Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13037
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00223-WSD-CMS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BLAS ALEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 25, 2018)
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 2 of 10
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raising several arguments, Blas Aleman, Jr. appeals his conviction for
conspiring to possess at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and at least 500 grams of
methamphetamine. First, Aleman argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment because the government’s eight-year delay in
prosecution violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and hindered his
ability to defend against the charged conduct. Second, Aleman argues that the
district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to schedule a second
foreign deposition of his alleged treating physician, whose testimony would have
presumably established an alibi. Third, Aleman asserts that the district court
abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his 2005 arrest, warrant, and
subsequent flight from Florida as irrelevant and as improper character evidence.
Fourth, Aleman argues that the district court committed plain error by permitting
prosecutorial misconduct in allowing the government to offer testimony of Ramon
Salazar, which contradicted his earlier statements. And finally, Aleman argues that
the district court erred in denying his post-verdict motion for a judgment of
acquittal because his conviction was based on insufficient evidence. After a
careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs and arguments, we affirm and
briefly address each argument in turn.
2
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 3 of 10
I.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy
and public trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI. “Whether the government deprived a
defendant of his constitutional right to a speedy trial presents a mixed question of
law and fact.” United States v. Villarreal, 613 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2010).
“We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and . . . its factual
findings for clear error.” Id. “[W]e allot substantial deference to the factfinder . . .
in reaching credibility determinations [regarding] witness testimony.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under the Sixth Amendment, we employ a
four-part test, weighing: “(1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay,
(3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the actual
prejudice borne by the defendant.” Id. at 1350 (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.
514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192 (1972)). If the first three factors do not uniformly
weigh heavily against the government, the defendant must demonstrate actual
prejudice “in one of three ways: (1) oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) anxiety
and concern of the accused, and (3) possibility that the accused's defense will be
impaired.” United States v. Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
3
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 4 of 10
The district court did not err in denying Aleman’s motion to dismiss the
indictment. While the delay was substantial, Aleman’s own evasive conduct
following his 2005 arrest—fleeing to Mexico—caused it and was the reason he
failed to invoke his right to a speedy trial sooner. See Villarreal, 613 F.3d at
1352–54. And because the first three factors do not weigh heavily against the
government, and instead weigh heavily against him, Aleman must show actual
prejudice—a feat he cannot accomplish. See Dunn, 345 F.3d at 1296. Thus,
Aleman’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.
II.
“A party may move that a prospective witness be deposed in order to
preserve testimony for trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a)(1). In moving to admit
deposition testimony as evidence at trial under Rule 15, the movant must submit
evidence that exceptional circumstances—such as the witness’s unavailability and
materiality—justify using a deposition at trial. United States v. Kahn, 794 F.3d
1288, 1306 (11th Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a)(1). We consider foreign
depositions to be suspect and they are generally disfavored as evidence in criminal
cases because of the lack of a penalty for perjury and the absence of the
opportunity for cross-examination. United States v. Alvarez, 837 F.2d 1024, 1029
(11th Cir. 1988). We review a district court’s denial of a pre-trial motion to
4
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 5 of 10
conduct discovery for abuse of discretion. United States v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546,
1552 (11th Cir. 1993).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aleman’s motion to
conduct a second foreign deposition because he failed to show that exceptional
circumstances warranted it. See Kahn, 794 F.3d at 1306. Aleman sought to
depose Dr. Carbajal—who failed to appear at the first deposition and could not
confirm his ability or willingness to appear going forward—again, this time in
Guerrero, Mexico. Id. Not only would the deposition have been cumulative, and
thus immaterial, as Dr. Carbajal’s testimony would have only established yet
another alleged alibi, but it also would have been prohibitively dangerous to the
parties due to violence in the Guerrero area. See United States v. Ramos, 45 F.3d
1519, 1522–23 (11th Cir. 1995) (laying out factors to guide in deciding whether
exceptional circumstances exist).
III.
Evidence is relevant if it “has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence” and “is of consequence in
determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. But relevant evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a
5
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 6 of 10
person’s character in order to show action in conformity therewith, but it may be
admissible for other purposes, such as proving intent, absence of mistake, or lack
of accident. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1), (2). Further, evidence of such criminal
conduct “falls outside the scope of Rule 404(b) and thus is independently
admissible if it is[:] (1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same
transaction or series of transactions as the charged offenses, (2) necessary to
complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence
regarding the charged offenses.” United States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386, 1393 (11th
Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations adopted).
We review a district court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1107 (11th Cir. 2010). We will only
reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling if the resulting error was not harmless.
United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011). “It is the
province of the trial judge to weigh any materiality against any prejudice and,
unless the judge’s reading is ‘off the scale,’ his discretion is not abused.” United
States v. Shelley, 405 F.3d 1195, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). Finally, limiting
instructions may mitigate any prejudicial effect caused by introducing prior act
evidence. See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of
Aleman’s 2005 arrest because it was relevant and not substantially more
6
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 7 of 10
prejudicial than probative because the evidence was intrinsic to the charged
conduct and the actual underlying conduct supporting his 2005 arrest was omitted
at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. And, the evidence was not used to show
propensity, but was instead used to explain his secretive and evasive conduct in
Atlanta following his Florida arrest. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1), (2); see also Ford,
784 F.3d at 1393. Moreover, the district court gave a limiting instruction that
diminished the prejudicial nature of this evidence. See Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1282.
IV.
“To establish prosecutorial misconduct for the use of false testimony, a
defendant must show the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, or failed
to correct what he subsequently learned was false testimony, and that the falsehood
was material.” United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1208 (11th Cir. 2010).
“[A] prior statement that is merely inconsistent with a government witness’s
testimony is insufficient to establish prosecutorial misconduct.” Id.
We typically review a claim of prosecutorial misconduct de novo. United
States v. Duran, 596 F.3d 1283, 1299 (11th Cir. 2010). But when such a claim is
raised for the first time on appeal, we review only for plain error. United States v.
Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 1090 (11th Cir. 2015). Under the plain error standard, we
look for: (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects the defendant’s substantial
rights. United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 948 (11th Cir. 2006). An error is
7
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 8 of 10
plain when it is contrary to the explicit language of a statute or rule, our on-point
precedent, or the Supreme Court’s. United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1322
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see United States v. Lett, 483 F.3d 782, 790 (11th
Cir. 2007) (holding that no plain error occurs where no controlling precedent
supports the proposition that there was error).
The district court did not commit plain error by allowing the government to
introduce witness testimony at trial that merely conflicted with the witness’s pre-
trial identification of Aleman. McNair, 605 F.3d at 1208. Because no evidence of
coercion was shown and no authority suggests that conflicting witness
identifications before and at trial, without more, constitute misconduct on behalf of
the government there was no plain error. See id.; Lett, 483 F.3d at 790.
V.
Lastly, we review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge de novo,
reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and
drawing all inferences in its favor. United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239, 1248
(11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). “A conviction must be upheld unless a rational
fact-finder could not have found the defendant guilty under any reasonable
construction of the evidence.” Id. It is not required that the evidence exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order for a reasonable jury to find
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541,
8
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 9 of 10
1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Thus, the jury is free to choose among
alternative, reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Id.
Additionally, credibility questions are within the province of the jury.
United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1270 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). This
holds true where the defendant testifies in his own defense. The jury is free to
disbelieve the defendant and use his testimony as substantive evidence of his guilt.
See United States v. Williamson, 339 F.3d 1295, 1301 n.14 (11th Cir. 2003).
To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove that: (1) an agreement existed between
two or more people to distribute the drugs; (2) the defendant at issue knew of the
conspiratorial goal; and (3) he knowingly joined or participated in the illegal
venture. United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 497 (11th Cir. 2014). In assessing
whether the record is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a single conspiracy,
we consider whether a common goal existed, the nature of the underlying scheme,
and the overlap of participants. Id. We have stated that it is axiomatic that
participation in a criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; but
rather, “a common purpose or plan may be inferred from a development and
collocation of circumstances.” Id.
The district court did not err in denying Aleman’s post-verdict motion for a
judgment of acquittal because there was substantial evidence from which a
9
Case: 17-13037 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 10 of 10
reasonable jury could have concluded that Aleman was complicit in the conspiracy
to transport drugs from Mexico to the U.S. See Brown, 665 F.3d at 1248. There
was ample testimony from witnesses stating that they met and spoke with Aleman
regarding transporting drugs. And there was also evidence of Aleman’s presence
in the United States during the conspiracy. The jury found this testimony to be
credible and we are bound by that decision. See United States v. Broughton, 689
F.3d 1260, 1277 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[w]e are bound by the jury’s
credibility choices, and by its rejection of the inferences raised by the defendant.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
10
United States v. Blas Aleman
Combined Opinion