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