UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4327
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HENRY ALEXANDER BERRIOS, a/k/a Blackie,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 08-4328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SANTOS CARILLO-MORALES, a/k/a Santos Guillermo Carillo-
Morales, a/k/a Santo Guiller Carillo-Morales, a/k/a Polaco,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 08-4365
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL ALBERT BONILLA-DELCID, a/k/a Slow,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 08-4385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a Carlos
Antonio Martinez,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 08-4403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CESAR OMAR HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, a/k/a Mandrake,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00081-GBL-5; 1:07-cr-00081-GBL-7; 1:07-cr-
00081-GBL-3; 1:07-cr-00081-GBL-4; 1:07-cr-00081-GBL-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2010 Decided: October 15, 2010
2
Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and Robert J. CONRAD,
Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Western District
of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Cesar Omar Hernandez-
Perez; Gregory E. Stambaugh, LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY E. STAMBAUGH,
Manassas, Virginia, for Henry Alexander Berrios; Daniel T.
Lopez, LOPEZ MELEEN & SPRANO PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Santos
Carillo-Morales; John O. Iweanoge, II, THE IWEANOGES’ FIRM, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Daniel Albert Bonilla-Delcid; Dwight E.
Crawley, LAW OFFICE OF DWIGHT E. CRAWLEY, Arlington, Virginia,
for Rigoberto Hernandez Portillo. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Patrick F. Stokes, Beth N. Gibson, Assistant United
States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for the United States.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
Cesar Omar Hernandez-Perez, Daniel Albert Bonilla-Delcid,
Rigoberto Hernandez Portillo, Henry Alexander Berrios, and
Santos Carillo-Morales appeal their convictions for four counts
of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering (VICAR), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The convictions arise out of an
October 15, 2005, attack by thirteen members of Mara Salvatrucha
(MS-13) on M.N., a fifteen-year old member of a rival gang, and
two of his friends outside a mall in Springfield, Virginia.
On appeal, the defendants challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting their convictions. “In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, our role is limited to considering
whether there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support the conviction.” United
States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468, 471 (4th Cir. 2007).
“[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence that 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
To prove a VICAR violation, the Government must show:
(1) that the organization was a RICO enterprise, (2)
that the enterprise was engaged in racketeering
activity as defined in RICO, (3) that the defendant in
question had a position in the enterprise, (4) that
the defendant committed the alleged crime of violence,
4
and (5) that his general purpose in so doing was to
maintain or increase his position in the enterprise.
United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997, 1003 (4th Cir. 1994)
(internal citation marks omitted). The defendants contend that
the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that their
actions had the purpose of maintaining or increasing their role
in MS-13 or to support a finding that M.N. was the object of the
crime of violence. Hernandez Portillo, Bonilla-Delcid, and
Carillo-Morales also contest the sufficiency of the evidence
showing that they joined the conspiracy to assault and murder
M.N. We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and find
more than sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on
all four counts in the indictment.
In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,
Berrios and Hernandez Portillo argue that the district court
improperly admitted testimony that on two occasions they
violently attacked a rival gang member. We review the district
court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 238 (4th Cir. 2005). While
conceding that the testimony is relevant, Berrios and Hernandez
Portillo contend that it is highly prejudicial and thus
inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Pursuant to
Rule 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
5
prejudice.” We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this
evidence.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the defendants’
convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
6