USA v. Rodolpho Cruz

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Rodolpho Cruz. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 1 of 11

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11181
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00387-EAK-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLPHO CRUZ,
a.k.a. Angel Villegas,
a.k.a. Kilo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 7, 2017)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 2 of 11

Following a conditional guilty plea, Rodolpho Cruz appeals his conviction
for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms
or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In November 2004, as part of an investigation into a drug-trafficking
organization believed to have been transporting large amounts of cocaine and
marijuana from Texas and California to Florida, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (“DEA”) obtained a search warrant for a tracking device for an
implicated black Range Rover. DEA agents began surveilling the Range Rover; on
November 22, 2004, at the request of a DEA agent, the Florida Highway Patrol
conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle. During the traffic stop, a drug dog alerted.
The Range Rover was driven to a gas station, where agents searched it and
discovered approximately $265,000 in United States currency in a hidden
compartment. The DEA seized the Range Rover and currency.
Cruz was one of the passengers in the Range Rover. He falsely identified
himself to law enforcement officers as “Rodolpho Cruz.”1 The other occupants
were identified as Maria Uriarte (“Uriarte”), Prudencio Uriarte, and Jose Luis
Gutierrez. The occupants of the vehicle were interviewed and photographed; they
were not, however, arrested or fingerprinted.

1

Cruz’s real name is Angel Villegas.
2

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 3 of 11

On November 17, 2005, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against
seventeen persons, not including Cruz. United States v. Espinoza-Salazar, No.
8:05-cr-498-T-17AEP (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2005). Two of the defendants pled
guilty and assisted the government in identifying Cruz. On September 25, 2007, a
federal grand jury indicted Cruz with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture containing a
detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
846. A warrant for his arrest was issued that day. On March 24, 2015, Cruz was
arrested in California; after entering his initial appearance, his case was removed to
the Middle District of Florida.
Cruz moved to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of his
constitutional right to a speedy trial; he argued there was a constitutionally
impermissible delay between his indictment and arrest. He attached a report from
the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”), produced by the government in
discovery, which contained his California arrest record and identified him as
“‘Angel Villegas’ a/k/a ‘Paul Solis.’” R. at 125. The NCIC report showed Cruz
was arrested in Lakewood, California, in June 2007, three months prior to the
filing of the indictment in this case. Using the case number provided in the NCIC
report, Cruz’s counsel stated he had located a three-page document providing
additional information about the case on the Los Angeles County Clerk of Superior
3

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 4 of 11

Court website. Cruz’s counsel obtained photographs of Cruz, information about
his scheduled court dates, and information about the disposition of the case. Based
on the information contained in the NCIC report, which the government possessed,
Cruz argued he could have been found within minutes.
The district judge held a hearing on Cruz’s motion to dismiss. The
government agreed, because it was undisputed the delay between the indictment
and arrest was too long, which placed the burden on the government to explain the
reason for the delay. The government presented the testimony of DEA Task Force
Officer Derek Pollack and Deputy United States Marshal Jeffery Lavallee. Agent
Pollack and Deputy Marshal Lavallee testified regarding the efforts the
government had undertaken to find Cruz before and after he was indicted and how
his use of aliases and false identifying information had stymied the government’s
efforts. Agent Pollack explained how, even after learning the defendant’s real
name, the government could not run an NCIC criminal-history report on him,
because more identifying information, such as a birthday, Social Security number,
or FBI number, would have been needed. Deputy Marshal Lavallee also explained
how Cruz’s use of multiple aliases had made it more difficult to try to locate him.
Cruz’s stepdaughter, Sophia Alexandra Valencia Uriarte, testified on Cruz’s
behalf. She testified Cruz had lived with her mother, Uriarte, for the past eleven
years. She confirmed Cruz’s name would not have appeared on any records
4

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 5 of 11

related to her mother’s address, where she claimed Cruz had lived for the past three
to four years.
The district judge denied Cruz’s motion to dismiss his indictment. She
recognized the four-factor test established in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.
Ct. 2182 (1972), and made findings as to each factor. 2 First, the judge found the
length of the post-indictment delay was sufficient to show presumptive prejudice
and weighed this factor against the government. Second, the judge concluded Cruz
was the primary cause of the delay and weighed this factor heavily against him,
because he intentionally had provided inaccurate information to law enforcement
to obscure his connection to the charged crime. The judge acknowledged the
government bore the burden of establishing valid reasons for the delay but
concluded he intentionally had inhibited the government’s efforts to apprehend
him, because Cruz had provided false identifying information to law enforcement.
Third, the judge acknowledged the government had conceded Cruz was not aware
of the indictment or warrant prior to his arrest and weighed this factor against the
government. Fourth, the judge found Cruz’s case did not involve the type of
extreme governmental negligence found in United States v. Doggett, 505 U.S. 647,
112 S. Ct. 2686 (1992), which would have relieved him of the need to show actual
2

The four Barker factors courts use when analyzing a potential violation of a defendant’s right to
a speedy trial are: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s
assertion of his right, and (4) whether the defendant had suffered actual prejudice because of the
delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192.
5

