United States v. Casiano (Vera)

07-1684-cr(L); 08-1814-cr(Con) US v. Casiano (Vera) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 27 th day of January, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, 7 CHESTER J. STRAUB, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 ________________________________________________ 13 14 United States of America, 15 16 Appellee, 17 18 v. 07-1684-cr (Lead), 08-1814-cr (Con) 19 20 21 Jose Santiago Vera, also known as Max, Eduardo Casiano, 22 23 Defendants-Appellants. 24 ________________________________________________ 25 26 APPEARING FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: M ICHELE H AUSER, Law 27 Office of Michele 28 Hauser, New York, NY 1 D AVID L. L EWIS, Lewis & 2 Fiore, New York, NY 3 4 5 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Assistant United States 6 Attorney R OBERT M. 7 S PECTOR (Sandra S. 8 Glover, Assistant 9 United States Attorney, 10 on the brief) for Nora 11 R. Dannehy, United 12 States Attorney for the 13 District of Connecticut 14 15 16 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 17 District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.). 18 19 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 20 AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and 21 hereby is AFFIRMED: 22 23 Appellants Jose Santiago Vera (“Vera”) and Eduardo 24 Casiano (“Casiano”) appeal from judgments of conviction 25 entered in the United States District Court for the District 26 of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.) on April 10, 2007 (Vera) and 27 April 14, 2008 (Casiano), following a jury verdict. We 28 assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, 29 the procedural history of the case, and the issues on 30 appeal. 2 1 The district court did not abuse its discretion when it 2 dismissed a juror sua sponte. The juror indicated her 3 inability to follow the court’s instructions and the court 4 justifiably removed her. 5 The district court also did not abuse its discretion 6 when the court declined to interview a juror in camera after 7 the completion of the trial. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 8 606(b), a court may not interview a juror about “any matter 9 or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s 10 deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any 11 other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to 12 assent to or dissent from the verdict.” Fed. R. Evid. 13 606(b). A juror may only testify about “(1) whether 14 extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to 15 the jury’s attention, (2) whether any outside influence was 16 improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether 17 there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict 18 form.” Id. We find no error in the court’s conclusion that 19 the juror’s letter did not implicate any of the three 20 permissible areas of inquiry. 21 Finally, the district court did not commit plain error 22 when it permitted the government’s investigator to testify 3 1 about the proffer and cooperation agreements. 2 We AFFIRM. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk 7 8 9 4