11-4347-cr
United States v. Morillo-Vidal
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 6th day of May, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
7 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
8 J. CLIFFORD WALLACE,*
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
15 Appellee,
16
17 -v.- 11-4347
18
19 JOHN CARTAGENA, CESAR TUEROS,
20
21 Defendants,
22
23 VLADIMIR ALEXIS MORILLO-VIDAL,
24 AKA VLADIMIR MORILLO,
25
26 Defendant-Appellant.
27
28
29 FOR APPELLANT: ROLAND ACEVEDO, Scopetta Seiff Kretz &
30 Abercrombie, New York, NY.
*
Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
2 FOR APPELLEE: RYAN P. POSCABLO, Assistant United States
3 Attorney, for Preet Bharara, United
4 States Attorney for the Southern District
5 of New York, New York, NY.
6
7 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
8 Southern District of New York (Sweet, J.).
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District
12 Court for the Southern District of New York is AFFIRMED.
13 Defendant-Appellant Vladimir Alexis Morillo-Vidal
14 (“Morillo-Vidal”) appeals from a judgment of conviction
15 entered on September 29, 2011, following a jury trial held
16 in the United States District Court for the Southern
17 District of New York (Sweet, J.). A jury convicted Morillo-
18 Vidal of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
19 with the intent to distribute five kilograms and more of
20 cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 812, 841(a)(1)
21 and 841(b)(1)(A), and one count of attempting to possess
22 with the intent to distribute five kilograms and more of
23 cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1) and
24 841(b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Morillo-Vidal to
25 the mandatory minimum 120-month term of imprisonment. We
26 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
27 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
28
2
1 Morillo-Vidal argues on appeal that the evidence
2 presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury’s
3 verdict that he knowingly attempted to possess with the
4 intent to distribute approximately 47 kilograms of cocaine.
5 A defendant challenging a jury’s verdict of guilt must
6 establish that no rational juror could have found that the
7 Government proved the elements of the crime beyond a
8 reasonable doubt. United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539,
9 544 (2d Cir. 2004). Morillo-Vidal cannot meet this “heavy
10 burden.” Id.
11 The evidence adduced at trial showed that Morillo-Vidal
12 agreed to meet with Audrey Bonanno, who possessed 47
13 kilograms of sham cocaine, to pick up the drugs on behalf of
14 “Bubu.” After exchanging numerous calls with “Bubu” and
15 Bonanno, Morillo-Vidal went to a McDonald’s in Manhattan to
16 meet Bonanno and retrieve a duffel bag containing the
17 cocaine. Morillo-Vidal’s claim that he was unaware of the
18 duffel bag’s contents is undermined by testimony
19 establishing that the bag containing the sham drugs was
20 partially unzipped, the trunk of the vehicle where the bag
21 was located was well-lit, and Morillo-Vidal reached into the
22 bag to push the duct-taped bricks of sham cocaine further
23 inside the bag before zipping it closed. Morillo-Vidal’s
3
1 claim that he believed the bag to contain clothing is
2 suspect given that the duffel bag weighed approximately 100
3 pounds. In addition, when the agents interrupted the
4 transaction, Morillo-Vidal was poised to take sole
5 possession of the drugs – a cache worth approximately $1.8
6 million – reflecting his position of trust with “Bubu.”
7 Based on these facts, the jury reasonably determined that
8 the Government had met its burden to show Morillo-Vidal’s
9 knowledge of the contents of the duffel bag.
10 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
11
12 court is hereby AFFIRMED.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
4