Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12837
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-14078-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALPHONSE PIERRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 7, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 10
Alphonse Pierre appeals his convictions for conspiring to and attempting to
import five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 963, and conspiring to
possess and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine,
id. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Pierre challenges the denial of his motion for a judgment of
acquittal, the admission of testimony and other evidence, and evidentiary rulings.
We affirm.
Three standards of review govern this appeal. We review de novo the
denial of a judgment of acquittal, and we construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137, 1152 (11th
Cir. 2012). We review the admission of testimony and other evidentiary rulings
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Woods, 684 F.3d 1045, 1062 & n.17
(11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 854 (11th Cir. 2006).
Objections or arguments that are not raised in the district court are reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Hoffman-Vaile, 568 F.3d 1335, 1340 (11th Cir.
2009).
The district court did not err by denying Pierre’s motion for a judgment of
acquittal. Sufficient evidence established that Pierre, a native and citizen of Haiti,
was involved in a conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine. Pierre and his
girlfriend were discovered in the master stateroom of a boat used to smuggle them
2
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 10
and three other aliens from the Bahamas into the United States. Inside the master
stateroom, agents discovered four weighty pieces of luggage containing 78
kilograms of cocaine, which testing later revealed was 74 percent pure cocaine and
could be diluted to increase the quantity to distribute. Agents seized from Pierre a
set of keys that opened locks on the luggage, $2,600 in US currency, and a
Blackberry cellular telephone. Pierre’s telephone contained text messages that
Pierre had sent to his wife and a contact list programmed with speed dial numbers
for four coconspirators: Widline Vaughn; a person identified as Manno; Guy
Derilus; and Pierre’s cousin, Luckson Morin, who was a taxicab operator living in
Florida. Agents arrested Derilus and Morin after they met the boat at a dock on
the St. Lucie River in Stuart, Florida. Agents also arrested Pierre and recorded a
telephone call that he made from jail instructing his wife to contact Vaughn using
the telephone number programmed into Pierre’s cellular telephone. During trial,
Morin testified that Pierre had agreed to pay the cost of leasing Morin’s taxi for
one week in exchange for transportation from the dock; Pierre had arranged a
meeting at a McDonald’s restaurant between Morin and the captain of the boat,
William Roberts, to select a site to dock the boat; Pierre had given Vaughn’s
telephone number to Morin; and Vaughn had introduced Morin to Derilus, who
intended to collect the cocaine from the boat. Captain Roberts testified about
3
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 4 of 10
meeting Morin at McDonald’s; sailing with the aliens from the Bahamas; and
cooperating with agents to make a controlled delivery of the cocaine. Morin and
Agents Jeffery Deslauriers and John Rees corroborated Roberts’s story about the
controlled delivery. And Daniel Malone, a forensic examiner for the Department
of Homeland Security, testified about toll records of telephone calls preceding the
arrival of the boat between Morin and Roberts, Morin and Derilus, Derilus and
Vaughn, Vaughn and Roberts, Vaughn and Manno, Vaughn and Pierre’s wife,
Vaughn and Pierre, and Manno and Pierre. A jury reasonably could find that
Pierre conspired to import cocaine into the United States for distribution. See
United States v. Quilca-Carpio, 118 F.3d 719, 721–22 (11th Cir. 1997).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted testimony
from Agent Deslauriers about Pierre’s girlfriend or when it permitted the
prosecutor to use leading questions. Deslauriers testified about Pierre’s girlfriend
to establish the identity of the aliens on board the boat and to establish that Pierre
also had a wife, which was relevant to a recorded telephone call to her in which
Pierre instructed her to contact Vaughn for assistance in hiring an attorney. See
Fed. R. Evid. 401. Pierre argues that “Morin’s testimony was totally lead [sic] by
the prosecutor,” but the district court sustained Pierre’s objections to the
prosecutor’s leading questions. See United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344,
4
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 5 of 10
1353 (11th Cir. 2005). Pierre also argues that Agent Eddie Melton “played off of
leading questions,” but Melton was a defense witness who could be asked leading
questions during cross-examination. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(c)(1).
The district court did not plainly err by admitting other testimony from
Agent Deslauriers, Agent Melton, or Roberts or by permitting the prosecutor to
comment on Morin’s testimony. Pierre argues that the testimony and comments
“[b]olstered and [v]ouch[ed] for the [c]redibility of [w]itnesses,” but no reversible
error occurred. To constitute plain error, the admission of the statements must
have affected Pierre’s substantial rights and “‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation’” of his trial. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d
1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). Deslauriers’s brief statement that he perceived
Roberts as being truthful when he admitted smuggling aliens into the United
States and denied any knowledge about the cocaine concealed in the luggage did
not affect Pierre’s substantial rights. And Roberts was entitled to testify that he
had been a “fair guy, straight shooter” with persons in the “Haitian community” to
explain why he had been “dumbfounded,” “angry,” and believed he had been “set
up” and “betrayed” when he learned about the cocaine. Fed. R. Evid. 701. After
Pierre called Melton as a witness and questioned him about his credentials, the
prosecutor was entitled to ask Melton about his experience, see Fed. R. Evid.
5
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 6 of 10
611(b), which was relevant to his credibility, see Fed. R. Evid. 402. And the
prosecutor was entitled in summation “to point[] out features of [Morin’s]
testimony that supported [his] credibility,” United States v. Johns, 734 F.2d 657,
663 (11th Cir. 1984), which included Morin’s unease in having to confess his
crimes in the presence of his family and to testify against Pierre.
The district court also did not plainly err when it admitted eight statements
made by Agent Deslauriers, Agent Rees, Agent Malone, and Roberts that Pierre
now contends was inadmissible hearsay. Pierre’s substantial rights were not
affected by the admission of three hearsay statements by Deslauriers that Rees had
said that he found contraband in the luggage; Officer Benjamin Caudill had said
that he found the keys to access the luggage in Pierre’s pocket; or Roberts had said
that each alien had boarded carrying a piece of luggage. See Turner, 474 F.3d at
1276. These statements were cumulative in the light of Deslauriers’s testimony
that he had tested the white powder to verify the presence of cocaine and that
Pierre had admitted possessing the keys; Caudill’s testimony that he had found the
keys in Pierre’s pocket; and Roberts’s testimony that the aliens had brought
luggage on board the boat. Deslauriers’s fourth statement that Rees had told him
that Morin had arrived at the dock was admissible under the exception to the
hearsay rule for present sense impressions. Fed. R. Evid. 803(1). And Pierre fails
6
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 7 of 10
to identify any hearsay in Deslauriers’s fifth statement about signing evidence
forms; Rees’s statement that he did not know the “acquiring agent” who had
labeled the cocaine; Agent Malone’s testimony; or Roberts’s “wandering narrative
of his contacts and conversations with” another smuggler.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Pierre’s hearsay
objections to questions posed to Roberts and Agent Rees. Roberts’s testimony
about why the owner of the boat insisted on giving Roberts a bill of sale was not
hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1). No error occurred during Rees’s testimony
because Pierre objected before Rees could repeat a statement by the boarding crew
that they had found keys to the luggage in Pierre’s pocket.
The district court did not plainly err when it admitted testimony from Agent
Deslauriers that Pierre “wasn’t cooperating,” “he wasn’t going to be truthful,” and
it was “pointless to continue questioning him.” There is no merit to Pierre’s
conclusory argument that Deslauriers’s statements violated the due process and
self-incrimination clauses of the Fifth Amendment under United States v. Miller,
255 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001), and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240
(1976), which prohibit the government from eliciting testimony that a defendant
invoked his right to remain silent after being advised of his right to counsel.
Deslauriers testified that Pierre waived his right to counsel and then told agents
7
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 8 of 10
that he did not see anyone bring luggage aboard the boat and had no idea how the
keys got in his pocket. Deslauriers was entitled to testify that he perceived Pierre
as being uncooperative.
The district court also did not plainly err when it allowed Agent Randy
Matschner to testify as an expert witness or when it asked Matschner to “explain
to the jury what the percentage of [quality] is of street level [cocaine] or use
quantity typically.” When the prosecutor offered Matschner as an expert witness,
Pierre stated that he “did not have any objections,” and waived his challenge to
Matschner’s qualifications. See Lindsey v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 150 F.3d
1307, 1315 n.2 (11th Cir. 1998). The district court acted within its “wide
discretion in managing the proceedings,” United States v. Day, 405 F.3d 1293,
1297 (11th Cir. 2005), when it asked Matschner to explain the value of the
cocaine.
The district court did not plainly err when it admitted into evidence the
cocaine, keys, luggage, and Deslauriers’s “paperwork.” Pierre argues that an
insufficient chain of custody existed to support admission of these items, but his
“[c]hallenge to the chain of custody goes to the weight rather than the
admissibility of the evidence.” United States v. Lopez, 758 F.2d 1517, 1521 (11th
Cir. 1985). Deslauriers’s paperwork was offered into evidence by Pierre, and
8
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 9 of 10
“‘where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable to the
action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible error.’”
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting United
States v. Martinez, 604 F.2d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 1979)).
Pierre argues about cumulative error based on the admission of testimony
and evidence, but his argument fails. Because Pierre fails to identify any
reversible error, there can be no cumulative error. United States v. Waldon, 363
F.3d 1103, 1110 (11th Cir. 2004).
Pierre also argues, for the first time, about the admission of testimony that
connected him to smuggling aliens into the United States and an alleged
constitutional violation, but these arguments fail too. Evidence about the
conspiracy to smuggle aliens was inextricably intertwined with the conspiracy to
import and distribute cocaine. Testimony about the aliens was integral to establish
how Pierre concealed and transported the cocaine to the United States. See United
States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th Cir. 1998). Pierre argues that the
“[s]eizure, [b]oarding, and [s]earch of the boat . . .and the [s]earch of [his]
person[]” violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but Pierre
waived any alleged constitutional violation by failing timely to move to suppress
the evidence before trial or to request a waiver from the timeliness requirement.
9
Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 10 of 10
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e); see United States v. Slocum, 708 F.2d 587, 600–01 (11th
Cir. 1983). And Pierre provides no good cause to excuse his failure to comply
with Rule 12(b)(3)(C). See United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1190
(11th Cir. 2011). The district court did not plainly err by admitting the evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM Pierre’s convictions.
10