Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. DeLeon, 93-1375 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1375 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 10, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: November 10, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 93-1375 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM DELEON, Defendant, Appellant.
USCA1 Opinion









November 10, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


_________________________


No. 93-1375



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM DELEON,

Defendant, Appellant.

_________________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

_________________________

Marie T. Roebuck on brief for appellant.
________________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, Stephanie S. Browne
_____________ ____________________
and Gerard B. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorneys, on
___________________
brief for the United States.



_________________________



_________________________
















Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant William DeLeon appeals
Per Curiam.
__________

his conviction on one count of using a firearm during and in

relation to the commission of drug trafficking offenses.1 See
___

18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) (1988). He posits three claims of error.

None suffice.

I
I

Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence is unavailing. Following a guilty verdict, a reviewing

court must scrutinize the record, drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor of the verdict, to ascertain if a rational

jury could have found that the government proved each element of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
___ _____________

Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 677 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v.
_________ ______________

Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.
_____ _____ ______

Ct. 1005 (1993). The government can satisfy its burden of proof

by either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Echeverri, 982
___ _________

F.2d at 679; United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073,
______________ _______________

1079 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 910 (1989). To sustain a
_____ ______

conviction, a reviewing court need not conclude that only a

guilty verdict could appropriately be reached; it is enough that

the jury's determination draws its essence from a plausible

reading of the record. See Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 677; Ortiz,
___ _________ _____

966 F.2d at 711. Using these guideposts, the quantum of evidence

adduced here, though largely circumstantial, is adequate to the

____________________

1Appellant was simultaneously charged with two drug
trafficking counts. He pled guilty to those charges and they are
not before us.

2














task.

In United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987 (1st Cir.
______________ ________

1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2062 (1991), a section 924(c)(1)
_____ ______

case, we made it pellucid that where a drug trafficker is not

carrying a gun on his person, but has one nearby, the court's

critical concern is not whether the weapon was "instantly

available" or "exclusively dedicated to the narcotics trade," but

whether it was "available for use" in connection with the

narcotics trade. Id. at 998. See also Smith v. United States,
___ ___ ____ _____ _____________

113 S. Ct. 2050, 2059 (1993) (explaining that a weapon meets the

statutory test if its presence, rather than being accidental or

coincidental, facilitates, or has the potential of facilitating,

the drug trafficking offense). We think the case at hand is

largely governed by Hadfield.
________

DeLeon was apprehended in an uninhabitable apartment

that served or so the jury supportably could have found as a

drug distribution outlet. Drugs and a handgun were thrown from

the window as the police effected an entry. Appellant was the

sole person discovered inside the apartment. He admitted to an

INS agent, Bernstein, that he knew the pistol was kept at the

premises where drugs were being sold. We think this evidence is

more than ample. Applying the Hadfield standard, a rational jury
________

could certainly find a facilitative nexus, that is, the jury

could reasonably conclude that the weapon was kept in the

apartment to be "available for use" during and in relation to the

ongoing drug trafficking and that appellant knew as much. See
___


3














United States v. Abreu, 952 F.2d 1458, 1466 (1st Cir.) ("Even
_____________ _____

though a weapon is never fired, if it is kept nearby by a drug

dealer, it is 'used' so as to satisfy the statutory

requirement."), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1695 (1992); United
_____ ______ ______

States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 983 (1st Cir. 1992)
______ ___________

(collecting cases), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2935 (1993); see
_____ ______ ___

generally United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 240 (1st Cir.
_________ _____________ ________

1987) ("The law is not so struthious as to compel a criminal jury

to ignore that which is perfectly obvious."), cert. denied, 486
_____ ______

U.S. 1009 (1988). The jury was also free to conclude from the

collocation of circumstances that appellant constructively

possessed the firearm. See, e.g., United States v. Winslow, 962
___ ____ _____________ _______

F.2d 845, 852 (9th Cir. 1992); Hadfield, 918 F.2d at 998; United
________ ______

States v. Malin, 908 F.2d 163, 168-69 (7th Cir.), cert. denied
______ _____ _____ ______

498 U.S. 991 (1990). No more was exigible.2

II
II

Appellant next complains that the prosecution failed to

fulfill the requirements imposed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
_____ ________

83, 87 (1963), and by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500 (1988).

This complaint misconstrues the constraints under which the

government must operate in a criminal case.

Appellant brands three different pieces of "evidence"

as improperly withheld. The first item is a supposed Bureau of

Criminal Identification report. The record fails to show that

____________________

2Appellant's furtive actions he admitted, for example,
having defenestrated the narcotics inventory as trouble loomed
were frosting on the cake, so to speak.

4














any such report ever existed. The second item, never precisely

described, concerns "Jose Garcia." The reference is puzzling:

although the prosecutor mentioned Garcia fleetingly in cross-

examining appellant, the record does not contain even a whisper

of a hint of a suggestion that the government possessed any

statement from, report concerning, or other concrete information

anent "Jose Garcia." The government is surely not required to

disclose nonexistent documents or information unknown to it.

See, e.g., United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir.
___ ____ _____________ _______

1991); United States v. Glaze, 643 F.2d 549, 552 (8th Cir. 1981).
_____________ _____



The last piece of evidence is a so-called "N.C.I.C.

report." This report was, in fact, given to appellant, albeit

belatedly but appellant neglected to seek a continuance when he

received the report and, what is more, he has failed to show the

slightest prejudice arising from the delayed disclosure.3 Thus,

even assuming, arguendo , that the N.C.I.C. report comes within
________

the Brady realm, the assignment of error founders. See, e.g.,
_____ ___ ____

United States v. Devin, 918 F.2d 280, 290 (1st Cir. 1990); United
_____________ _____ ______

States v. Ingraldi, 793 F.2d 408, 413 (1st Cir. 1986).
______ ________

III
III

Appellant's final claim of error relates to the

district court's admission of the handgun into evidence. The


____________________

3The N.C.I.C. report contained only a single piece of
(negative) information: it indicated that the handgun was not
listed as stolen property. It is hard to see how this tidbit
comprised relevant evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
___

5














centerpiece of this claim is the asseveration that the government

did not satisfactorily forge the chain of custody. We have

examined the record closely and are satisfied that, here, the

arguable gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight of the

evidence rather than to its admissibility. See, e.g., United
___ ____ ______

States v. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954, 956 (1st Cir. 1989). No error
______ ____

inhered.

IV
IV

We need go no further. Our perscrutation fully

persuades us that appellant's legal arguments lack merit and

that, therefore, his conviction must stand.



Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
_________ ___




























6







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer