United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 17-2153, 17-2154, 17-2188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ENRICO M. PONZO, a/k/a HENRY PONZO, a/k/a MICHAEL P. PETRILLO,
a/k/a RICO, a/k/a JOEY, a/k/a JEFFREY JOHN SHAW, a/k/a JAY SHAW,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Stahl, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Allison Koury, on brief for appellant.
Andrew E. Lelling, United States Attorney, Dustin M. Chao,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney
General, Matthew S. Miner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
William A. Glaser, Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division
on brief for appellee.
January 9, 2019
BARRON, Circuit Judge. In 2014, Enrico Ponzo was
convicted on twelve federal criminal counts -- including
conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) -- in the District of Massachusetts.
The convictions arose from his role in the late 1980s and early
1990s in a large criminal organization called "La Cosa Nostra."
The District Court imposed a lengthy prison sentence and also
entered a $2.25 million money judgment forfeiture. Ponzo appealed
the convictions, his sentence, and the money judgment forfeiture.
We affirmed. See United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir.
2017).
On November 28, 2016, Ponzo moved for a new trial under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis of evidence
that he claims is newly discovered. He also moved for an
evidentiary hearing to support this motion. The District Court
denied both motions without issuing an opinion. Then, in 2017,
the District Court ordered the forfeiture of a gold ring in partial
satisfaction of the previously ordered money judgment forfeiture.
In the consolidated appeals that are now before us, Ponzo
challenges all three of these orders by the District Court. None
of his challenges have merit. We thus affirm.1
1
With respect to Ponzo's appeal from the District Court's
denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing on his motion for
a new trial, we affirm the denial of that motion without further
- 2 -
I.
Under Rule 33, a defendant who has been convicted of a
federal offense may move for a new trial within three years on the
basis of newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1).
To succeed on such a motion, the defendant must show (1) that "the
evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time
of trial;" (2) that the defendant's "failure to learn of the
evidence was not due to lack of diligence by the defendant;" (3)
that "the evidence is material, and not merely cumulative or
impeaching;" and (4) that the evidence "will probably result in an
acquittal upon retrial." United States v. Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d
1, 15 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. González-González,
258 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2001)).
If the newly discovered evidence involves impeachment
evidence withheld in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405
U.S. 150 (1972), then "a 'more defendant-friendly' standard
applies to the prejudice inquiry encompassed by the third and
fourth prongs." United States v. Calderón, 829 F.3d 84, 90 (1st
Cir. 2016) (quoting Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d at 15). In such a
case, a defendant "must establish only a 'reasonable probability'
of a different outcome if the government had disclosed the evidence
prior to trial." Id. (quoting Flores-Rivera, 787 F.3d at 15-16).
discussion, as Ponzo's brief to us does not address it. See United
States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
- 3 -
With respect to a preserved challenge to the denial of
such a motion, our review is for "manifest abuse of discretion."
Id. (quoting United States v. Alverio–Meléndez, 640 F.3d 412, 423
(1st Cir. 2011)). We review unpreserved challenges only for plain
error. United States v. Scott, 877 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 2017).
A.
Ponzo first contends that he is entitled to a new trial
on the basis of a report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
("FBI") that he contends was not disclosed by the government. He
claims the report indicates that the FBI had filmed a search
conducted of the curtilage of a cabin in Idaho in which Ponzo had
been living under an alias for several years prior to his arrest
there.
We laid out in some detail the set of events that led to
and included Ponzo's indictment, flight from Massachusetts to
Idaho, arrest in Idaho, and eventual conviction and sentencing in
our prior opinion. See Ponzo, 853 F.3d at 565-72. We see no need
to repeat those facts here. Suffice it to say, in Ponzo's view,
his discovery of the FBI report supports his Rule 33 motion for
the following reasons.
On February 7, 2011, members of a fugitive task force
run by the United States Marshals service (the "Task Force")
arrested Ponzo outside the Idaho cabin and proceeded to conduct a
warrantless search of the cabin's curtilage. An application for
- 4 -
a subsequent search warrant claimed that, during the search of the
cabin's curtilage, the members of the Task Force looked through
the cabin's window and saw what appeared to be a rifle. And that
warrant in turn led to the discovery of evidence that was used
against him at trial.2
Ponzo claims that the film referenced in the FBI report
exists and would show that the curtains on the window were closed
at the time of the search. He thus contends that the film would
reveal that the Task Force members could not have seen the rifle.
Thus, Ponzo claims, he is entitled, on the basis of the FBI report,
to a new trial under Rule 33 due to the prejudice traceable to its
non-disclosure, given that he contends that the film would have
permitted him successfully to have moved to suppress critical
evidence supporting the government's case against Ponzo.
Even if we assume that we must use the prejudice standard
that applies for Giglio material, we still must conclude that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting this
ground for granting Ponzo's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. In
addition to vigorously disputing Ponzo's assertion that the film
even exists,3 the government contends that Ponzo has not offered
2 Ponzo contends that this was, in fact, an "air rifle," but
this factual dispute is irrelevant to this appeal.
3 The government claims that the report that Ponzo cites is
mistaken and notes that the FBI agent who prepared that report has
- 5 -
anything other than unfounded speculation to support his
contention that any such film -- if it did, in fact, exist -- would
show that the rifle at issue could not have been seen through the
window during the search. And, the government's characterization
of the basis for Ponzo's contention that the alleged film would
aid his cause -- namely, that his contention in is founded on
nothing more than his own unsubstantiated speculation -- is
entirely fair. After all, Ponzo points to nothing in the record
to support his claims about what the film -- insofar as there even
is a film -- would show. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the
District Court manifestly abused its discretion in rejecting
Ponzo's claim that this report provides a basis for granting his
Rule 33 motion. See United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 314
(1st Cir. 1991) (denying a motion for a new trial on the basis of
the "record as a whole, not on the basis of wishful thinking, rank
conjecture, or unsupportable surmise").
B.
Ponzo separately contends that a second FBI report,
which he also contends was not provided to him during discovery,
entitles him to a new trial, also pursuant to Rule 33. Ponzo
claims that this second report shows that FBI agents had "actual
knowledge that on the day of his arrest, Ponzo's children were
since sworn in an affidavit that that the report was incorrect and
that no such film was ever made.
- 6 -
with their mother in Utah" and not at the cabin in Idaho that was
searched. And, Ponzo contends, the FBI report therefore supports
his Rule 33 motion in the following way.
Ponzo reasons that, if he had been aware of this aspect
of the report, then he would have been able to make the case that
the initial, warrantless search of the curtilage of the cabin in
Idaho amounted to an unlawful ruse. Specifically, he contends
that law enforcement falsely represented to the magistrate that
they undertook the warrantless search in order "to make sure that
the children were not left alone." Because the fruits of that
warrantless search were used to obtain the subsequent search
warrant, Ponzo argues that the report would have permitted him to
successfully move to suppress the evidence that the government
acquired during the search conducted pursuant to that warrant.
In opposing Ponzo's Rule 33 motion, however, the
government argued to the District Court that, even if the initial
warrantless search was unlawful, its fruits were unnecessary to
show probable cause for the subsequent search warrant.
Accordingly, the government contended, the fruits of the search
based on that warrant were admissible under the independent source
rule and thus Ponzo's claim of prejudice based on the report's
non-disclosure is baseless.
At that time, Ponzo's appeal of his convictions to our
Court was still pending. But, in rejecting Ponzo's appeal, we
- 7 -
reached that same conclusion about the admissibility of the fruits
of that search under the independent source rule that the
government asked the District Court to reach in arguing that
Ponzo's Rule 33 motion should be denied. Ponzo, 853 F.3d. at 573.
Thus, Ponzo is not free to contend otherwise now. See United
States v. Medina-Villegas, 700 F.3d 580, 585 (1st Cir. 2012) ("The
law of the case doctrine bars a party from resurrecting issues
that either were, or could have been, decided on an earlier
appeal." (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly,
Ponzo's contention that the second FBI report might call into
question the legality of the initial, warrantless search fails to
demonstrate that it was a "manifest abuse of discretion" for the
District Court to deny Ponzo's Rule 33 motion. United States v.
Josleyn, 206 F.3d 144, 151 (1st Cir. 2000).
Ponzo separately argues that this second FBI report
shows that the FBI agents made false statements about the
whereabouts of Ponzo's children in an affidavit supporting the
application for the first warrant to search Ponzo's house. And,
Ponzo contends, "[h]ad this information been properly disclosed,
the outcome of the District Court's ruling on the Motion to
- 8 -
Suppress [evidence from the search conducted pursuant to that
warrant]" would have been different.4
But, Ponzo did not argue to the District Court, in
support of his Rule 33 motion, that the motion to suppress the
fruits of that search would have been granted if he could have
shown -- based on this second FBI report -- that the warrant was
issued based on false statements to the District Court about the
children's location at the relevant time. Thus, our review is
only for plain error. See Scott, 877 F.3d at 37. And, as Ponzo
fails to argue that he can meet that demanding standard, we cannot
conclude that the District Court plainly erred in denying Ponzo's
motion for a new trial on the basis of the prejudice that he
contends may be traced to the non-disclosure of this second FBI
report. Calderón, 829 F.3d at 90.5
4 Ponzo does note that he was denied an evidentiary hearing
on his motion to suppress and suggests, without citing any
authority, that the newly discovered evidence would entitle him to
such a hearing. But, he does not explain how the denial of an
evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress suffices to show the
prejudice that he must demonstrate under Rule 33, and no such
argument occurs to us on this record.
5 In any event, we note that, as the government points out,
the report states, in relevant part, that Cara Pace, the children's
mother and Ponzo's then-common law wife, "left Ponzo with their
two children." The report thus does not make clear whether she
brought the children with her when she left or whether she instead
left them behind with Ponzo.
- 9 -
C.
We now turn to Ponzo's final ground for challenging the
District Court's denial of his Rule 33 motion. This challenge
rests on Ponzo's allegations concerning reward money that the FBI
paid to two confidential witnesses in connection with information
that led to his arrest. In particular, Ponzo contends, he
discovered post-trial that this reward money went both to Cara
Pace and to her father. Ponzo thus claims that the government, by
withholding this information, prejudiced his ability to cross-
examine Cara Pace at trial, both about whether she did, in fact,
receive any of the reward money and about whether she was biased
in favor of the government because of the reward.
Even if we apply the more defendant-friendly Giglio-
based prejudice standard, Ponzo's challenge still fails. Flores-
Rivera, 787 F.3d at 15. In asserting without any substantiation
that Cara Pace did receive the reward along with her father (an
assertion that the government disputes), Ponzo merely states that,
if he had possessed the alleged evidence showing that Cara Pace
had received that money, then he would have been well-positioned
to impeach her testimony against him at trial. But, Ponzo does
not explain how such impeachment would in and of itself show a
reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. And,
notably, Ponzo did not file a reply brief, even though the
government explains at some length in its responsive brief that
- 10 -
Cara Pace's testimony was only relevant to "two money laundering
counts, unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, and witness
tampering" and that her testimony was not necessary to sustain a
conviction on any of these counts, given the other evidence that
was in the record. Thus, we reject Ponzo's contention that the
District Court's denial of his Rule 33 motion is a manifest abuse
of discretion. Calderón, 829 F.3d at 90.
II.
We turn, finally, to Ponzo's appeal of the District
Court's November 8, 2017 order requiring forfeiture of a gold ring
as partial satisfaction of the money judgment forfeiture that had
been previously ordered. Ponzo challenges this ruling on the basis
of United States v. Cunan, 156 F.3d 110, 114 (1st Cir. 1998), as
he argues that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the District
Court's ruling. Because this is a challenge to a legal conclusion,
our review is de novo. United States v. George, 886 F.3d 31, 39
(1st Cir. 2018).
Ponzo bases his res judicata argument on the fact the
ring had previously been subject to a civil forfeiture action in
the District of Idaho and that this action was dismissed on March
14, 2017. Ponzo contends, based on Cunan, that a criminal
forfeiture action is an identical proceeding for purposes of res
judicata and thus that the dismissal of the civil forfeiture action
- 11 -
in the District of Idaho is preclusive of the order of forfeiture
of the gold ring in the criminal forfeiture action.
The government rightly responds, however, that the rule
in Cunan does not apply here because the dismissal by the District
Court in Idaho was without prejudice and a dismissal without
prejudice does not carry preclusive effect. Cunan, 156 F.3d at
120 ("[R]es judicata bars a criminal forfeiture following
dismissal with prejudice of a prior civil forfeiture proceeding
involving the same property."); see García-Goyco v. Law Envtl.
Consultants, Inc., 428 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2005) (recognizing
that dismissal without prejudice does not have a preclusive
effect). The order from the District Court of Idaho that dismissed
the civil forfeiture action granted the government's motion for
voluntary dismissal. And, Rule 41(a)(2) makes clear that a
voluntary dismissal is "without prejudice" unless "state[d]
otherwise." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Ponzo nevertheless contends that the dismissal was with
prejudice because the order of dismissal stated that "[the gold
ring] be returned to Ponzo[.]" United States v. Real Prop. Located
at 6107 Hogg Rd., Marsing, Owyhee Cty., Idaho, No. 1:11-cv-00300-
CWD, slip op. at 10 (D. Idaho Mar. 14, 2017). But, read in context,
the language by the district court in Idaho that Ponzo seizes upon
clearly does not constitute a statement that the dismissal is with
prejudice. In moving for a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule
- 12 -
41(a)(2), the government expressly requested the dismissal of the
civil forfeiture action with respect to the gold ring and other
personal property in order "to allow [it] to be available for
satisfaction of prior pending legal obligations related to the
criminal judgment of the . . . District of Massachusetts." Motion
for Voluntary Dismissal at 1, United States v. Real Prop. Located
at 6107 Hogg Rd., Marsing, Owyhee Cty., Idaho, No. 1:11-cv-00300-
CWD (D. Idaho Nov. 10, 2016). The ruling by the district court in
Idaho granting that motion then expressly stated that the civil
forfeiture action was being dismissed "to allow [the gold ring] to
be applied to satisfaction of prior pending legal obligations of
Ponzo in the Boston criminal judgment . . . ." Real Prop. Located
at 6107 Hogg Rd., slip op. at 18. Accordingly, we reject Ponzo's
challenge to the order of forfeiture of the gold ring.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below is
affirmed.
- 13 -