Boi di , 568 F. 3d 24, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . 10

An i nf er ence of i nt ent t o di st r i but e may be dr awn f r om

t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng possessi on, i ncl udi ng the dr ug' s

quant i t y ( i . e. , whet her i t i s t oo l ar ge f or per sonal use onl y) , t he

dr ug' s pur i t y, t he def endant ' s s t at ement s or conduct , or t he number

of peopl e i nvol ved and t hei r r el at i onshi p t o t he def endant . See

Cor mi er , 468 F. 3d at 71 ( quot i ng wi t h appr oval t he f act or s l i st ed

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Swi der ski , 548 F. 2d 445, 450 ( 2d Ci r . 1977) ) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Echever r i , 982 F. 2d 675, 678 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( "[ A] n i nt ent t o di st r i but e dr ugs can l egi t i mat el y be i nf er r ed f r om

f act or s such as quant i t y and pur i t y. " ) . For exampl e, wi t h r espect

10 The Second Ci r cui t has hel d t hat when "t wo i ndi vi dual ssi mul t aneousl y and j oi nt l y acqui r e possessi on of a dr ug f or t hei rown use, i nt endi ng onl y to shar e i t t oget her , t hei r onl y cr i me i sper sonal dr ug abuse - si mpl e j oi nt possessi on, wi t hout any i nt entt o di st r i but e t he dr ug f ur t her . " Uni t ed St at es v. Swi der ski , 548

F. 2d 445, 450 ( 2d Ci r . 1977) . However , t hi s cour t has neverexpr essl y deci ded whet her Swi der ski i s good l aw i n t hi s ci r cui t .Cor mi er , 468 F. 3d at 72 & n. 5 ( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ t ] he onl y . . .cases i n t hi s ci r cui t t o have addr essed Swi der ski f ound t hat i t wasi nappl i cabl e t o t he f act s") . Mor eover , t he Swi der ski cour t ' shol di ng i s not on poi nt her e because Bobadi l l a does not cont end hej oi nt l y acqui r ed t hi s mar i j uana wi t h anyone el se.

-12-


13/24

t o dr ug quant i t y, i n Cor mi er , t hi s cour t f ound t hat t he def endant ' s

r et ent i on of at l east t wo pounds ( r oughl y 900 gr ams) of mar i j uana,

"al t hough not di sposi t i ve, at l east suggest s t hat i t may not have

been i nt ended onl y f or per sonal use. " 468 F. 3d at 71. 11 Li kewi se,

i n Echever r i , t hi s cour t hel d t hat t he quant i t y and pur i t y of t he

dr ugs t he def endant possessed t wo pounds of ei ght y- si x per cent

pur e cocai ne wer e f act or s t hat suppor t ed t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng of

i nt ent t o di st r i but e. 982 F. 2d at 677, 678.

Her e, at t r i al , t he gover nment pr esent ed t he f ol l owi ng

evi dence of Bobadi l l a' s i nt ent t o di st r i but e mar i j uana:

( 1) Bobadi l l a possessed 210 gr ams of mar i j uana, an amount t hat

Agent D az t est i f i ed i ndi cat ed an i nt ent t o di st r i but e; ( 2) t he

mar i j uana was wet and cont ai ned st ems and seeds, whi ch Agent D az

sai d meant i t was not r eady f or i mmedi at e consumpt i on; ( 3) t he

mar i j uana was f ound about t hr ee f eet away f r oman i l l egal par t i al l y

l oaded f i r ear m, and Agent D az t est i f i ed t hat dr ug t r af f i cker s

somet i mes use guns f or pr ot ect i on; ( 4) agent s sei zed t he mar i j uana

whi l e execut i ng a sear ch war r ant f or a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

or gani zat i on al l egedl y run out of t he gr ound- f l oor apar t ment of

Bobadi l l a' s house ( t hough t her e was no evi dence di r ect l y connect i ng

Bobadi l l a t o t hat conspi r acy) ; and ( 5) Bobadi l l a expl i ci t l y

t est i f i ed that he somet i mes shar ed hi s mar i j uana wi t h f r i ends.

11 We not e, as di d t he gover nment i n i t s br i ef , t hatBobadi l l a' s br i ef mi sst at ed bot h t he dr ug quant i t y at i ssue and t hecour t ' s concl usi ons i n t hi s case.

-13-


14/24

Bobadi l l a, f or hi s par t , r ef ut es each poi nt and cl ai ms

t he mar i j uana was f or hi s per sonal use onl y, ci t i ng t he f ol l owi ng

evi dence: ( 1) t he 210 gr ams of mar i j uana sei zed was a "per sonal

amount " t hat Bobadi l l a coul d consume on hi s own i n j ust one or t wo

weeks ( t hough t hi s di f f er ed f r om Bobadi l l a' s st at ement s t o t he

pr e- t r i al ser vi ces of f i cer af t er hi s ar r est) ; ( 2) t he mar i j uana' s

condi t i on i ndi cat ed good qual i t y f or Bobadi l l a' s per sonal

consumpt i on; ( 3) t he gun bel onged t o a f r i end and was not r el ated

t o t he mar i j uana f ound i n Bobadi l l a' s van; ( 4) Bobadi l l a was not a

t ar get of t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng i nvest i gat i on and had no

r el at i onshi p wi t h hi s br ot her - i n- l aw, Pat r n; ( 5) Bobadi l l a' s

t est i mony about shar i ng mar i j uana wi t h f r i ends was unr el at ed t o t he

par t i cul ar mar i j uana sei zed her e; and ( 6) unl i ke a "t ypi cal " drug

deal er , Bobadi l l a vol unt ar i l y per mi t t ed pol i ce t o sear ch hi s van,

wher e they f ound no ot her evi dence of dr ug t r af f i cki ng ( e. g. ,

scal es, pl ast i c bags, or l ar ge amount s of cash) .

Though Bobadi l l a' s expl anat i on i s pl ausi bl e, so i s t he

gover nment ' s. Unf or t unat el y f or Bobadi l l a, t hi s dual pl ausi bi l i t y

dooms hi s cl ai m. See Cor t s- Cabn, 691 F. 3d at 16 ( quot i ng

Her nndez, 218 F. 3d at 64) ( i nt er nal quotat i on marks omi t t ed)

( " [ W] e must uphol d any ver di ct t hat i s suppor t ed by a pl ausi bl e

r endi t i on of t he r ecor d. ") . A r easonabl e j ur y cr edi t i ng t he

gover nment ' s wi t nesses and dr awi ng r easonabl e i nf er ences i n i t s

-14-


15/24

f avor coul d r eadi l y f i nd t hat Bobadi l l a possessed mar i j uana wi t h

i nt ent t o di str i but e.

Fi r st , whi l e t he quant i t y of mar i j uana sei zed her e does

not over whel mi ngl y i ndi cat e an i nt ent t o di st r i but e, Agent D az

t est i f i ed that t he amount f ound was l arge enough t o i mpl y such

i nt ent , and t he j ur y was ent i t l ed t o bel i eve hi m. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 617 F. 3d 581, 596 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 583 F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) )

( assessi ng t he credi bi l i t y of a wi t ness i s a r ol e r eser ved f or t he

j ur y) . Fur t hermor e, t hi s cour t has pr evi ousl y f ound t hat

possessi ng even a r el at i vel y smal l amount of mar i j uana mi ght

suggest an i nt ent other t han mer e per sonal use. See Cormi er , 468

F. 3d at 71.

Second, t he j ur y coul d r easonabl y r el y on t he unpr ocessed

condi t i on of t he mar i j uana when i t was sei zed t o i nf er t hat i t had

not yet r eached i t s f i nal user . See Echever r i , 982 F. 2d at 678

( expl ai ni ng t hat pur i t y i s a f actor f r omwhi ch i nt ent t o di st r i but e

may be i nf er r ed) .

Thi r d, t he j ur y coul d r at i onal l y t hi nk t hat t he near by

pr esence of an i l l egal gun whi ch, accor di ng t o Agent D az, dr ug

t r af f i cker s somet i mes use t o pr ot ect t hemsel ves or t hei r pr oduct

showed Bobadi l l a i nt ended t o di st r i but e t he mar i j uana. Though

Bobadi l l a pr ot est s t hat he was hol di ng t he gun f or a f r i end and t he

-15-


16/24

gun bor e no rel at i on t o the dr ugs i n t he van, as we wi l l di scuss

f ur t her bel ow, t he j ur y was not r equi r ed t o bel i eve hi m.

Four t h, t he j ur y coul d det er mi ne t hat Bobadi l l a was a

dr ug di st r i but or i ndependent of any possi bl e connect i on t o t he dr ug

t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on al l egedl y r un out of t he gr ound- f l oor

apar t ment of hi s house.

Fi nal l y, and per haps most damagi ngl y, Bobadi l l a' s own

st at ement s t hat he somet i mes shar ed mar i j uana wi t h f r i ends can be

easi l y i nt er pr et ed t o i ndi cat e an i nt ent t o di st r i but e t he sei zed

mar i j uana t o ot her s. See Cor mi er , 468 F. 3d at 71 n. 3 ( r ecogni zi ng

t hat gi vi ng dr ugs away f or f r ee count s as di st r i but i on) . Because

t he st at ut or y t er m"di st r i but i on" i s br oader t han sal e and i ncl udes

gi vi ng dr ugs away f or f r ee, see i d. , Bobadi l l a' s st at ement s ar e

equal t o an admi ss i on t hat he somet i mes engages i n the very conduct

t hat t he gover nment sai d he i nt ended t o pur sue here.

Consi der i ng t he t ot al i t y of t hi s evi dence, i t i s

di f f i cul t t o i magi ne how we coul d say t hat "no l evel headed j ur y"

coul d have f ound as t hi s j ur y di d. See Guer r i er , 669 F. 3d at 7.

But we take a moment t o not e that t he evi dence of di st r i but i on was

by no means as "over whel mi ng" as t he t r i al j udge suggest ed. To

r ecap t he evi dence to t he cont r ary: The smal l amount of r aw

mar i j uana f ound i n Bobadi l l a' s van mi ght ver y wel l have been

i nt ended sol el y f or hi s per sonal enj oyment . Bobadi l l a' s behavi or

when DEA agent s descended upon hi s house was har dl y r emi ni scent of

-16-


17/24

a sophi st i cat ed dr ug t r af f i cker : He came out si de t o speak wi t h t he

agent s vol unt ar i l y, l ed t hem t o t he van wher e he st or ed t he dr ugs

and gun, and, when asked, f r eel y copped t o t he cont r aband and

r et r i eved i t f or t he agent s. Ot her t han hi s ki nshi p t i e t o Pat r n,

t her e was not hi ng l i nki ng hi mt o any dr ug t r af f i cki ng or gani zat i on.

And, beyond t he dr ugs and t he gun, none of t he ot her t r appi ngs of

a dr ug di st r i but or e. g. , bags, scal es, or cash wer e f ound i n

Bobadi l l a' s vehi cl e or apar t ment . I n ot her wor ds, t he j ur y coul d

easi l y have f ound t hat Bobadi l l a l acked t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o

di st r i but e. But , because t he evi dence coul d pl ausi bl y suppor t

ei t her concl usi on, t he choi ce was up t o t he j ur y. Accor di ngl y,

Bobadi l l a' s f i r st at t empt t o under mi ne t he j ur y' s det er mi nat i on

f al l s shor t , and we pr oceed t o hi s second cl ai m.

B. Count Two: Possession "In Furtherance Of" Drug Trafficking

Second, Bobadi l l a mai nt ai ns t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t o convi ct hi mof possessi ng a f i r ear m" i n f ur t her ance of "

a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me.

18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) pr escr i bes a mandatory mi ni mum

sent ence f or any per son who, "dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o any . . .

dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me . . . uses or car r i es a f i r ear m, or who, i n

f ur t her ance of any such cr i me, possesses a f i r ear m. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Pena, 586 F. 3d 105, 112 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C.

924( c) ( 1) ( A) ) . To pr ove possessi on of a f i r ear m "i n f ur t her ance

of " a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me, " t he gover nment must pr ove t hat t he

-17-


18/24

def endant : ( 1) commi t t ed a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me; ( 2) knowi ngl y

possessed a f i r ear m; and ( 3) possessed t he f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance

of t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me. " I d. ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar i n, 523 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) .

Her e, Bobadi l l a f i r st r enews t he cl ai m we di sposed of

above t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove he possessed a

cont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e i . e. , t hat he

commi t t ed a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. 12 However , even assumi ng t he

f i r st el ement i s sat i sf i ed, and not cont est i ng t he second el ement

of knowi ng possessi on, Bobadi l l a says t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t o make out t he t hi r d el ement of t he cr i me: t hat he

possessed t he f i r ear m sei zed f r om hi s vehi cl e "i n f ur t her ance of "

a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me.

To est abl i sh t hat a def endant possessed a f i r ear m " i n

f ur t her ance of " a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me, t he gover nment must show

by speci f i c f act s "a suf f i ci ent nexus bet ween t he f i r ear m and t he

dr ug cr i me such t hat t he f i r ear m advances or pr omot es t he dr ug

cr i me. " I d. at 113 ( ci t i ng Mar i n, 523 F. 3d at 27) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Gr ace, 367 F. 3d 29, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Recogni zi ng t hat " [ t ] he

' i n f ur t her ance of ' el ement does not have a set t l ed, i nel ast i c

12 " A ' dr ug t r af f i cki ng' cr i me means any f el ony puni shabl eunder t he Cont r ol l ed Subst ances Act . " Uni t ed St ates v. Sher man,551 F. 3d 45, 49 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( D) ( 2) ) . Thi s cour t has obser ved t hat possessi ng acont r ol l ed subst ance wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e i s a dr ugt r af f i cki ng cri me. I d. ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Luci ano, 329 F. 3d1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) .

-18-


19/24

def i ni t i on, " t hi s cour t anal yzes "i n f ur t her ance of " evi dence f r om

bot h obj ect i ve and subj ect i ve st andpoi nt s. Mar i n, 523 F. 3d at 27.

Obj ect i ve f act or s t he cour t consi der s i ncl ude: ( 1) t he pr oxi mi t y of

t he f i r ear m t o dr ugs or cont r aband; ( 2) whet her t he f i r ear m was

easi l y accessi bl e; ( 3) whet her t he f i r ear mwas l oaded; and ( 4) t he

sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances. Pena, 586 F. 3d at 113 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Robi nson, 473 F. 3d 387, 399- 400 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) .

Evi dence of subj ect i ve i nt ent mi ght i ncl ude a showi ng t hat a

def endant obt ai ned a f i r ear m t o pr ot ect drugs or proceeds. See

Mar i n, 523 F. 3d at 27. Wher e di r ect evi dence of subj ect i ve i nt ent

i s l acki ng, t he j ur y may i nf er i nt ent f r om t he obj ect i ve

ci r cumst ances. I d. at 28.

"The mer e pr esence of a f i r ear m i n the ar ea wher e the

dr ug of f ense occur r ed i s i nsuf f i ci ent " t o const i t ut e possessi on "i n

f ur t her ance of " a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. Pena, 586 F. 3d at 113

( ci t i ng Gr ace, 367 F. 3d at 35) . However , t hi s cour t has shown

consi der abl e l at i t ude i n det er mi ni ng whet her a f i r ear m was

suf f i ci ent l y pr oxi mat e t o dr ugs or dr ug pr oceeds or accessi bl e t o

suppor t an " i n f ur t her ance of " convi ct i on. For exampl e, i n Gr ace,

t hi s cour t af f i r med a convi ct i on f or possessi on "i n f ur t her ance of "

a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me wher e t he def endant kept an unl oaded gun

under a bed i n a dr awer t hat was bl ocked by a duf f el bag, a t r ash

can, and box of books, even t hough ther e was no ammuni t i on i n the

house and t he drugs were st or ed i n a separ at e r oom. 367 F. 3d at

-19-


20/24

31, 35- 36. Ther e was al so evi dence t hat t he def endant obt ai ned t he

gun t o pr ot ect t he dr ugs she sol d. I d. at 36. Li kewi se i n Mar i n,

t hi s cour t af f i r med a convi ct i on wher e t he def endant kept a l oaded

handgun i n hi s bedr oom wher e i t was easi l y accessi bl e t o hi m and

onl y a f ew f eet away f r om t he dr ugs he sol d. 523 F. 3d at 27- 28.

I n t hat case, "t he j ur y al so hear d t est i mony t hat dr ug t r af f i cker s

of t en possess f i r ear ms f or pr ot ecti on of t hei r t r af f i cki ng

act i vi t i es . " I d. at 28.

Her e, t o est abl i sh a sat i sf act or y nexus bet ween t he

f i r ear msei zed f r omBobadi l l a' s van and hi s possessi on of mar i j uana

wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, t he gover nment must er s t he f ol l owi ng:

Fi r st , as obj ect i ve f act or s, t he gover nment ci t es ( 1) t he f i r ear m

was f ound i n a f anny pack i n Bobadi l l a' s van' s cent er consol e,

wi t hi n t hr ee f eet of t he mar i j uana sei zed f r om under t he dr i ver ' s

seat ; ( 2) t he gun and t he mar i j uana coul d be r eached

si mul t aneousl y; ( 3) t he gun was l oaded wi t h t hr ee r ounds ( and coul d

hol d up t o t hi r t een r ounds) ; and ( 4) Bobadi l l a di d not have a

l i cense f or t he gun and gave shaky t est i mony about how he acqui r ed

i t - he sai d he was hol di ng i t f or a f r i end, but he pr ovi ded l i t t l e

ot her i nf or mat i on about t he ci r cumst ances. Second, as subj ect i ve

evi dence, t he gover nment says Bobadi l l a speci f i cal l y t ol d of f i cer s

at t he t i me of hi s ar r est t hat t he gun was f or "prot ect i on, " an

admi ssi on whi ch dovet ai l s wi t h Agent D az' s t est i mony t hat dr ug

-20-


21/24

t r af f i cker s somet i mes use f i r ear ms t o pr ot ect t hemsel ves, t hei r

dr ugs, or t hei r pr of i t s.

Bobadi l l a at t empt s t o count er t hi s evi dence as f ol l ows:

Fi r st , Bobadi l l a says t he obj ect i ve f act or s her e i ndi cat e onl y t he

"mere pr esence" of a gun i n a van wher e mar i j uana was kept , not

possessi on of a gun "i n f ur t her ance of " a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me.

Ot her t han t he mar i j uana, no evi dence rel ated to t he dr ug t r ade was

f ound i n t he van. Ther e was al so no evi dence t hat Bobadi l l a ever

act ual l y used or car r i ed t he gun. And t he gun was onl y par t i al l y

l oaded when t he pol i ce sei zed i t - a " r eal " dr ug deal er , he says,

mi ght have kept t he gun f ul l y l oaded. Second, as t o hi s subj ect i ve

i nt ent , Bobadi l l a r ei t er at es t hat he was hol di ng t he gun f or a

f r i end. He kept i t i n t he van so hi s young daught er woul d not f i nd

i t , r at her t han t o pr ot ect hi msel f or hi s st ash.

Agai n, Bobadi l l a' s expl anat i on i s pl ausi bl e, but i t does

not over come t he ext r emel y hi gh bar set f or a suf f i ci ency

chal l enge. Her e, t he evi dence showed t hat Bobadi l l a kept a l oaded,

unl i censed f i r ear m a f ew f eet away f r om dr ugs conceal ed i n hi s

mi ni van. Mor eover , t he j ur y hear d t est i mony t hat dr ug t r af f i cker s

of t en possess f i r ear ms f or pr ot ect i on of dr ug t r af f i cki ng

act i vi t i es. Fr om t hi s evi dence, t he j ur y coul d r at i onal l y i nf er

t hat Bobadi l l a possessed t he f i r ear m t o pr ot ect hi s dr ug

t r af f i cki ng act i vi t i es.

-21-


22/24

I t was up t o t he j ur y t o wei gh t he gover nment ' s and

Bobadi l l a' s ver si ons of t he f act s and t o deci de whi ch t o bel i eve.

See, e. g. , Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 617 F. 3d at 596 n. 6. And, t hough we

r ecogni ze t hat Bobadi l l a' s second suf f i ci ency- of - t he- evi dence

chal l enge, l i ke t he f i r st , pr esent s a cl ose quest i on, i t i s not

wi t hi n our pur vi ew t o di st ur b t he j ur y' s r ecor d- suppor t ed f i ndi ng.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Sher man, 551 F. 3d 45, 50- 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( uphol di ng a j ur y det er mi nat i on t hough "t he suf f i ci ency i ssue i s

ar guabl y cl ose") . Because, vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most

f avorabl e t o the gover nment , a reasonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound

t hat Bobadi l l a possessed t he f i r ear m "i n f ur t her ance of " a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng of f ense, Bobadi l l a' s second at t empt t o di scredi t t he

j ur y' s ver di ct comes up shor t .

CONCLUSION

Bef or e we wr ap up, we pause t o make expl i ci t our

ambi val ence t owar ds t he j ur y' s f i ndi ngs. Whi l e i t i s cl ear t hat

Bobadi l l a gui l t i l y possessed a smal l quant i t y of mar i j uana and an

i l l egal f i r ear m, whet her he i nt ended t o di st r i but e t hat mar i j uana,

as wel l as whet her he possessed t he f i r ear m " i n f ur t her ance of " a

dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me, ar e har der quest i ons. The j ur y answer ed

"yes" t o bot h. Anot her j ury may have concl uded ot herwi se.

Obvi ousl y t oo, anot her pr osecut or coul d have opt ed t o i ndi ct

Bobadi l l a on l esser char ges, i . e. , si mpl e possessi on of mar i j uana

and an unl i censed f i r ear m. Thi s pr osecut or chose not t o, as was

-22-


23/24

wi t hi n her di scr et i on. And at t hi s st age, we ar e dut y- bound t o

enf or ce t he j ur y' s ampl y suppor t ed ver di ct . Consequent l y, t oday,

l i ke Sept ember 27, 2011, i s not Bobadi l l a' s l ucky day.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Bobadi l l a' s convi ct i on i s

af f i r med as t o bot h count s.

-Concurring Opinion Follows-

-23-


24/24

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge, concurring. I gl adl y j oi n i n t he

wel l - wr i t t en and wel l - r easoned opi ni on of t he Cour t .

I wr i t e separ at el y because I do not j oi n t he di ct a on t he

l ast page i dent i f i ed as "Concl usi on. " Rat her t han di scuss

hypot het i cal j ur i es and pr osecut or s, I woul d si mpl y concl ude by

st at i ng "For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Bobadi l l a s convi ct i on i s

af f i r med as t o bot h count s. "

-24-

united states v. bobadilla-pagan, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents