united states v. guzman-montanez, 1st cir. (2014)

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

1/22


2/22

GELP, District Judge. A j ur y i n t he Di str i ct of Puer t o

Ri co convi ct ed Marcel i no Guzmn- Mont aez ( Guzmn) f or bei ng a

f el on i n possessi on of a f i rearm i n vi ol at i on of

18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) ( count one) , and f or possessi on of a

f i r ear m i n a school zone i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A)

& 924( a) ( 4) ( count t wo) . The Di st r i ct Cour t sent enced Guzmn t o

60 mont hs of i mpr i sonment as t o bot h counts.

On appeal Guzmn r ai ses t he f ol l owi ng cl ai ms of er r or .

Fi r st , he ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y admi t t ed

evi dence t hat was bot h i r r el evant and unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al .

Second, he posi t s t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed by t he government

dur i ng t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o sust ai n hi s convi cti ons as t o bot h

count s. Fi nal l y, he cont ends t hat t he sent ence i mposed upon hi m

was pr ocedur al l y and subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e. We af f i r m t he

convi ct i on and sent ence as t o t he f el on i n possessi on count .

However , we reverse t he convi ct i on and sent ence as t o t he

possessi on of a f i r ear m i n a school zone count . We di scuss

Guzmn s cl ai ms ser i at i m.

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

Dur i ng t he morni ng hour s of March 14, 2012, Sant i ago

Ni eves- Ri ver a ( Ni eves) , owner of a l echoner a1 r est aur ant i n

1 I n Puer t o Ri co l echn i s r oast ed por k, and l echoner as aregener al l y open ai r est abl i shment s wher e t he ent i r e ani mal i s cookedr ot i sser i e st yl e. Fr i t t er s and al cohol i c bever ages ar e al so sol d.

-2-


3/22

Bayamn, Puert o Ri co, saw a bur gundy- col ored car dr i ve sl owl y by

hi s est abl i shment . J ust t hen, t he vehi cl e backed up and r et ur ned

t o hi s est abl i shment . Two men exi t ed t he vehi cl e. They appr oached

Ni eves t o order f r i t t ers. One of t hese men was Guzmn. Ni eves

f ound t he si t uat i on ver y suspi ci ous. Ner vous, af r ai d, and whi l e

f i r ml y hol di ng hi s machete, Ni eves asked both men t o l eave. At

t hat moment , he not i ced a si l ver gun t ucked on t he si de of t he

wai st of one of t he men as t hey were exi t i ng. The man carr yi ng t he

gun was l at er i dent i f i ed as t he ski nny one ( her ei naf t er t he

ot her suspect ) . As soon as t hey l ef t , Ni eves cal l ed t he pol i ce

and r epor t ed t he event s. He pr ovi ded a physi cal descr i pt i on of t he

suspect s and t hei r vehi cl e, a bur gundy Suzuki SX4 wi t h l i cence

pl at e number HPH 299. Ni eves di d not see Guzmn car r yi ng a gun.

The event was br oadcast over t he pol i ce r adi o as an

at t empt ed robber y. Pol i ce Of f i cer Car men Ni eves de J ess ( Ni eves

de J ess) , whi l e on pat r ol dut y, subsequent l y saw t wo men exi t i ng

a vehi cl e par ked i n f r ont of a Chur ch s Chi cken f ast f ood

r est aur ant at t he Rexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er i n Bayamn. The men and

vehi cl e mat ched t he descr i pt i on she hear d over t he r adi o. Qui ckl y,

she r epor t ed her i dent i f i cat i on of t he i ndi vi dual s vi a r adi o

br oadcast . Of f i cer Edi l ber t o Moj i ca- Cal der o ( Moj i ca) was

pat r ol l i ng t he ar ea t oget her wi t h of f i cer J os Ar r oyo- Pr ez

( Ar r oyo- Pr ez) . They hear d Ni eves de J ess s r adi o cal l and

-3-


4/22

headed t owar ds t he ar ea. At t he t i me, bot h pol i ce of f i cer s wer e

wear i ng ci vi l i an cl ot hi ng.

As Moj i ca and Ar r oyo- Pr ez appr oached t he Chur ch s

Chi cken par ki ng l ot , t hey spot t ed t he bur gundy Suzuki vehi cl e.

Ar r oyo- Pr ez r emai ned near t he vehi cl e whi l e Moj i ca observed the

t wo men f r om out si de t he f ast f ood r est aur ant . Moj i ca wat ched as

Guzmn st ood i n l i ne t o or der f ood. Then, he not i ced a bl ack

pi st ol pr ot r udi ng f r om Guzmn s wai st band.

From t hat moment on, t he f ol l owi ng event s t ook pl ace

r api dl y. Out si de, mar ked pat r ol car s ar r i ved. I mmedi at el y, t he

ot her suspect approached Guzmn and whi sper ed somet hi ng i n hi s ear .

Wi t hout del ay, Guzmn l ef t t he l i ne and wal ked qui ckl y towards t he

bat hroom. He ent ered t he bat hroom f or a br i ef moment . As Guzmn

exi t ed t he bat hr oom, Moj i ca ent er ed the r est aur ant and det ai ned

bot h men. However , Guzmn was no l onger car r yi ng i n hi s wai st l i ne

t he obj ect Moj i ca had seen on hi mmoment s ear l i er . As t he suspects

wer e det ai ned, of f i cer s Ar r oyo- Pr ez and I smael D az- Ri ver a

( D az) ent er ed t he bat hr oom sear chi ng f or addi t i onal suspect s.

None wer e f ound.

Fol l owi ng t he ot her of f i cer s sear ch, Moj i ca t hen

sear ched t he bat hr oom and f ound a pi st ol i n t he di aper changi ng

st at i on. The pi st ol was i n pl ai n si ght , st uck bet ween t he pl ast i c

par t i t i ons of t he di aper changi ng st at i on. The f i r ear mwas a bl ack

Smi t h and Wesson pi st ol , model 4003 t act i cal , . 40 cal i ber . The

-4-


5/22

pol i ce of f i cer s who sear ched t he bat hr oombef or e Moj i ca di d not see

t he weapon. I n t ur n, Guzmn and t he ot her suspect were pl aced

under arr est . Shor t l y t her eaf t er , t he pol i ce of f i cer s sear ched t he

bur gundy Suzuki vehi cl e. They sei zed a si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol f ound

i nsi de t he gl ove compar t ment . The weapon mat ched t he descr i pt i on

of t he gun Ni eves r epor t ed seei ng t he ot her suspect car r y at t he

l echonera.

On March 15, 2012, a compl ai nt was f i l ed agai nst Guzmn

char gi ng hi m wi t h bei ng a convi ct ed f el on i n possessi on of a

f i r ear m. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , a f eder al gr and j ur y r et ur ned a

t wo- count i ndi ct ment . Bot h count s charged Guzmn wi t h possess i ng

a Smi t h and Wesson pi st ol , Model 4003 t act i cal , ser i al number

VJ L7561, . 40 cal i ber . Count one charged Guzmn wi t h bei ng a f el on

i n possessi on of a f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) .

Count t wo, i n t ur n, char ged hi m wi t h possessi ng a f i r ear m i n a

school zone i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A) & 924( a) ( 4) .

Guzmn exer ci sed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o t r i al by j ur y.

Pr i or t o t r i al , Guzmn moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude

Moj i ca s t est i mony r el at i ng t o t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol sei zed

f r omt he vehi cl e f ol l owi ng t he ar r est . The Di st r i ct Cour t r eser ved

i t s rul i ng.

Dur i ng t r i al , Moj i ca t est i f i ed about t he si l ver Ber et t a

pi st ol sei zed i n t he vehi cl e. Guzmn r enewed hi s obj ect i on

ar gui ng, once agai n, t hat t he Ber et t a pi st ol was i mmat er i al ,

-5-


6/22

i r r el evant t o t he char ges, and had a pr ej udi ci al ef f ect because i t

was not t he weapon he was char ged wi t h possess i ng. The Di st r i ct

Cour t over r ul ed t he obj ect i on, per mi t t ed t he t est i mony, and gave

t he j ur y t he f ol l owi ng i nst r ucti on:

Al l r i ght . Ladi es and gent l emen of t he j ur y,t hi s weapon has nothi ng t o do wi t h t hi s case.I t was j ust par t of t he i nvent or y t hat wasmade by t he pol i ce and f ound by Agent Moj i ca.But t he - - Mr . Guzmn i s not on t r i al f orpossessi on of t hi s par t i cul ar weapon, t he onet hat was f ound i n t he car . Okay? Al l r i ght .

The cour t provi ded a second i nst r uct i on dur i ng Moj i ca' s t est i mony,

f ol l owi ng hi s descr i pt i on of t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol , and i t s

admi ssi on as an exhi bi t : 2

Ladi es and gent l emen, I want t o st r ess t o youagai n t hat t hi s i s a di f f er ent pi stol f r omt hat f ound i n the bathr oom. And that Mr .Guzmn i s not charged wi t h possessi on of t hi sBer et t a pi st ol . I s t hat under st ood? Okay. Goahead.

Guzmn moved f or a mi st r i al ar gui ng t he si l ver Ber et t aweapon f ound i n t he vehi cl e const i t ut ed i r r el evant , pr ej udi ci al and

i nf l ammatory evi dence. The government , i n t ur n, argued t hat t he

evi dence was necessary t o pr ovi de t he j ur y wi t h t he compl ete

f act ual scenar i o of what t r anspi r ed. The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed

Guzmn s r equest .

2 A t hi r d i nst r uct i on r egar di ng t he Ber et t a pi st ol waspr ovi ded t o t he j ur or s t oget her wi t h t he r est of t he j ur yi nst r ucti ons bef or e del i ber at i on.

-6-


7/22

Regardi ng t he second count , t o pr ove that t he event s t ook

pl ace wi t hi n a school zone, i n vi ol at i on of

18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A) & 924( a) ( 4) , t he pr osecut i on used

Moj i ca s t est i mony t o est abl i sh t he pr oxi mi t y bet ween Chur ch s

Chi cken and t he Col egi o Emmanuel Di sc pul os de Cr i st o ( t he

school ) , as wel l as Guzmn s knowl edge of bei ng wi t hi n the

r equi si t e di st ance. Accor di ng t o Moj i ca, t he school i s l ocat ed 300

f eet away f r om Chur ch s Chi cken and i s vi si bl e f r om i nsi de t he

est abl i shment . 3 The government al so submi t t ed as evi dence a

pi ct ur e of t he school s mai n gat e.

Af t er t he pr osecut i on r est ed, Guzmn f i l ed a mot i on f or

acqui t t al under Rul e 29 of t he Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e,

ar gui ng t hat t he pr osecut i on s evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o sust ai n

hi s convi ct i ons. The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Guzmn s mot i on as t o

count one and reser ved i t s j udgment as t o count t wo.

The j ur y convi ct ed Guzmn on bot h count s. Af t er t he

ver di ct , Guzmn f i l ed a subsequent mot i on under Rul e 29 as t o count

t wo, si nce t he Di st r i ct Cour t had not yet r ul ed on hi s ear l i er

acqui t t al mot i on. The Cour t deni ed Guzmn s mot i on f or acqui t t al .

The pre sent ence r eport ( PSR) , prepared by t he Uni t ed

St at es Probat i on Of f i ce, r ecommended a combi ned base of f ense l evel

of 14, pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 6) , and a t wo- l evel ( 2)

3The par t i es had previ ousl y st i pul at ed t hat t he f ast f ood

r est aur ant was l ocat ed 140 f eet f r om t he school .

-7-


8/22

enhancement f or s t o l en f i r ear ms, pur suant t o

U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( A) , yi el di ng a t ot al of f ense l evel of 16

wi t h Cr i mi nal Hi st or y Cat egor y I . The appl i cabl e sent enci ng r ange

f or t hese cal cul at i ons was 21 t o 27 mont hs, wi t h no st at ut or y

mi ni mum sent ence.

The government ar gued f or a sent ence of 72 mont hs. The

Di st r i ct Cour t i mposed a sent ence of 60 mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

The Cour t based i t s var i ance on Guzmn s cr i mi nal hi st or y and t he

nat ur e of t he of f ense.

II. Discussion

A. Admission of the Gun Evidence

To prove Guzmn was i n possessi on of t he f i r ear mchar ged

i n t he i ndi ct ment , t he government pr esent ed evi dence of both t he

bl ack Smi t h and Wesson pi st ol f ound i n t he bat hr oom at Chur ch s

Chi cken, and t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol r ecover ed f r om t he bur gundy

Suzuki vehi cl e. Guzmn ar gues t hat t he Ber et t a pi st ol was

i r r el evant and, t hus, t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di screti on by

admi t t i ng i t as evi dence. He asser t s t hat t he si l ver Ber et t a

pi st ol i s compl et el y unr el at ed t o t he el ement s of t he of f ense and

t hat t he er r oneous admi ssi on of such i r r el evant evi dence caused

unf ai r pr ej udi ce whi ch, i n t ur n, i nf l uenced t he j ur y s ver di ct. At

t r i al , Guzmn ar gued as f ol l ows:

The Gover nment i s now goi ng t o do pi ct uresr el at i ng t o t he sear ch of t he vehi cl e, of t hegun. I move f or a mi st r i al based on t hei nf l ammat or y nat ur e of t hi s, t he f act t hat i t

-8-


9/22

has pr ej udi ci al ef f ect. As t he Cour t cor r ectl yst at ed, i t r eal l y has not hi ng t o do wi t h t hecase, he' s not char ged wi t h i t . And under 402and 403 i t ' s i mmat er i al , i r r el evant and haspr ej udi ced t he j ur y as t o the f act - - because,r emember , t here' s t he t est i mony of Papo Ni eves

sayi ng he saw a weapon on t he sl i m def endant ,whi ch we now know t o be Mi guel . So now t heycan make t he compar i son t hat t hat i s t he gunt hat was i n t he vehi cl e or t hat mi ght be t hegun that was i n t he bat hr oom. . . .

The government , i n t urn, ar gued bel ow t hat wi t hout

evi dence of t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol , t he j ur y woul d be depr i ved

of t he compl et e set of f act s and coul d become conf used:

Our posi t i on i s t hat i f we don' t do t hat ,maybe they are mi sl ed. Because t he f i r stwi t ness sai d t hat he saw a pi st ol on Mi guel .So now we ar e ent er i ng thi s evi dence as t herewas another f i r ear m. And al so admi t t hedescri pt i on of t he f i r ear m descri bed by t hef i r st wi t ness. So we ar e not mi sl eadi ng t hej ury i n t he sense - -

At t r i al , Guzmn t i mel y obj ected, on more t han one

occasi on, t o t he t est i mony r egar di ng t he Ber et t a pi st ol , and t he

i nt r oduct i on of t he weapon as an exhi bi t . The argument havi ng been

pr eser ved f or appeal , we r evi ew t he Di st r i ct Cour t s r ul i ng f or

abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 717 F. 3d 35, 40

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We pr oceed t o di scuss Guzmn s argument s

r egar di ng t he admi ssi on of evi dence accor di ngl y.

1. Rel evanceGuzmn ar gues t hat evi dence of t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol

sei zed i s i r r el evant . We di sagr ee. As he cor r ect l y poi nt s out ,

t he Ber et t a pi st ol i s not t he f i r ear m char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment .

-9-


10/22

Al bei t t r ue, such f act i s not di sposi t i ve of t hi s evi dent i ar y

i ssue, and i t does not aut omat i cal l y ent ai l i t s i r r el evance. Thi s

second weapon was i mpor t ant t o the pr osecut i on s case t o t he ext ent

t hat i t cor r oborated t he f act t hat Guzmn and t he other suspect

each had a di f f erent weapon.

Rul e 401 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence def i nes

r el evant evi dence as evi dence havi ng any t endency t o make t he

exi st ence of any f act t hat i s of consequence t o t he det er mi nat i on

of t he act i on mor e pr obabl e or l ess probabl e t han i t woul d be

wi t hout the evi dence. Fed. R. Evi d. 401. Evi dence may be

r el evant under Rul e 401' s def i ni t i on, even i f i t f ai l s to pr ove

or di spr ove t he f act at i ssue- whet her t aken al one or i n combi nat i on

wi t h al l ot her hel pf ul evi dence on t hat i ssue. Uni t ed St at es v.

Candel ar i o- Si l va, 162 F. 3d 689, 704 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Schnei der , 111 F. 3d 197, 202 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ) .

Moj i ca nar r at ed t he event s t hat t ook pl ace at Chur ch s

Chi cken, st ar t i ng f r om hi s obser vat i ons whi l e he st ood out si de t he

r est aur ant , al l t he way up t o t he ar r est s of bot h i ndi vi dual s and

t he sei zi ng of bot h weapons. Hi s t est i mony cor r obor ated t he

government s t heory t hat Guzmn was i n possess i on of t he bl ack

Smi t h and Wesson pi st ol , whi l e the ot her suspect car r i ed t he si l ver

Ber et t a pi st ol , as i ni t i al l y obser ved by Ni eves at t he l echoner a.

-10-


11/22

We t hus concl ude t hat i n t he case bef or e us t he Di st r i ct

Cour t di d not er r by admi t t i ng as r el evant evi dence t he exi st ence

of t he si l ver Ber et t a pi stol .

2. Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 403

Guzmn next cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on under Rul e 403 of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence by

admi t t i ng evi dence of t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol , t hus creat i ng

unf ai r pr ej udi ce. Rul e 403 pr ovi des t hat [ t ] he cour t may excl ude

r el evant evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y

out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. Fed. R. Evi d.

403. Guzmn posi t s t hat t he evi dence danger ousl y i nvi t ed t he j ur y

t o i nf er t hat he was i n possessi on of a weapon because he arr i ved

i n a vehi cl e where anot her gun was f ound.

Ti me and agai n t hi s cour t has af f or ded consi der abl e

def er ence t o a di st r i ct cour t s evi dent i ar y bal anci ng act . We

usual l y def er t o t he di st r i ct cour t s bal anci ng under Rul e 403 of

pr obat i ve val ue agai nst unf ai r pr ej udi ce. Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h,

292 F. 3d 90, 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Onl y r ar el yand i n

ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng ci r cumst anceswi l l we, f r omt he vi st a of

a col d appel l at e r ecor d, r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s on- t he- spot

j udgment concer ni ng t he r el at i ve wei ghi ng of probat i ve val ue and

unf ai r ef f ect . Uni t ed St at es v. Cur r i er , 836 F. 2d 11, 18 ( 1st

Ci r . 1987) ( quot i ng Fr eeman v. Package Mach. Co. , 865 F. 2d 1331,

1340 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) . [ T] he l aw shi el ds a def endant agai nst

-11-


12/22

unf ai r pr ej udi ce, not agai nst al l pr ej udi ce. Smi t h, 292 F. 3d at

99. [ A] l l evi dence i s meant t o be pr ej udi ci al ; i t i s onl y unf ai r

pr ej udi ce whi ch must be avoi ded. Uni t ed St ates v.

Rodr guezEst r ada, 877 F. 2d 153, 156 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . Wi t hout a

doubt , evi dence pr esent ed by t he government i n a cr i mi nal case i s

al ways pr ej udi ci al t o t he def endant . I f i t wer e not , t he

pr osecut i on woul d not be i nt r oduci ng i t . . . . I n conduct i ng t hi s

bal anci ng t est , t he di st r i ct cour t has especi al l y wi de l at i t ude,

and Rul e 403 t i l t s t he bal ance i n f avor of admi ssi on.

Candel ar i aSi l va, 162 F. 3d at 705 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

At t r i al , Guzmn chal l enged the i nf l ammat or y nat ur e of

t he si l ver Ber et t a pi st ol due to t he f act t hat nowadays, peopl e

don t l i ke guns. The Di st r i ct Cour t was not r equi r ed t o shi el d

Guzmn f r omt he soci al di sl i ke of weapons prompt ed by Puert o Ri co s

si gni f i cant l y hi gh cri mi nal i t y r at e. Thi s does not creat e a per se

aut omat i c unf ai r pr ej udi ci al ef f ect.

Mor eover , t he Di st r i ct Cour t was emphat i c t hat t he si l ver

Ber et t a pi st ol was not t he weapon Guzmn was charged wi t h i n t he

i ndi ct ment . We f i nd t hat t he i nst r uct i ons gi ven by t he Di st r i ct

Cour t wer e cl ear and suf f i ci ent , and adequat el y el i mi nat ed any

pot ent i al conf usi on or unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al i nf er ences t he j ur y

coul d have been i ncl i ned t o make. See Uni t ed St at es v. Sepl veda,

15 F. 3d 1161, 1184 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( [ C] our t s have l ong r ecogni zed

-12-


13/22

t hat , wi t hi n wi de mar gi ns, t he pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce st emmi ng

f r om i mpr oper t est i mony. . . can be sat i sf actor i l y di spel l ed by

appr opr i at e cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons. ) . For t he f or egoi ng r easons,

we f i nd no evi dent i ar y er r or s wi t h r espect t o t he admi ssi on of t he

s i l ver Ber et t a pi stol .

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Guzmn al so ar gues he was ent i t l ed t o a j udgment of

acqui t t al on bot h count s. We r evi ew t he Di st r i ct Cour t s deni al of

a Rul e 29 mot i on de novo. Uni t ed St ates v. Pr ez- Mel ndez, 599

F. 3d 31, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

When eval uat i ng t he suf f i ci ency of evi dence, we dr aw t he

f act s and al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t her ef r om i n t he l i ght most

agr eeabl e t o t he j ur y ver di ct . Wi l l i ams, 717 F. 3d at 38; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 224 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thi s

i s not an easy chal l enge f or an appel l ant . Def endant s chal l engi ng

convi ct i ons f or i nsuf f i ci ency of evi dence f ace an uphi l l bat t l e on

appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Her nndez, 218 F. 3d 58, 64 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) .

1. Knowi ng possessi on of a f i rearm

To sust ai n a convi ct i on under 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) t he

government has t o pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he

def endant : 1) was a convi ct ed f el on; and 2) knowi ngl y possessed a

f i r ear m; 3) i n ci r cumst ances t hat i mpl i cat ed i nt er st at e commer ce.

Wi l l i ams, 717 F. 3d at 38 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. St aul a, 80 F. 3d

-13-


14/22

596, 604 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) . Her e, t he par t i es st i pul at ed t hat ,

pur suant t o 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) , Guzmn was a convi ct ed f el on,

and t hat t he f i r ear m was t r anspor t ed t hr ough t he channel s of

i nt er st at e commer ce. Hence, t o sust ai n a convi ct i on, t hepr osecut i on s bur den was l i mi t ed to pr ovi ng the knowi ng

possessi on el ement . Guzmn argues t he pr osecut i on f ai l ed t o

pr ove thi s el ement beyond a r easonabl e doubt because Moj i ca s

t est i mony was i nsuf f i ci ent . We di sagr ee.

Knowi ng possess i on of a f i r ear m may be pr oven t hr ough

ei t her act ual or const r uct i ve possessi on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Li r anzo, 385 F. 3d 66, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Act ual possessi on i s t he

st at e of i mmedi at e, hands- on physi cal possessi on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Zaval a- Mal donado, 23 F. 3d 4, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . Const r uct i ve

possessi on can be est abl i shed by pr ovi ng t hat t he person has t he

power and i nt ent i on of exer ci si ng domi ni on and cont r ol over t he

f i r ear m. Uni t ed St at es v. DeCol oger o, 530 F. 3d 36, 67 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . Ei t her f or mof possessi on can be pr oven by way of di r ect or

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez, 457 F. 3d 109,

119 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . We have al so hel d t hat a convi ct i on may be

ent i r el y suppor t ed by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. Uni t ed St at es v.

Wi ght , 968 F. 2d 1393, 1398 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Robi nson, we f ound that evi dence of

a def endant s oppor t uni t y t o st ore guns i n an engi ne compar t ment

was suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh const r uct i ve possessi on. 473 F. 3d 387,

-14-


15/22

398- 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . [ A] s l ong as a convi ct ed f el on knowi ngl y

has t he power and t he i nt ent i on at a gi ven t i me of exer ci si ng

domi ni on and cont r ol over a f i r ear m or over t he ar ea i n whi ch t he

weapon i s l ocat ed, di r ect l y or t hr ough ot her s, he i s i n possessi onof t he f i r ear m. Wi ght , 968 F. 2d at 1398.

I n t he case bef or e us, Moj i ca t est i f i ed he saw a weapon

on Guzmn s wai st bef or e he ent er ed t he bat hroom. When Guzmn

became awar e of t he pol i ce of f i cer s ar r i vi ng at t he scene, he

st epped out of t he l i ne and wal ked t owards t he bat hroom. Moment s

l at er , Moj i ca saw Guzmn exi t t he bat hr oom where t he weapon was

f ound. A r at i onal j ur y coul d have concl uded t hat Guzmn s act i ons

r ef l ect ed hi s abi l i t y and i nt ent i on t o exer ci se domi ni on and

cont r ol over t he f i r ear m. He was seen wi t h t he pi st ol bef or e

ent er i ng t he bat hr oom, and was wi t hout i t when he wal ked out . He

was al so t he l ast per son t o ent er and exi t t he bat hr oom bef or e t he

weapon was f ound. Moj i ca s obser vat i ons, t hus, pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent

evi dence t o pr ove Guzmn was i n const r uct i ve possessi on of t he

Smi t h and Wesson f i r ear m f ound i n t he bathr oom.

St andi ng al one, Moj i ca s t est i mony i s ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence suf f i ci ent t o demonst r ate Guzmn was i n const r uct i ve

possessi on of t he Smi t h and Wesson. I n addi t i on, t he pr osecut i on

i nt r oduced i nt o evi dence t he r est aur ant s sur vei l l ance vi deo whi ch

shows Guzmn wal ki ng i nt o t he bat hr oom and t hen exi t i ng, upon t he

ar r i val of t he ot her pol i ce of f i cer s t o t he r est aur ant .

-15-


16/22

Guzmn mai nt ai ns t hat , because Moj i ca s t est i mony was, i n

hi s vi ew, cl ear l y i nconsi st ent wi t h t he t est i mony of t he ot her

pol i ce of f i cer s , i t i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o sustai n hi s convi ct i on. He

f ur t her argues t hat , because he deni ed havi ng possessed t hef i r ear m, addi t i onal obj ect i ve evi dence was needed t o cor r obor at e

t he conf l i ct i ng evi dence. Thi s ar gument i s unconvi nci ng. The mer e

exi st ence of conf l i ct i ng t est i mony does not r ender evi dence

i nsuf f i ci ent . Uni t ed St at es v. Cal der n, 77 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) ( expl ai ni ng t hat i t f al l s wi t hi n t he j ur y s pr ovi nce whet her

i t chooses t o bel i eve a wi t ness s t est i mony over anot her ) .

Evi dence does not become l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent mer el y because of

some i nconsi st enci es i n wi t nesses s t est i mony. Rodr guez, 457

F. 3d at 119. Conf l i ct i ng t heor i es ar e f or t he f actf i nder t o

deci de, not f or us t o ent er t ai n. Uni t ed St at es v. Lpez- Lpez, 282

F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

I n t hi s case, t he j ur y had t wo st or i es f r om whi ch t o

choose. The pr osecut i on t heor i zed t hat , as Guzmn st ood i n l i ne at

t he f ast f ood r est aur ant , he was al er t ed t hat pol i cemen ar r i ved.

That i s why he abandoned hi s pl ace i n l i ne, ent er ed t he bat hroom,

hi d t he weapon i n t he di aper changi ng st at i on, and, as he exi t ed

t he bat hroom, was det ai ned. On t he ot her hand, Guzmn deni ed

havi ng possessed any weapon or havi ng l ef t t he l i ne t o ent er t he

bat hr oom.

-16-


17/22

When t he i ssue l i es on credi bi l i t y of t he evi dence, i t i s

up t o t he j ur y t o deci de. The f act f i nder i s f r ee t o conduct i t s

own i nt er pr et at i on of t he evi dence. Wi ght , 968 F. 2d at 1938. The

f act t hat t he j ur y opt ed t o gi ve mor e wei ght t o one ver si on of t hef act s over anot her i s not f or us t o r evi ew. Uni t ed St at es v.

Or t i z, 966 F. 2d 707, 711 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( On appeal , i t i s not t he

appel l at e cour t s f unct i on t o wei gh t he evi dence or make

credi bi l i t y j udgment s. Rat her , i t i s f or t he j ur y t o choose

bet ween var yi ng i nt er pr et at i ons of t he evi dence. ) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar aj , 947 F. 2d 520, 523 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) . Her e, we must

det er mi ne whet her t he j ur y s ver di ct i s suppor t ed by a pl ausi bl e

r endi t i on of t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance.

The cour t s dut y i s t o make sure t he evi dence i s

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i on. We do not at omi ze our

anal ysi s. We consi der t he evi dence i n i t s t ot al i t y, not i n

i sol at i on, and the government need not negate ever y t heor y of

i nnocence. Uni t ed St at es v. Angul o- Her nndez, 565 F. 3d 2, 7 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) .

The evi dence provi ded by t he government was suf f i ci ent .

Moj i ca s depi ct i on of t he f act s of f er ed a pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of

Guzmn s al l eged possessi on of t he f i r ear m. Sai d r endi t i on of t he

f act s convi nced t he j ur y. We t her ef or e r ej ect Guzmn s suf f i ci ency

of t he evi dence chal l enge t o count one.

-17-


18/22

2. Possessi on of a f i r ear m wi t hi n a school - zone

Under 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A) [ i ] t shal l be unl awf ul

f or any i ndi vi dual knowi ngl y t o possess a f i r ear mt hat has moved i n

or t hat ot her wi se af f ect s i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce at a pl ace

t hat t he i ndi vi dual knows, or has r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve, i s

a school zone. A school zone i s an area wi t hi n a school or

wi t hi n a di st ance of 1, 000 f eet f r om t he gr ounds of a publ i c,

par ochi al or pri vat e school . 18 U. S. C. 921 ( a) ( 25) ; see Uni t ed

St ates v. Ni eves Cast ao, 480 F. 3d 597 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Guzmn

cont ends t hat t he pr osecut i on s evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove

t he requi si t e el ement t hat he knew or r easonabl y shoul d have known

he was i n a school zone whi l e possessi ng a f i r ear m. We agr ee.

Col egi o Emmanuel de Di sci pul os de Cr i st o i s a school , as

def i ned by 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A) , t hat t eaches pr e- ki nder gar den

t o si xt h gr ade. The school i s l ocat ed on Rout e 167, acr oss t he

st r eet f r omRexvi l l e Shoppi ng Cent er i n Bayamon, where t he Chur ch s

Chi cken i s l ocat ed. The par t i es st i pul at ed t he di st ance bet ween

Chur ch s Chi cken and t he school was l ess t han 1, 000 f eet . 4

At t r i al Moj i ca st at ed t hat t he school was vi si bl e f r om

wi t hi n the est abl i shment , but pr ovi ded no addi t i onal i nf or mat i on.

No ot her wi t ness t est i f i ed as t o t hi s mat t er . Moj i ca s ent i r e

t est i mony f ol l ows:

4 As di scussed ear l i er , t he exact di st ance st i pul at ed was140 f eet . However , at t r i al , Moj i ca i ndi cat ed t hat hi s measur ementof t he l ocat i on yi el ded a di st ance of l ess t han 300 f eet .

-18-


19/22

MS. MONTANEZ: Q. Al l t hese event s t ook pl ace- - t hi s i n par t i cul ar of t he Chur ch and t hef i ndi ng of t he Smi t h & Wesson pi st ol - i nChur ch. What i s near by t hat r est aur ant ?A. I n t he f r ont si de of t he est abl i shmentt her e' s a bi l i ngual school f or chi l dr en,

pr i mar y l evel .Q. And how f ar i s t hat school f r om t heChur ch' s r est aur ant ?A. I ' d say l ess t han 300 f eet .Q. Okay. And how do you know t hat ?A. I measur ed i t .Q. Can you see t he school f r om t he Chur ch?A. Cor r ect , yes.Q. How do you measur e t he di st ance f r om t heChur ch' s Chi cken r est aur ant t o t he school ?A. Wi t h a scene measur i ng devi ce f r om t het r af f i c uni t i n Bayamn. From t he door - -. . .THE WI TNESS: Fr om t he door t owar ds t he mai ngat e of sai d school .BY MS. MONTANEZ:Q. And that scene measur i ng devi ce you t ook i tf r om wher e, you sai d?A. That was gi ven t o me by one of t he agent sof t he t r af f i c di vi si on i n Bayamn whi ch - -and i t ' s used f or i nvest i gat i on of deat hl yacci dent s.Q. From whi ch door you st ar t ed your

measur ement ?A. From t he mai n door of t he est abl i shment .That ' s t he one I went t hrough.Q. Unt i l ?A. Up to t he mai n gat e of Emmanuel school .That ' s t he name of i t .MS. MONTANEZ: I have no mor e quest i ons, YourHonor .THE COURT: I have - - l et me - - when you sayt he school mai n gat e, do you mean t he schoolhas a f ence?THE WI TNESS: Cor r ect , yes.

THE COURT: And t he gat e i s on t hat f ence, andyou measur ed t o t hat poi nt .THE WI TNESS: Up t o t he ent r ance gat e. Yes,s i r .THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thank you.Cr oss- exami nat i on?

-19-


20/22

MS. MONTANEZ: Your Honor , I have, bef ore t hedef ense goes, t he pi ct ur e of t he school .THE COURT: Wel l , you' r e goi ng t o have t o showi t t o - -MS. MONTANEZ: Yes. We can mar k t hi s asGover nment I D 14. ( NOTE: Document bei ng

pr ovi ded t o t he wi t ness. )Q. I ' m showi ng you what has been marked asGover nment I D No. 14. Do you r ecogni ze t hati dent i f i cat i on?A. Yes. Thi s i s school ar ea whi ch i s acrosst he - f r om t he shoppi ng cent er .Q. And why do you r ecogni ze t hati dent i f i cat i on?A. I go by i t ever y day.MS. MONTANEZ: Your Honor , we move i nt oevi dence Gover nment ' s I dent i f i cat i on No. 14.THE COURT: Any obj ect i on, Mr . - -MR. GONZALEZ: No obj ect i on, Your Honor .THE COURT: Wi t hout obj ect i on, admi t t ed asGovernment ' s Exhi bi t No. 14. Do you want t opubl i sh i t ? ( NOTE: Document r et r i eved f r omt hewi t ness. )BY MS. MONTANEZ:Q. I ' m showi ng you what has been marked asGover nment Exhi bi t number 14. What does t hi spi ct ur e show?A. That ' s Emmanuel school .Q. And i s t hat - - t hi s i s t he f ence you wer e

r ef er r i ng t o t hat you measur ed - - up unt i l t hepoi nt you measured f r om t he Chur ch Chi ckendoor ( i ndi cat i ng) ?A. Cor r ect . Yes.

Rel yi ng excl usi vel y on t he school s pr oxi mi t y, t he

pr osecut i on t ook no addi t i onal measur es t o pr ovi de gr ounds t o

evi nce t hat Guzmn knew, or r easonabl y shoul d have known, t hat he

was i n a school zone. I nst ead, i t r el i ed on t he cl oseness f act or

as per se pr obat i ve of Guzmn s awar eness. Moj i ca speci f i cal l y

t est i f i ed t hat t he school , and i t s mai n gat e, wer e vi si bl e f r om

Chur ch s Chi cken. The r ecor d, however , shows t hat he f ai l ed t o

-20-


21/22

t est i f y t hat t he school s si gn was vi si bl e f r om Chur ch s Chi cken.

I n f act , t he school si gn was f i r st ment i oned af t er t he pr osecut i on

r est ed i t s case.

I n Uni t ed St ates v. Haywood, 363 F. 3d 200 ( 3r d Ci r .

2004) , t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Thi r d Ci r cui t r ever sed a

convi ct i on under 922( q) ( 2) ( A) on i nsuf f i ci ency gr ounds. As i n

t he case bef or e us, appel l ant si mi l ar l y ar gued t hat pr ovi di ng

evi dence of a school s di st ance was i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh hi s

knowl edge of a school zone. The cour t agr eed. [ T]he onl y

evi dence t hat t he gover nment pr oduced t o suppor t t hi s convi ct i on i s

t hat t he school i s, i n f act , wi t hi n 500 f eet of t he [ l ocal e wher e

Haywood was f ound ar med] . However , t hat i s not suf f i ci ent l y

concl usi ve t o enabl e a r easonabl e j ur or t o dr aw t he i nf er ence t hat

Haywood knew or shoul d have known of t hat proxi mi t y. Haywood, 363

F. 3d at 209. We f i nd sai d r ul i ng t o be squar el y on poi nt .

I t i s l i kel y t hat t he pr osecut i on coul d have shown t hat

Guzmn had t he knowl edge of t he near by school , but i t f ai l ed t o

i nt r oduce such evi dence at t r i al . J uxt aposi ng t he l ocat i on of t he

f ast f ood r est aur ant wi t h t he school i s not enough. Addi t i onal

f act s were necessary, and coul d have easi l y been pr oven by way of

t est i mony of pol i ce of f i cer s who wer e at t he scene, as wel l as

phot ogr aphs or a vi deo demonst r at i ng t hat any reasonabl e person at

t he Chur ch s Chi cken woul d have i ndeed become awar e of bei ng i n a

school zone. The pr osecut i on l i kewi se coul d have al so demonst r at ed

-21-


22/22

t hat t o get t o t he est abl i shment Guzmn i nevi t abl y woul d have

dr i ven by t he school . More so, because Guzmn di d not l i ve i n t he

nei ghborhood, hi s awareness had t o be r eadi l y pr oven. Cf .

Ni eves-

Cast ao, 480 F. 3d at 604 ( Her e, t hr ee mi nor chi l dr en l i ved wi t h

t he def endant , and i t woul d be easy f or a j ur y t o concl ude t hat she

knew t her e wer e t wo school s near by, wi t hi n or j ust out si de her

housi ng pr oj ect and l ess t han 1000 f eet away, and t hat she

r egul ar l y passed by t hose school s. One school was, i n f act ,

l ocat ed next t o t he sout h ent r ance of t he housi ng pr oj ect . ) . I n

t he case bef ore us t he government asked the j ur y t o t ake a gi ant

l eap of f ai t h, whi ch f al l s consi der abl y shor t of suf f i ci ent l y

pr ovi ng i t s case.

The evi dence present ed by t he government was i nsuf f i ci ent

t o est abl i sh t hat Guzmn knew or r easonabl y shoul d have known he

was i n a school zone. Consequent l y, t he convi ct i on as t o count t wo

must be vacat ed.

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons expl ai ned above, weAFFIRM t he convi ct i on

on count one, REVERSE t he convi ct i on on count t wo, and REMAND f or

r esent enci ng pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. 5

5

Guzmn ar gues t hat t he sent ence i mposed upon hi mwas bot hpr ocedur al l y and subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e. Havi ng r emanded t hecase f or r esent enci ng we need not addr ess t hese ar gument s at t hi st i me. Dur i ng hi s r esent ence Guzmn wi l l have an opport uni t y t oargue f or what he underst ands t o be an appr opr i at e sent ence. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Br yant , 643 F. 3d 28, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ngPepper v. Uni t ed St at es, ___ U. S. ___, 131 S. Ct 1229 ( 2011) ) .

-22-

united states v. guzman-montanez, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents