United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
DANIEL BURGOS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch, and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Joshua L. Gordon for appellant.
Jennifer Hay Zacks, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
June 22, 2001
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Daniel Burgos appeals his
convictions and sentence for one count of attempting to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846 and § 841(a)(1), and one count of money laundering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). He makes five
arguments: (1) that the indictment is defective for not
sufficiently alleging proof that the money laundering
transaction affected interstate commerce; (2) that the evidence
was insufficient to convict him on both charges; (3) that the
district court abused its discretion in not severing the two
charges; (4) that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), in charging him with money laundering; and
(5) that the district court erred in sentencing him on the
cocaine conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his
convictions on both counts, as well as his sentence.
I. Background
The government's case against Burgos originated with
the arrest of William O'Neil on February 10, 1999 by the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Agreeing to cooperate with the
government that same day, O'Neil arranged with Burgos, in a
recorded telephone call, for Burgos to purchase two kilograms of
cocaine at a price of $22,000 per kilogram. When Burgos arrived
-2-
at the designated meeting place for the transaction, he was
arrested immediately. Burgos had not yet obtained the cocaine
from O'Neil at the time of his arrest and he had not yet had the
opportunity to observe whether O'Neil was in possession of any
cocaine. Burgos was carrying $44,000 in cash when he was
arrested.
The grand jury returned an indictment on February 25,
1999 charging Burgos with attempting to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine. After further investigation, the government
obtained a search warrant for Burgos's residence, which it
executed on March 9. Various documents, including financial and
employment records, were seized at that time. Based on those
records, a superseding indictment was returned on June 17
charging Burgos with money laundering and renewing the drug
charge. Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted him of
both counts on August 18, 1999. The district court sentenced
Burgos in January 2000 to 108 months in prison.
II. Allegations of Interstate Commerce in the Indictment
Burgos argues that the indictment contained
insufficient allegations that his monetary transaction affected
interstate commerce. Because he did not raise this claim below,
we review for plain error. See United States v. Mojica-Baez,
229 F.3d 292, 307 (1st Cir. 2000).
-3-
The indictment charged that Burgos:
did knowingly and willfully conduct and
attempt to conduct a financial transaction,
to wit, the delivery of $44,000 in cash,
which said cash involved the proceeds of a
specified unlawful activity, that is, the
distribution of a controlled substance, a
violation of Title 21, United States Code,
Section 841(a)(1), with the intent to
promote the carrying on of a specified
unlawful activity, to wit, the distribution
of cocaine, a violation of Title 21, United
States Code, Section 841(a)(1), and that
while conducting and attempting to conduct
such financial transaction knew that the
cash represented the proceeds of unlawful
activity.
The language of the indictment does not allege specifically that
the transaction affected interstate commerce. However,
"financial transaction" is defined as "a transaction which in
any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce." 18
U.S.C. § 1956(c)(4)(A). Moreover, the indictment specifically
alleged that the financial transaction at issue was Burgos's
attempt to purchase cocaine for $44,000. It is well-settled
that drug trafficking is an activity that affects interstate
commerce. See United States v. Zorilla, 93 F.3d 7, 8 (1st Cir.
1996); see also United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 755 (1st
Cir. 1999); United States v. Gonzalez-Maldonado, 115 F.3d 9, 21
(1st Cir. 1997). We conclude, therefore, that the indictment
sufficiently alleged interstate commerce as an element of the
crime, and that Burgos was on notice of that element. Cf.
-4-
United States v. Cefaratti, 221 F.3d 502, 507 (3d Cir. 2000)
("[A]n indictment that charges a legal term of art sufficiently
charges the component parts of that term." (internal quotation
marks omitted)); United States v. Kovach, 208 F.3d 1215, 1219
(10th Cir. 2000) (finding that the indictment adequately charged
the interstate commerce element by using the word
"organization," a term of art defined by statute as an entity
that affects interstate commerce); United States v. Wicks, 187
F.3d 426, 428 (4th Cir. 1999) (same). Indeed, Burgos does not
claim in his brief that he lacked notice of this element.
Moreover, even assuming that the charging language was in error,
Burgos has not even attempted to show the prejudice required by
the plain error standard. See United States v. Balgyga, 233
F.3d 674, 682 (1st Cir. 2000). Thus, we reject Burgos's claim
that his conviction should be reversed because of an error in
the indictment.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In assessing Burgos's challenges to the sufficiency of
the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence taken in
the light most favorable to the prosecution supports the guilty
verdicts. See id.
A. Attempt to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine
-5-
Burgos was convicted of attempting to possess cocaine
with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1)1 and 21 U.S.C. § 846.2 He argues that a rational jury
could not have convicted him because there was no actual cocaine
involved in the transaction between him and O'Neil. The
government concedes that Burgos was arrested before he came into
possession of any cocaine, and that O'Neil did not have any
cocaine with him when he met Burgos to complete the transaction.
Contrary to Burgos's assertion, neither O'Neil nor
Burgos had to possess cocaine at the time of the contemplated
transaction to satisfy the elements of this crime. "To prove
attempt, the government must establish both an intent to commit
the substantive offense and a substantial step towards its
commission." United States v. Argencourt, 996 F.2d 1300, 1303
(1st Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The step
towards completion of the crime "must be more than mere
preparation." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
1 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that
"it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally
. . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with
intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled
substance."
2 21 U.S.C. § 846 provides: "Any person who attempts or
conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall
be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt
or conspiracy."
-6-
Nonetheless, an individual accused of attempt to possess cocaine
"does not have to get very far along the line toward ultimate
commission of the object crime in order to commit the attempt
offense." United States v. Doyon, 194 F.3d 207, 211 (1st Cir.
1999).
A rational jury could have found easily that Burgos
demonstrated an intent to commit the substantive offense of
possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it. Law
enforcement officers testified that Burgos arranged the
transaction with O'Neil over the course of six telephone calls.
Shortly before the agreed-upon meeting time, surveillance
officers observed Burgos leave his home in a car, closely
followed by an individual in another car. The drug agents
testified that the presence of this second car was consistent
with the practice of bringing security to a narcotics
transaction. The officers then observed Burgos arrive at the
location that he and O'Neil had specified carrying $44,000 in
cash, a sum corresponding to the price and quantity of cocaine
he had agreed to purchase - two kilograms at $22,000 each.
Burgos approached O'Neil and was immediately arrested. This
evidence establishes Burgos's criminal intent and further
constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the
substantive offense of possessing cocaine. Whether he or O'Neil
-7-
did in fact possess cocaine at some point during the transaction
is irrelevant.
B. Money Laundering
Burgos was convicted of money laundering in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).3 He claims that the government
failed to prove that his attempt to exchange $44,000 in cash for
two kilograms of cocaine had a sufficient link to interstate
commerce. As we have already noted, section 1956 defines
"financial transaction" as "a transaction which in any way or
degree affects interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. §
1956(c)(4)(A) (emphasis added). In interpreting this provision,
we have held that "[a] minimal effect on interstate commerce is
sufficient to support a conviction." Owens, 167 F.3d at 755.
For reasons we have already discussed, a rational jury
could have found that Burgos attempted to purchase two kilograms
of cocaine for $44,000 cash. The government presented
additional evidence from which a jury could have inferred that
3 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) provides, in part, that
money laundering is committed whenever a person, "knowing that
the property involved in a financial transaction represents the
proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts
to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves
the proceeds of specified unlawful activity . . . with the
intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful
activity." (Emphasis added.) Although Burgos was arrested
before he completed the financial transaction in which he had
planned to exchange cash for cocaine, § 1956 applies to such
attempted transactions.
-8-
the cash was derived from Burgos's involvement in trafficking
narcotics. For example, financial and employment records seized
during a search of Burgos's home indicated that his family's
expenditures far exceeded the legitimate income produced by him
and his wife. Plastic bags containing marijuana residue were
also found during the search. Government witnesses further
testified that O'Neil told Burgos when they arranged the
transaction that the person delivering the cocaine to O'Neil had
just arrived from New York and was impatient to return there.
Therefore, the facts of the transaction as Burgos believed them
to be establish the element of interstate commerce. See United
States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (stating that
a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, "under
the circumstances as he believes them to be," the act is a
substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in
a crime (quoting American Law Institute, Model Penal Code §
5.01(1)(c)(1985))). Additional evidence indicated that most of
the cocaine in the area of Springfield, Massachusetts at the
time of Burgos's arrest came from New York, and that both the
cocaine and the money used to purchase it would thus be likely
to travel across state lines.
It is a well-settled proposition that "drug trafficking
is precisely the kind of economic enterprise that substantially
-9-
affects interstate commerce." Zorilla, 93 F.3d at 8. We have
held in other cases that involvement in the drug trade satisfies
the "effect on interstate commerce" prong of the money
laundering statute. See, e.g., Owens, 167 F.3d at 755
(affirming the conviction where there was evidence that the
money involved in the transaction was generated by a drug
enterprise transporting cocaine and cash between Providence and
Boston); Gonzalez-Maldonado, 115 F.3d at 21 (affirming
conviction under § 1956 where the jury could have inferred that
the defendant engaged in telephone conversations that were part
of illegal drug activity and not a legitimate business).
Therefore, we reject Burgos's claim that there was insufficient
proof of a link between his attempted financial transaction and
interstate commerce.
IV. Severance
The district court denied Burgos's motion to sever the
two counts of the superseding indictment in a written memorandum
and order. We review that determination for manifest abuse of
discretion. See United States v. DeLeon, 187 F.3d 60, 63 (1st
Cir. 1999).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 provides: "If it
appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a
joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or
-10-
information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may
order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a
severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice
requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 (emphasis added). We will
overturn a court's exercise of its discretion in considering a
motion for severance "only upon a demonstration of manifest
abuse." United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 246 (1st Cir.
1990). "This is a difficult battle for a defendant to win.
There is always some prejudice in any trial where more than one
offense or offender are tried together - but such 'garden
variety' prejudice, in and of itself, will not suffice." Id.
Burgos must demonstrate that the allegedly improper joinder
"likely deprived [him] of a fair trial." United States v.
Bartelho, 129 F.3d 663, 678 (1st Cir. 1997) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Burgos's claim falls far short of this
standard.
Burgos argues that the jury may have been improperly
led to convict him of both charges because the evidence relating
to one charge tended to prove that he was of bad character
generally. Under similar circumstances, we have found this sort
of vaguely articulated prejudice to be insufficient:
"[Appellant's] bare allegation that, if the jury were to believe
that he was involved in one bank robbery, then it might also
-11-
(improperly) be led to believe from that fact alone that he was
involved in the other, is simply not enough." United States v.
Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (1st Cir. 1995). Although Taylor
involved a defendant prosecuted for two counts of bank robbery
for two separate incidents, while Burgos was prosecuted for two
separate crimes arising from the same incident, the reasoning of
Taylor applies with equal force here.
Moreover, as the district court noted in its written
memorandum and order denying Burgos's motion for severance,
proof of the two charges necessarily involved proof of much the
same conduct. Count two of the indictment, charging money
laundering, charged that the "specified unlawful activity"
involved in the transaction was the attempted distribution of
cocaine. Therefore, to convict Burgos of money laundering, the
government had to prove that he had attempted to distribute
cocaine to satisfy the "specified unlawful activity" element of
the crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (criminalizing
attempting to conduct a financial transaction "which in fact
involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity . . . with
the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful
activity") (emphasis added). Furthermore, proof of the drug
charge required an explanation of the agreed-upon purchase price
for the cocaine, as well as a description of the cash Burgos was
-12-
carrying at the time of his arrest. Because proof of the two
charges involved some of the same evidence and the same
witnesses, and Burgos did not make an adequate showing of
prejudice from joinder of the two counts, the district court was
well within its discretion in denying the motion to sever.
Burgos makes one final argument on the severance issue.
The government introduced substantial evidence at trial
concerning Burgos's assets, earnings, and expenditures. Bank
records indicated that Burgos made deposits into his checking
account during the years 1996 to 1999 that far exceeded the
modest wages earned by Burgos and his wife. Other evidence,
including receipts, showed that Burgos had also purchased
expensive jewelry, cars, and a vacation. He claims that this
evidence regarding his financial condition would not have been
admissible at a trial of only the drug charge because Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b) would have prevented the government from
introducing such evidence if it tended only to prove his bad
character.
That evidentiary rule provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is
not admissible to prove the character of a
person in order to show action in conformity
therewith. It may, however, be admissible
for other purposes, such as proof of motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident.
-13-
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (emphasis added). The evidence of Burgos's
financial condition was admissible to prove the government's
case on the drug charge under this "other purposes" prong of
Rule 404(b). Evidence of large sums of unexplained cash is
relevant to demonstrating an individual's involvement in illegal
drug activities. See United States v. Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446,
1454 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Newton, 891 F.2d 944, 948
(1st Cir. 1989). Moreover, Burgos's history of trafficking in
narcotics was probative of his knowledge and intent in arranging
the transaction with O'Neil. See United States v. Spinosa, 982
F.2d 620, 628 (1st Cir. 1992) (approving admission of evidence
of past drug crimes as "probative of the fact that [the
defendant] was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in
the transaction by accident"); United States v. Hadfield, 918
F.2d 987, 994 (1st Cir. 1990) ("We have often upheld the
admission of evidence of prior narcotics involvement in drug
trafficking cases to prove knowledge and intent."). Given this
probative value of the evidence, it was admissible so long as
its probative value was not "substantially outweighed" by the
risk of prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. See also Hadfield, 918
F.2d at 995 (affirming admission of past criminality where such
evidence "was prejudicial - but not unduly so"). We defer to
the district court's calculation of the probative and
-14-
prejudicial value of this evidence. "Only rarely - and in
extraordinarily compelling circumstances - will we, from the
vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district court's on-
the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative
value and unfair effect." Freeman v. Package Machinery Co., 865
F.2d 1331, 1340 (1st Cir. 1988). This is not such a
circumstance.4
V. Violation of the Speedy Trial Act
Burgos argues that his rights under the Speedy Trial
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), were violated because he was not
indicted on the money laundering charge until June 17, 1999,
more than four months after his arrest on the cocaine charge in
February. The Speedy Trial Act ("the Act") provides: "Any
information or indictment charging an individual with the
commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from
the date on which such individual was arrested or served with a
summons in connection with such charges." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b)
(emphasis added). The purpose of this rule "is to ensure that
4
Even if, as Burgos argues, the evidence of his financial
condition had been admissible only on the money laundering
charge, that would not have been a basis for mandatory
severance. See, e.g., United States v. Neal, 36 F.3d 1190, 1207
(1st Cir. 1994) (noting that "[t]rial courts are granted
discretion under Rule 14 to take whatever steps are deemed
necessary to minimize prejudice" and affirming district court's
denial of motion to sever where the district court instead chose
to minimize the jury's exposure to the challenged evidence).
-15-
the defendant is not held under an arrest warrant for an
excessive period without receiving formal notice of the charge
against which he must prepare to defend himself." United States
v. Meade, 110 F.3d 190, 200 (1st Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
As the government argues persuasively, the plain
wording of the Act does not apply here. The Act imposes a 30-
day time limit between an arrest and an indictment only where
the arrest was "in connection with" the charges in the
indictment. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Burgos was arrested on the
cocaine charge and does not dispute that he was indicted for
that charge within the 30-day period prescribed by the Act.
Thus, the money laundering count in the superseding indictment
did not charge him with the crime for which he was arrested.
Under these circumstances, there is no violation of the Act.
See, e.g., Meade, 110 F.3d at 201 (finding no violation of the
Act because the prosecution at issue, commenced with an
indictment instead of an arrest, "simply did not trigger §
3161(b)'s arrest-to-indictment limitation"); Acha v. United
States, 910 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 1990) (finding no violation of
the Act and noting, "'[t]he right to a speedy trial on a charge
is triggered by arrest only where the arrest is the beginning of
continuing restraints on defendant's liberty imposed in
-16-
connection with the formal charge on which defendant is
eventually tried.'") (quoting United States v. Stead, 745 F.2d
1170, 1172 (8th Cir. 1984)); United States v. Heldt, 745 F.2d
1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1984).
VI. Sentencing
Finally, Burgos argues that the district court erred
in sentencing him to 108 months in prison in the absence of a
jury finding as to the quantity of cocaine he attempted to
possess. He points to the Supreme Court's recent decision in
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to support this
claim. Burgos says that "no detectable amount of cocaine was
proven at trial" because O'Neil did not actually have cocaine in
his possession when he met Burgos to complete their agreed-upon
transaction. Thus, Burgos argues, the relevant quantity of
cocaine for purposes of sentencing should be zero kilograms, not
two kilograms as the district court found. Because Burgos did
not argue this claim below, we review for plain error. See
Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d at 307. Finding no Apprendi error, we
affirm.
Burgos does not have a successful Apprendi claim
because his sentence of 108 months falls within the 20-year
maximum sentence for the crime he committed. 21 U.S.C. § 846
provides for the same penalties for an attempt or conspiracy to
-17-
possess cocaine as for the substantive offense. Accordingly, 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), which sets a maximum sentence of 20
years, is the relevant statute for the sentence Burgos received.
Burgos's sentence of 108 months does not even approach this
statutory maximum for two kilograms of cocaine, a fact that
Burgos concedes in his brief. Thus, Apprendi does not apply.
See United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27, 41 (1st Cir. 2001)
("[W]e hold that no constitutional error occurs when the
district court sentences the defendant within the statutory
maximum, regardless that drug quantity was never determined by
the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.").
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons we have explained, we discern no error
in the proceedings below. We affirm Burgos's convictions and
sentence.
Affirmed.
-18-