UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4967
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ABIMAEL ANTONIO DIAZ-CALDERON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-4976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ELMER DE PAZ GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-4978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAUL SOLIS DIAZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-4992
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANGEL AUGUSTIN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-5055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELMER DE PAZ GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-5059
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
2
versus
SAUL SOLIS DIAZ,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-5074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANGEL AUGUSTIN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-05-15)
Argued: October 25, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson
joined. Judge Michael wrote a separate opinion concurring in part
and dissenting in part.
ARGUED: Dale Warren Dover, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael Steven
Arif, MARTIN & ARIF, Springfield, Virginia; Thomas Brian Walsh,
PETROVICH & WALSH, P.L.C., Springfield, Virginia; Joseph John
McCarthy, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
3
Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Chuck Rosenberg, United States
Attorney, Michael Frank, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
4
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
Abimael Antonio Diaz-Calderon, Elmer De Paz Garcia, Saul Solis
Diaz, and Angel Augustin Hernandez appeal their convictions and
sentences arising out of a conspiracy to import cocaine into the
United States from Guatemala. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm all of the appellants’ convictions and affirm the sentences
of Diaz-Calderon and Diaz. We vacate the sentences of Garcia and
Hernandez, and remand for resentencing.
I.
On December 11, 2004, TACA Airlines flight number 584 arrived
at Washington-Dulles International Airport (“Dulles”) from
Guatemala carrying a courier employed by Hyattsville, Maryland-
based Nor Oriente Express. The courier was transporting a number
of duffel bags filled with various items from Guatemala to the
United States. When the United States Customs and Border
Protection service inspected these bags, officers discovered three
separate packages of cocaine hidden in separate individually
wrapped car seat cushions. Each cushion was addressed to a
specific individual in Maryland: one containing 281 grams of
cocaine was addressed to Avigail Morataya, one containing 78 grams
was addressed to Jorge Meija, and one containing 543 grams was
addressed to Gunder Diaz.
After removing and weighing each of the packages of cocaine,
customs officers combined the entire quantity of drugs in a single
5
bag for storage and transport. Then, in order to identify the
intended recipients of the packages, special agents with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arranged for a
controlled delivery of the seat cushions through--and with the
cooperation of--Nor Oriente Express in Maryland. In setting up the
operation, ICE agents replaced the packages of cocaine with
packages of a “sham” substance that appeared similar to cocaine,
but only contained trace amounts of the drug. Agents then
refashioned each of the seat cushions to appear as it had before
discovery of the cocaine.
On December 12, 2004, as the ICE agents were setting up the
controlled delivery, appellant Diaz entered the facility and asked
for the package addressed to Jorge Meija. Diaz was told the
package was not ready and that he would have to return later. Over
the following three hours, appellants Garcia, Diaz-Calderon, and
Diaz appeared at Nor Oriente Express separately and asked for the
packages addressed to Gunder Diaz, Avigail Morataya and Jorge
Meija, respectively. Each was arrested after signing for the
package under the assumed name.
After arresting appellant Diaz-Calderon, ICE agents found
several documents in his possession, including a letter that
indicated three packages that he requested would be arriving for
him in a car seat cushion. The second document was a handwritten
6
note that contained the address listed on the package Diaz-Calderon
retrieved.
After ICE agents arrested appellant Diaz and he waived his
Miranda rights, Diaz told agents that Lucero Lopez, who was
arrested while waiting for Diaz at Nor Oriente Express, paid him
$20 to retrieve the package addressed to Jorge Meija. Diaz
admitted that he thought the package contained drugs and knew that
what he was doing was illegal because he had to use an assumed name
and Lopez did not want to retrieve the package.
After appellant Garcia was arrested and waived his Miranda
rights, he cooperated with ICE agents by arranging to hand off the
Gunder Diaz package to Hernandez, the person who directed him to
retrieve it. Shortly thereafter, Hernandez appeared, along with
another individual, to retrieve the package from Garcia. ICE
agents promptly arrested Hernandez. During an ensuing interview at
the scene, Hernandez denied knowledge of the package, claimed that
it contained fan belts, and said that it was for a friend whose
phone number he did not know. Believing that Hernandez was lying,
ICE agents terminated the interview. However, as Hernandez was led
away, he admitted that Lucero Lopez sent him to pick up the package
and he had lied out of fear that Lopez would determine that
Hernandez “was giving him up basically.” J.A. 620.
In March 2005, the government filed a Second Superceding
Indictment that charged each appellant with a single count of
7
conspiracy to import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) &
963, unlawful importation of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
952(a), and unlawful distribution of cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court conducted a bench trial in
July 2005 at which it found each appellant guilty of one count of
conspiracy to import cocaine and dismissed the remaining charges.
The district court sentenced Diaz-Calderon to 63 months
imprisonment after attributing to him the entire amount of cocaine
in all three car seat cushions. The district court sentenced
Garcia to 21 months, Hernandez to 24 months, and Diaz to 21 months,
after attributing 78 grams of cocaine, which was the smallest
individual quantity contained in any of the three seat cushions, to
each appellant. Appellants timely appealed both their convictions
and sentences. The government cross-appealed the sentences of
Garcia and Hernandez.
Appellants raise two primary arguments on appeal.1 First,
appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on numerous
points regarding their convictions for conspiracy to import a
controlled substance. Second, appellants challenge the quantity of
drugs used by the district court to calculate each of their
sentences. We consider each argument in turn.
1
We have reviewed each of appellants’ arguments not discussed
herein and find each without merit.
8
II.
Appellants first raise arguments regarding the sufficiency of
the evidence underlying their convictions. Our review of a
challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is extremely deferential.
Indeed,
[w]e must uphold a . . . verdict if there is substantial
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government, to support it. Substantial evidence is that
evidence which a reasonable finder of fact could accept
as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 390 (2005) (quotations
omitted). With this standard in mind, we turn to appellants’
arguments.
A.
Appellants first argue that the government did not offer
sufficient evidence to prove that the cocaine at issue was imported
from Guatemala, as alleged in the indictment. Appellants find
insufficiency in the fact that the customs officer, who testified
at trial, could only circumstantially connect the Nor Oriente
courier with TACA flight 584 from Guatemala. However, the
circumstances relied on by that officer sufficiently establish that
the cocaine entered the United States from Guatemala.
The customs officer testified that TACA regularly operated
flight 584 between Guatemala and Dulles; that flight 584 arrived at
Dulles on December 11, 2004; and that passengers from that flight
9
were the only individuals clearing customs at the time the cocaine
was discovered in the courier’s bags. J.A. 457-60. Even without
viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the government,
these facts clearly support the conclusion that the Nor Oriente
Express courier, along with the packages of cocaine, arrived on
flight 584 from Guatemala.
B.
Appellants Garcia, Hernandez, and Diaz next argue that the
government failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they
knowingly entered a conspiracy to import cocaine. Each argues that
he had no knowledge of the criminal enterprise because he was
unaware of the true contents of the package he handled. The
record, however, demonstrates that these appellants either knew or
were willfully blind to the conspiracy.
In order to prove a conspiracy charge, the government must
establish, inter alia, that the defendant knowingly agreed to
engage in unlawful activity. United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354,
361 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Clark, 928 F.2d 639, 641-42
(4th Cir. 1991). The government can establish knowledge by showing
that a defendant either actually knew of the conspiracy, Cropp, 127
F.3d at 361, or was willfully blind to it by “purposely clos[ing]
his eyes to avoid knowing what was taking place around him.”
United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 384 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting
United States v. Schnabel, 939 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 1991)).
10
Because the circumstances of each appellant’s involvement differed
slightly, we will consider the knowledge of each individually.
With respect to Diaz, the government presented clear evidence
of willful blindness. After his arrest, Diaz admitted to believing
that the package he retrieved from Nor Oriente contained illegal
drugs. Diaz, however, took no steps to confirm or deny such
suspicions and did not let them prevent him from retrieving the
package. On these facts, it is clear that Diaz “suspected
[illegality;] realized its probability; but . . . refrained from
obtaining the final confirmation because he wanted . . . to be able
to deny knowledge.” Ruhe, 191 F.3d at 384 (citation omitted).
Therefore, we are unpersuaded by his argument on this point.
With respect to Hernandez, the record contains a plethora of
evidence that establishes his actual knowledge of the conspiracy.
Put simply, we find it implausible that Hernandez had no knowledge
of the conspiracy, and yet (1) engaged and directed Garcia in the
retrieval of a package containing 543 grams of cocaine; (2)
appeared almost immediately after Garcia phoned him to take
possession of the package; and (3) had sufficient fear of Lucero
Lopez to spin a series of incredible--and eventually admitted--lies
to ICE agents. The more reasonable and plausible interpretation of
these facts is that Hernandez was an integral member of the
conspiracy with actual knowledge of its illicit nature. Therefore,
we find no merit to his argument.
11
Finally, with respect to Garcia, the totality of the
circumstances surrounding his retrieval of the Gunder Diaz package
was sufficient for the district court to conclude his willful
blindness to the conspiracy. We find to be determinative the fact
that Garcia retrieved an internationally shipped package using a
false name at the direction of Hernandez, who had no apparent
connection to the package and who, by all accounts, was capable of
retrieving it himself. Further damning is the fact that Garcia and
Hernandez had arranged a rendezvous point several miles from Nor
Oriente Express because Garcia believed that Hernandez did not want
the package delivered to his apartment. Taken together, we believe
these facts establish, at the very least, that Garcia “purposely
closed his eyes to” both the illegality of his actions and the
enterprise in which he was involved. Ruhe, 191 F.3d at 384
(quotations omitted).2
We do, however, recognize that, although the evidence against
Garcia is damning, it does not inexorably lead to a conclusion of
willful blindness. A finder of fact conducting a plenary review of
this evidence in the first instance might very well reach a
conclusion different from ours. We, however, are not afforded the
luxury of such broad review. Rather, we are constrained to view
2
Because we conclude that “the evidence supports an inference
of deliberate ignorance,” we do not agree with our dissenting
colleague that the stringency of the willful blindness doctrine
prevents its application on these facts. Ruhe, 191 F.3d at 384
(quotations omitted).
12
the “evidence in the light most favorable to the government”
specifically to determine whether it supports the defendant’s
guilt. United States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 470 (4th Cir. 1999)
(quotations omitted). When we do so, we are left with no doubt
that a reasonable trier of fact could find willful blindness where
an individual retrieves a package under an assumed name for a third
party, who could have retrieved the package himself, without
inquiring as to the necessity or legality of his actions.
Therefore, we find no merit to Garcia’s argument.
C.
Appellants next challenge their convictions by arguing that
they could not have participated in a conspiracy to import because
any such conspiracy concluded prior to their involvement. This
argument fails in light of United States v. Lowry, in which we held
that “importation of controlled substances . . . is a ‘continuous
crime’ that is not complete until the controlled substance reaches
its final destination.” 675 F.2d 593, 596 (4th Cir. 1982)
(quotation omitted). The fact that the cocaine, or the substitute
therefor, remained sealed in the car seat cushions throughout the
times relevant to this appeal--with none of the appellants directly
handling or attempting to remove it--supports a conclusion that the
drugs never reached their final destination. Therefore, the
13
conspiracy to import was ongoing at the time of appellants’
involvement and we reject their argument.3
D.
Appellants next challenge the government’s use of substitute
cocaine in the controlled delivery of the seat cushions, arguing
that there was insufficient evidence of the amount or composition
of the substance to support their convictions. In essence,
appellants argue that the government could secure their conviction
only if it proved that the car seat cushions contained actual
cocaine when retrieved by appellants. This argument fails,
however, because each appellant’s conspiracy conviction flows from
his agreement to accomplish an illegal goal, rather than its
actual--or even possible--accomplishment.
“The law of conspiracy . . . permit[s] the imposition of
criminal sanctions for [an] agreement alone, plus an overt act in
pursuit of it, regardless of whether the crime agreed upon actually
is committed.” United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 694 (1975);
see United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 126 (1st Cir. 1987)
(“[T]he crime of conspiracy . . . is complete upon the agreement to
do an unlawful act as implemented by one or more overt acts.”
3
This conclusion also forecloses appellants’ argument that
venue was improper in the Eastern District of Virginia. In drug
importation cases, venue is appropriate in any jurisdiction through
which the drugs pass. Lowry, 675 F.2d at 596. Given that the
drugs at issue here passed through the Eastern District of Virginia
by arriving at Dulles, venue was appropriate in that jurisdiction.
14
(quotations omitted)). Indeed, factual impossibility is not a
defense to a charge of conspiracy. United States v. Jimenez Recio,
537 U.S. 270, 275 (2003); United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 202
(1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Burke, 431 F.3d 883, 886 (5th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Belardo-Quinõnes, 71 F.3d 941, 944
(1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Clemente, 22 F.3d 477, 480-81 (2d
Cir. 1994). In the context of drug crimes, these principles leave
a defendant culpable for conspiracy even if no illegal substance
was ever involved. Burke, 431 F.3d at 886; United States v.
Murray, 527 F.2d 401, 411-12 (5th Cir. 1976).
These well-established principles negate the relevance of any
failure on the part of the government to prove the quantity or
composition of the substitute cocaine. Put simply, each
appellant’s conviction rests on his agreement to import cocaine and
action taken in furtherance thereof, rather than any specific
aspect of the actual substance involved.
III.
Appellants next argue that the district court erred in the
quantity of drugs it used to calculate their sentences. On cross-
appeal, the government contends that the district court erred by
attributing too small a quantity of drugs to Garcia and Hernandez.
Normally, we review challenges to the determination of drug
quantities for clear error. United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456,
461 (4th Cir. 2004). However, here, the parties do not dispute the
15
amount of drugs at issue and, instead, focus on whether the
district court properly applied the guidelines in the attribution
of drug quantities for sentencing purposes. Where we are
confronted solely with an issue of “guidelines application, our
standard of review approaches de novo.” United States v.
Fullilove, 388 F.3d 104, 106 (4th Cir. 2004).
Under the guidelines, the sentence of a defendant convicted of
a drug importation crime is calculated based on the quantity of
drugs that he personally “aided, abetted, counseled, commanded,
induced, procured, or willfully caused” to be imported into the
United States. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (2004). In other words,
a defendant is responsible for the full amount of drugs “with which
he was directly involved.” § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), application note 2;
Fullilove, 388 F.3d at 106-07. A defendant’s lack of knowledge or
foresight of a specific quantity of drugs is irrelevant for
sentencing purposes where such a direct connection exists.4 See §
4
Issues of foreseeability do play a role in calculating a drug
conspiracy sentence where a defendant lacks a direct connection to
certain quantities of drugs involved in the enterprise. See §
1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (calculating base offense level for conspiracy based
on “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in
furtherance of . . . jointly undertaken criminal activity”); United
States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The defendant need
not have actual knowledge of the exact quantity of narcotics
involved in the entire conspiracy; rather, it is sufficient if he
could reasonably have foreseen the quantity involved.”). Such
concerns are not at issue here because the district court held that
none of the appellants could have foreseen any of the drug
quantities involved and the government does not challenge this
finding on appeal.
16
1B1.3, illustration (a)(1) (noting that a defendant who carries a
suitcase filled with a controlled substance “is accountable for the
controlled substance in the suitcase regardless of his knowledge or
lack of knowledge of the actual type or amount of that controlled
substance”); United States v. Imariagbe, 999 F.2d 706, 707-08 (2d
Cir. 1993) (holding defendant liable for full amount of heroin in
suitcase even though he believed he was carrying a significantly
smaller quantity). With this background in mind, we turn to
appellants’ arguments.
The district court properly attributed to Diaz-Calderon the
full 902 grams of cocaine contained in all three car seat cushions.
The letter found in Diaz-Calderon’s possession at the time of his
arrest directly linked him to all three packages and justified
calculating his sentence based on the cocaine contained therein.
Therefore, we find no error in Diaz-Calderon’s sentence.5
The district court, however, erred by attributing to both
Hernandez and Garcia the 78 grams of cocaine that was the “smallest
amount of drugs . . . in any of the three packages,” rather than
the 543 grams in the package that both handled. J.A. 890-91; see
5
We also find no merit to Diaz-Calderon’s argument that the
902 grams of cocaine used by the district court at sentencing was
not found by the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt, and
therefore its use violated the principles set forth in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and its progeny. The
district court sat as finder of fact here and specifically found
that Diaz-Calderon was responsible for the entire amount of cocaine
beyond a reasonable doubt. J.A. 862-64.
