[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10458 DEC 27, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-10021-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llll lllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS REYES,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 27, 2010)
Before BLACK, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Reyes participated in an alien-smuggling operation that resulted in
the drowning death of a young child after the go-fast boat capsized while trying to
evade capture. Reyes was convicted by a jury of 29 counts of knowingly
encouraging and inducing 29 aliens to enter the United States in violation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (a)(1)(B)(iv), and one count of conspiring to
encourage and induce aliens to enter the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(iv). Reyes raises a number of
issues in this appeal. He contends that the United States Coast Guard’s situation
report is inadmissible hearsay; that admission of the situation report violates the
Confrontation Clause; and that there is insufficient evidence to support his
convictions.
I.
Reyes first contends that the admission of the Coast Guard’s situation report
at his trial was error because that report is inadmissible hearsay. The report was
admitted under the public records exception of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
Reyes argues that it was not within that exception because the law enforcement
limitation to the exception applies. We review a district court’s ruling on hearsay
evidence only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330,
1359 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Under Rule 803(8), however, documents are not
excluded as hearsay if they are records, reports, statements, or data compilations of
public agencies containing matters observed under a duty to report. Fed. R. Evid.
803(8)(B). In criminal cases, however, the exception contained in that rule does
not cover matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement
personnel. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). Coast Guard officers act at times as law
enforcement personnel in discharging their duties. Cf. United States v. Trujillo,
573 F.3d 1171, 1173 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing a joint operation between the
Coast Guard and a “virtual alphabet soup of federal law enforcement agencies”).
The situation report in its unredacted form recounted all of the events of the
interdiction including the 40-minute high-speed, go-fast boat chase that ended in a
capsized boat, a rescue, and the death of a child. The situation report in that form
would almost certainly fit within the law enforcement limitation to Rule 803(8) as
a matter observed by law enforcement personnel.
The entire situation report, however, was not introduced into evidence. The
government stripped the situation report down to a bare list of the names of the
aliens found in the water near the go-fast boat and the identification numbers
3
assigned by the Coast Guard to keep track of those aliens during their detention on
the Coast Guard vessel. The situation report in that redacted form is akin to
information resulting from filling out a booking sheet and assigning a prisoner
number to someone detained at a county jail. This Court has reasoned that such
“documents recording routine, objective observations, made as part of the
everyday function of the preparing official or agency” are precisely the “type of
reliable record envisioned by the drafters of Rule 803(8).” See United States v.
Brown, 9 F.3d 907, 911–12 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that admission of a police
custodian’s property receipt to show existence of a firearm did not violate Rule
803(8)); see also United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1226 (11th Cir. 2010)
(“[A]dmission of routinely and mechanically kept I.N.S. records, such as . . .
warrants of deportation, does not violate Rule 803(8)(B).” (quoting United States
v. Agustino-Hernandez, 14 F.3d 42, 43 (11th Cir.1994))); United States v.
Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (finding that the admission of the “rote
recitation of biographical information in a booking sheet” does violate Rule
803(8)).
In this case the government offered evidence that matching the names of
aliens with custodial identification numbers onboard Coast Guard cutters is a
routine, non-adversarial procedure used to track individuals until they are
4
transferred to other agencies in the United States or repatriated to the countries
from which they came. Recording aliens’ names and assigning identification
numbers to log and track detainees while onboard a Coast Guard vessel does not
differ in form from intake procedures performed at the local jail. Both are
“routine, objective observations, made as a part of the everyday function” of the
agency and do not violate Rule 803(8). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the situation report under Rule 803(8).1
Reyes also contends that the names within the situation report were out-of-
court statements by the alien declarants, and those names were themselves hearsay
and should not have been admitted. But the aliens’ statements providing names
were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted—they were not offered to
prove that any alien was in fact who he said that he was. Instead, those names
were offered and admitted only to prove that the names were stated by the aliens
and that an officer recorded those names and the number of the corresponding
bracelet that was placed on each alien’s wrist for identification and tracking
purposes. That information in turn was matched with records of repatriation to
1
Reyes makes a passing reference and brief argument that another document, which
recorded the aliens’ repatriation to Cuba, also constituted hearsay. Even assuming that issue is
sufficiently raised, that document, like the situation report, falls within the Rule 803(8) public
records exception because it was a “document[] recording routine, objective observations, made
as part of the everyday function of the preparing official or agency.” See, Brown, 9 F.3d at 911.
5
Cuba, which was relevant to the issue of whether the aliens lacked authorization to
come to the United States. Whether an alien was repatriated to Cuba under his
correct name or a fictitious one was irrelevant.
II.
Reyes’ second contention is that admission of the situation report violated
the Confrontation Clause. We review de novo the district court’s rejection of that
issue. United States v. Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251, 1261 n.15 (11th Cir. 2008). As we
have already mentioned, the only parts of the report that were admitted were the
names the aliens gave and the identification numbers assigned to those names.
Because the names the aliens gave were not offered for the truth of the matter
asserted, it follows that cross-examination of the alien making that out-of-court
statement to determine its truth would be fruitless. Whether the alien gave a false
name is irrelevant. Put differently, if it does not matter whether the aliens were
telling the truth, then they are not testifying as “witnesses against” Reyes under the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. VI; see also
United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1286–1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The
Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than
establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” (alterations omitted) (quoting
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1369 n.9 (2004))).
6
Additionally, to the extent Reyes argues that the situation report itself violates the
Confrontation Clause, both the Coast Guard officer who gathered the names from
the aliens and assigned their identification numbers and the officer who recorded
the names in the situation report testified in court. Reyes had the opportunity to
cross-examine those officers about what the aliens said, how numbers were
assigned to the names, which numbers were assigned to which names, and so
forth.
III.
Reyes also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for encouraging or inducing aliens to come to the United States in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and to support his conviction for
conspiring to do that under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(v)(I). We review de novo the
sufficiency of the evidence, viewing all evidence, reasonable inferences, and
credibility choices in favor of the verdict. United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267,
1271 (11th Cir. 2006). A jury verdict cannot be set aside “if any reasonable
construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 762
(11th Cir. 1991).
A.
7
The government charged Reyes with 29 counts under 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), one for each alien. The elements of that statute are: “(1)
encouraging or inducing; (2) an alien; (3) to come to . . . the United States; and (4)
knowing or in reckless disregard that the alien’s coming to . . . the United States is
illegal.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 1250 (11th Cir. 2009)); see also 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). “This Court has given a broad interpretation to the phrase
‘encouraging or inducing’ in this context, construing it to include the act of
‘helping’ aliens come to . . . the United States.” Edwards, 602 F.3d at 1295.
Reyes asserts that the evidence presented by the government is insufficient
to satisfy the first element of encouraging or inducing under that statute because
all he did was plug coordinates into a GPS and plug his phone number into a
satellite phone. He argues that including that conduct under the first element of §
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) stretches even this Court’s broad interpretation of the phrase
“encouraging or inducing” too far.2
Reyes’ portrayal of the evidence and his argument, however, miss the boat.
The evidence presented by the government proved at the very least that he helped
2
Reyes also asserts that such a broad reading renders 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and
(a)(1)(A)(v)(II) superfluous. This Court specifically addressed and rejected those arguments in
Lopez. See Lopez, 590 F.3d at 1250–51.
8
the aliens to come from Cuba to the United States. There was testimony that
Reyes was the “organizer of the trip” and made calls to Cuba to coordinate the
pickup of the aliens. There was also testimony that Reyes, in addition to providing
and initially plugging in the GPS coordinates of the pickup rendevous and
providing a satellite phone with his number programmed in it, helped the pilots via
satellite phone to reprogram the GPS when it malfunctioned while the boat was on
the high seas en route to Cuba. Without Reyes’ help, the smuggling operation
would have been back to square one because the pilots could not have guided the
go-fast boat to the rendevous point where the aliens were waiting for them. There
was also evidence that he instructed the pilots how to evade interdiction by the
Coast Guard and told them what they should do in case they got caught. That was
plenty of evidence to support Reyes’ conviction under 8 § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).3
B.
Reyes also argues that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence
to support his conspiracy conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(1)(A)(v). He
3
Reyes also briefly argues that the government insufficiently proved each alien’s lack of
authorization to enter the United States. As we have already discussed, there was evidence
showing a covert smuggling operation resulting in the go-fast boat picking up 29 aliens who were
waiting for that boat in the water off the Cuban shore. En route to the United States, the go-fast
boat attempted to evade authorities, resulting in a 40-minute, highspeed chase. There was
evidence that the aliens were detained by the Coast Guard after the interdiction and that each
alien was successfully repatriated back to Cuba. That was more than enough evidence to prove
that the 29 aliens were Cuban nationals not authorized to enter the United States.
9
asserts that the government presented no evidence of arrangements between Reyes
and any foreign national. The lack of any arrangement, Reyes claims, made it
impossible for him to have conspired to encourage or induce any aliens to come to
the United States in violation of 8 § U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).
That argument is unpersuasive, because the absence of arrangements
between Reyes and any aliens is not dispositive. The elements of criminal
conspiracy are: (1) an agreement to commit a crime, (2) defendant’s knowing and
voluntary participation in the conspiracy, and (3) performance by at least one
conspirator of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v.
Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). The government may show
conspiracy “by circumstantial evidence and the extent of participation in the
conspiracy or extent of knowledge of details . . . does not matter if the proof shows
the defendant knew the essential objective of the conspiracy.” United States v.
Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1194 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotations marks omitted).
Like the convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), Reyes’ conspiracy
conviction under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) is supported by ample evidence. There
was evidence that after the first departure to Cuba failed, Reyes was present at a
meeting where a new plan was put together so that the illegal smuggling trip could
be completed. Reyes also fulfilled his role in that agreed-to plan when he
10
programmed the GPS, provided the satellite phone, and communicated on
numerous occasions with the pilots while they were en route to Cuba. The
evidence sufficiently showed that Reyes and the pilots agreed to commit a crime,
and Reyes, with knowledge of the plan, participated in it and committed numerous
overt acts in furtherance of it.
AFFIRMED.
11