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 6 of 11

prejudice, given the extent of the delay. Because the delay primarily was caused
by Cruz, the judge concluded the government had overcome the presumption of
prejudice. Therefore, Cruz was required to identify actual prejudice to his case
caused by the length of the delay, which he had not done.
Cruz subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to Count One of the
indictment and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
Cruz was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment followed by 5 years of
supervised release. On appeal, he argues the district judge erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of his constitutional right to
a speedy trial, because the delay in excess of seven years between his indictment
and arrest, combined with the government’s negligence in its attempts to locate
him, eliminated his need to show he had suffered actual prejudice as a result of
delay.
II. DISCUSSION
Whether the government deprived a defendant of his constitutional right to a
speedy trial is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Villarreal, 613
F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2010). We review a district judge’s factual findings for
clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Id. “A factual finding is clearly
erroneous only if, after we review the evidence, we are left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (citation and internal
6

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 7 of 11

quotation marks omitted). We accord substantial deference to a district judge as
factfinder in credibility determinations regarding witness testimony. Id.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides: “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” U.S. Const.
amend. VI. “Because of the unique policies underlying this right, a court must set
aside any judgment of conviction, vacate any sentence imposed, and dismiss the
indictment if it finds a violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.”
Villarreal, 613 F.3d at 1349. In Barker, the Supreme Court established a four-part
balancing test to determine whether delay in a defendant’s trial caused a
deprivation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Id. at 1350. “The
balancing test requires us to weigh the following four factors: (1) the length of the
delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a
speedy trial, and (4) the actual prejudice borne by the defendant.” Id.
(citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192).
If the first three factors uniformly weigh heavily against the government,
then the defendant need not demonstrate actual prejudice. United States v. Dunn,
345 F.3d 1285, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003). Additionally, “[i]n the absence of proof of
particularized prejudice, government negligence and a substantial delay will
compel relief unless the presumption of prejudice is either extenuated, as by the
defendant’s acquiescence, or persuasively rebutted by the Government.” United
7

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 8 of 11

States v. Clark, 83 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation, internal quotation
marks, and alteration omitted). In cases of government negligence, the concern for
actual prejudice decreases as the period of delay increases. Id.; see also Doggett,
505 U.S. at 657, 112 S. Ct. at 2693 (“[T]he weight we assign to official negligence
compounds over time as the presumption of evidentiary prejudice grows.”). In
Doggett, the Supreme Court held a delay of eight and a half years, caused solely by
government negligence, was sufficiently long to eliminate the need for proof of
particularized prejudice. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657-58, 112 S. Ct. at 2694.
The first Barker factor, delay, serves a triggering function; unless the length
of the delay is presumptively prejudicial, this court need not consider the
remaining factors. Dunn, 345 F.3d at 1296. A delay of one year is considered
presumptively prejudicial. Id. The delay of over seven years between Cruz’s
indictment and his arrest was significantly greater than one year, which makes it
presumptively prejudicial and weighs heavily against the government. Id.
Under the second Barker factor, different reasons for delay are accorded
different weights. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. at 2192. Negligence is a
more neutral act that should not be weighed as heavily as acts done in bad faith.
Id. The burden is on the government to explain the cause of any pretrial delay.
United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2006). Although we have
held defendants were not culpable for post-indictment delay in cases where those
8

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 9 of 11

defendants were not aware of the indictment, neither our court nor the Supreme
Court affirmatively has held knowledge of the indictment is a prerequisite to a
finding of culpability, where a defendant nonetheless intentionally evades law
enforcement. Id. at 1337-38 (holding a district judge erred in holding a defendant
culpable where there was no evidence the defendant knew of the indictment or
warrant; also noting there was no evidence the defendant was aware law
enforcement was looking for him); see Doggett, 505 U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. at 2691
(holding a defendant could not be faulted for post-indictment delay, because there
was no evidence he was aware of the indictment or the police had been looking for
him).
In this case, the government has provided a sufficient explanation for the
delay. Ingram, 446 F.3d at 1337. The district judge did not err in concluding Cruz
was culpable in causing the delay by providing false identifying information to law
enforcement, nor did the judge err in concluding the government had acted with
reasonable diligence in its attempt to locate Cruz. The second factor weighs
against Cruz.
Regarding the third Barker factor, a defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial
right is often “entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether a
defendant is being deprived of the right,” because a timely demand for a speedy
trial often supports an inference the defendant was not at fault for the delay, and
9

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 10 of 11

the delay prejudiced the defendant. Villarreal, 613 F.3d at 1353-54 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant’s “failure to make a demand can
hardly be counted against the defendant during those periods when he was unaware
charges had been lodged against him.” Id. at 1354 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Ingram, 446 F.3d at 1338, 1340 (weighing this factor
“heavily against the Government,” where the defendant asserted his right to a
speedy trial soon after learning of the indictment and arrest warrant but had failed
to do so beforehand). The government concedes Cruz was unaware of the
indictment until after he was arrested in 2015.
Because the first three Barker factors do not uniformly weigh heavily
against the government, Cruz was required to demonstrate actual prejudice. Dunn,
345 F.3d at 1296. Although Cruz argues the government’s negligence in trying to
locate him, combined with the length of the delay, eliminated the need for
particularized prejudice in his case under Clark and Doggett, this argument is
unavailing. See Clark, 83 F.3d at 1353-54 (citing Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657-58, 112
S. Ct. at 2694) (holding a substantial delay caused solely by government
negligence eliminated the need for proof of particularized prejudice). Any
government negligence in creating the delay in this case was minimal, if it existed
at all, and Cruz contributed to the delay by providing the police with false

10

Case: 16-11181

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

Page: 11 of 11

identifying information. Consequently, the district judge correctly denied Cruz’s
motion to dismiss his indictment.
AFFIRMED.

11