17
also J.A. 879. The court applied the smaller amount out of concern
that the uneven distribution of cocaine across the three packages
would result in divergent sentences for Hernandez, Garcia and Diaz
for what the court viewed as essentially the same conduct (i.e.,
retrieving a package of cocaine with no specific knowledge of its
contents). See J.A. 879, 890-91. In other words, the court viewed
each of these appellants as similarly culpable--and deserving of a
similar sentence--because none was aware of or could have foreseen
the actual amount of cocaine in the packages that they handled.
Id. The sentencing guidelines, however, do not support that
analysis.
As previously noted, a defendant is culpable for the entire
amount of drugs with which he is directly involved, regardless of
knowledge or foresight. See § 1B1.3, comment 2, illustration
(a)(1); Imariagbe, 999 F.2d at 707-08. Given that both Hernandez
and Garcia directly handled the Gunder Diaz package, the district
court should have sentenced them based on the full 543 grams
contained therein without considering their knowledge or foresight.
Such quantity would have yielded a base offense level of 26 and a
guidelines range of 63 to 78 months,6 rather than the base offense
level of 16 and the resulting 21 to 27 month range used by the
district court. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
6
Both Hernandez and Garcia were assigned a criminal history
score of I.
18
calculated the sentences of both Hernandez and Garcia based on a
misapplication of the sentencing guidelines. Both sentences are
vacated as unreasonable and remanded for resentencing. See United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that if
a “sentence is based on an error in construing or applying the
Guidelines, it will be found unreasonable and vacated”).7
Finally, with respect to Diaz, we conclude that the district
court properly calculated his sentence based on the 78 grams of
cocaine that was contained in the Jorge Meija package that he
retrieved from Nor Oriente Express. His direct involvement with
that package was sufficient to justify calculating his sentence
based on the amount of drugs contained therein.
IV.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm each appellant’s conviction;
affirm the sentences of Diaz and Diaz-Calderon; and vacate the
sentences of Hernandez and Garcia, and remand each to the district
court for resentencing.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
7
We note that the district court is not without recourse on
remand to address its equitable concerns. The district court
retains the discretion to select a sentence that varies from the
prescribed guidelines range in order to serve the factors set forth
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), so long as the
court “articulate[s] the reasons for the sentence imposed,” the
sentence falls within the statutorily prescribed range, and the
sentence is reasonable. United States v. Hillyer, 457 F.3d 347,
351 (4th Cir. 2006).
19
MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it affirms the
convictions and sentences of Abimael Antonio Diaz-Calderon and Saul
Solis Diaz. I respectfully dissent from the determination that the
government presented sufficient evidence to convict Elmer De Paz
Garcia and Angel Augustin Hernandez. A conviction for conspiring
to import a controlled substance requires evidence that the
defendant knew that the conspiracy involved such a substance. The
knowledge requirement is not satisfied by a mere showing that the
defendant knew that he was involved in some form of illicit
activity. The government produced no evidence to support a finding
that either Garcia or Hernandez knew of his involvement in a drug
conspiracy. I would therefore reverse their convictions.
I.
On December 12, 2004, Garcia went to the office of Nor
Oriente Express in Hyattsville, Maryland, to pick up a package at
Hernandez’s request. The package had previously been intercepted
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents when it arrived
at Washington-Dulles International Airport from Guatemala. The ICE
agents structured a controlled delivery of the package through Nor
Oriente Express.
At Nor Oriente, Garcia asked for a package addressed to
“Gunder Diaz” and signed a receipt with that name. He was
20
immediately arrested. He appeared surprised when told that he was
being arrested for picking up a package containing drugs. Garcia
told the agents that another person had sent him to retrieve the
package, and he cooperated with the agents by arranging to meet
that person in the parking lot of a nearby store. When the other
person, Hernandez, arrived at the meeting place and took the
package from Garcia, Hernandez was also arrested. Hernandez
initially denied knowing anything about the package, but proceeded
to offer a series of explanations. He claimed that the package was
a gift of fan belts from a friend. He then said that the package
was intended for “Dunio,” but he could not remember Dunio’s phone
number. He finally admitted that Lucero Lopez was the person who
asked him to pick up the package, and he said that he had lied
about Dunio because he was scared about giving up Lopez.
II.
The behavior of Garcia and Hernandez is suspicious, but it
does not support a reasonable finding that either man knew or
believed that the package contained drugs. Such knowledge or
belief is essential to support a conviction for a drug conspiracy.
See United States v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 508, 512 (11th Cir. 1982).
To establish a conspiracy to import a controlled substance,
the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an
agreement existed between two or more persons to import such a
21
substance; (2) the defendant knew of the agreement or conspiracy;
and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of
the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th
Cir. 1996). At a minimum, the government must show that the
defendant knew or was willfully blind to the fact that the
conspiracy involved the importation of a controlled substance. See
Lewis, 676 F.2d at 512. The defendant need not know the particular
drug involved so long as he knew that the essential objective of
the conspiracy was to import drugs. Id. Evidence that he only
knew the conspiracy involved some form of illegal conduct does not
suffice to prove a drug conspiracy.
The majority affirms Garcia’s conviction because it concludes
that a reasonable trier of fact could find that he was willfully
blind to the nature of the conspiracy. I disagree. Knowledge is
imputed to an alleged conspirator under a willful blindness theory
only in rare circumstances. United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376,
385 (4th Cir. 1999). A finding of willful blindness is appropriate
only when the evidence shows that the defendant suspected the
nature of the conspiracy, realized its probability, and refrained
from confirming his suspicions because he wanted to be able to deny
knowledge later. See id. at 384-85. In other words, the evidence
must at least support an inference that the defendant purposely
remained ignorant of the nature of the illegal acts. United States
22
v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1145 (4th Cir. 1996). This requires
more than mere negligence in not obtaining knowledge. See id.
The evidence against Garcia boils down to this: (1) he agreed
to pick up a package addressed neither to him nor to the person who
asked him to retrieve it; (2) he signed for the package under a
false name; and (3) he agreed, at the agents’ request, to deliver
the package to Hernandez in a public place rather than at
Hernandez’s home. Garcia retrieved the package at a legitimate
place of business, and nothing indicated that the package contained
drugs. There was no evidence that Garcia had performed similar
tasks in the past or that he had prior involvement in drug activity
that might have raised his suspicions on this occasion. There was
also no evidence that Garcia was paid to pick up the package or
that he knew Lopez, the person who asked Hernandez to retrieve the
package. Cf. Withers, 100 F.3d at 1144-45. The fact that Garcia
did not sign his own name is suspicious, but it is not enough to
permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Garcia was
willfully blind to his participation in a conspiracy to import
drugs. See United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 1091, 1099 (4th Cir.
1984). At most, the circumstances might have caused him to suspect
that something illicit was afoot with respect to the package. His
failure to confirm this suspicion, however, cannot support the more
specific finding that he was willfully blind to his involvement in
a drug conspiracy.
23
For similar reasons, I would conclude that Hernandez neither
had actual knowledge of nor was willfully blind to the nature of
the drug importation conspiracy. The evidence against Hernandez
indicates that he had more reason than Garcia to suspect some form
of illicit activity, but it fails to show either that Hernandez
knew he was involved in a drug conspiracy or suspected that drugs
were involved. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the
government, the evidence shows only that Hernandez was suspicious
enough of the package’s contents to send someone else to retrieve
it and to provide the agents with conflicting false stories about
it. A factfinder here cannot make the leap from suspicion of
illegal activity to suspicion of drug activity without additional
evidence, such as some indication that Hernandez had prior
experience in the drug trade or knowledge of Lopez’s involvement
with drugs, which would have alerted him to the nature of the
conspiracy. A defendant cannot knowingly and willfully join a drug
conspiracy unless he knows its nature or was willfully blind to it.
Hernandez does not fit in either category.
The power to prosecute is a mighty power, and it must be
exercised with utmost care. I believe the prosecution here should
have exercised more care in evaluating the strength of its case
before seeking convictions against Garcia and Hernandez. I would
reverse their convictions for lack of sufficient evidence.
24