United States v. Jesus Carillo Barraza, Robert Pruitt, Iii, Jose Luis Cantu, Johnny Aguilar, Santos Garcia, Anselmo Hernandez-Molina, Samuel Earl Barnett, Carlos Losoya, Milton F. Jones, Saul Muniz, Julian Vera, Delfino Chavira, Gilberto Cantu, and Juan Antonio Rodriguez
Docket: 86-2912
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; August 12, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Fourteen defendants were convicted of various offenses related to a marijuana distribution enterprise operating over five years in Mexico and Texas, led by Frank Garcia and his deputy, Joe Muniz. The group was involved in conspiracy to commit racketeering, racketeering, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, operating a continuing criminal enterprise, and perjury. The enterprise utilized multiple transportation methods and maintained properties for operations.
Key roles included:
- Jesus Carillo Barraza: Sales representative for Emilio Quintero-Payan, responsible for coordinating deliveries.
- Juan Antonio Rodriguez: Owned homes used for storing marijuana and cash.
- Samuel Earl Barnett: Long-time associate and shareholder, managed deliveries and transactions.
- Jose Luis Cantu: Assisted in acquiring storage sites and was involved in packaging.
- Julian Vera: Coordinated and transported shipments.
- Milton F. Jones: Managed a storehouse and later distributed marijuana.
- Delfino Chavira: Transported shipments and managed a storehouse.
- Saul Muniz: Handled equipment purchases and logistics.
Barraza faced additional charges of possession with intent to distribute and operating a continuing criminal enterprise, while Rodriguez was convicted of perjury. The appellate court affirmed the convictions on all grounds.
Six defendants were convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. Key roles included couriers Johnny Aguilar, Anselmo Hernandez-Mulina, and Carlos Losoya; Gilberto Cantu and Losoya operated a marijuana packaging machine; Cantu handled financial transactions; Santos Garcia stored marijuana; and Robert Pruitt, III provided airfield access and loaded marijuana bales.
During the trial, the defendants argued that the evidence indicated multiple separate conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy alleged in the indictment. The court instructed the jury that proof of multiple conspiracies does not equate to proof of the single conspiracy charged. The jury was tasked with determining whether the alleged conspiracy existed among the defendants, and if a defendant was linked to a different conspiracy, they should be acquitted.
The jury acquitted seven defendants and found six not guilty of the racketeering conspiracy. The defendants contended that the district court's instruction was insufficient and claimed multiple conspiracies existed as a matter of law, estimating between ten to forty conspiracies. The government maintained that evidence supported a single conspiracy and that any variance did not prejudice the defendants, as the jury addressed the issue.
The court found the defendants’ arguments unpersuasive, noting that unlike in United States v. Sutherland, substantial evidence supported a single conspiracy among the convicted defendants. Although evidence of other conspiracies was presented, it did not undermine the overwhelming evidence of a single conspiracy. The jury received adequate instruction regarding multiple conspiracies and deliberated thoroughly, leading to a logical verdict that resolved the issue.
Jesus Carillo Barraza contends that his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise was erroneous, asserting he did not act in concert with five or more individuals in a managerial capacity as mandated by statute. The court disagrees, noting evidence that Barraza supervised at least seven individuals in various operational activities, which qualifies him as a manager. The court clarifies that the defendant’s involvement in tasks such as supervising shipments and recording their details constitutes management, regardless of whether others also supervised him.
Additionally, the defendants claim that their dual convictions for marijuana conspiracy and racketeering conspiracy infringe upon the double jeopardy clause, but the court cites precedent from United States v. Mitchell, which does not support their argument. Gilberto Cantu argues ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his attorney failed to communicate and committed extortion. However, due to insufficient record evidence, this claim is rejected without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of future claims.
Ultimately, the court finds no grounds to reverse the defendants' convictions, having thoroughly examined all raised arguments and the record. The convictions are affirmed.
