US v. Hugo Santamaria

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00270-JTC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998548240]. [10-4279]

US v. Hugo Santamaria

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HUGO SANTAMARIA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:08-cr-00270-JTC-1)

Submitted:

February 17, 2011

Decided:

March 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Collias, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: After a trial, Hugo Santamaria was convicted of

conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (Count One), and two counts of intimidation or force against a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1512(b) Three). court (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) (Counts Two and

On appeal, he argues the following: instructing the jury to return

(1) the district to deliberations

erred

twice and giving an Allen charge despite the jury's claim that it was "hung"; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support either Counts Two or Three; (3) the district court erred

instructing the jury on "attempt"; and (4) the district court abused its discretion admitting evidence of an assault. no reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews a district court's decision to give an Allen charge and its content for abuse of discretion. * States v. Hylton, 349 F.3d 781, 788 (4th Cir. 2003). United "[T]he Finding

principal concern that we have had with Allen charges is to ensure that they apply pressure to the jury in a way that

preserves all jurors' independent judgments and that they do so in a balanced manner." Id. Giving the jury a second Allen United States v. Robinson, 560 F.2d

charge is not per se error.
*

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

2

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 3

507, 517 (2d Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Taliaferro, 558 F.2d 724, 725 (4th Cir. 1977). The district court "is in

the best position to determine whether there exists a reasonable possibility that an impartial verdict can be reached." States v. Gordy, 526 F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir. 1976). United After

reviewing the transcript, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. This court reviews a district court's denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion de novo. F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Alerre, 430 "A defendant challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden." United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 A jury's

(4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

verdict "must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see

United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence is "evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a

conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks omitted). The

court considers both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the government's favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 3

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 4

2008). does

In resolving issues of substantial evidence, this court reweigh of the evidence or reassess see the factfinder's States v.

not

determination

witness

credibility,

United

Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and "can reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution's failure is clear." United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394

(4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Santamaria was convicted of two counts of intimidating a witness. Count Two charged Santamaria with intimidating a

person using threats with the intent to prevent a person from giving information with to using law enforcement. to Count a Three charged from

Santamaria

threats

prevent

person

testifying in an official proceeding. evidence clearly established that

In this instance, the Santamaria, through his

threatening and intimidating conduct, intended that a person not talk to authorities or testify. We conclude substantial

evidence supports the jury's verdict, including the question of whether the Government properly proved the location of the crime charged in Count Three. Santamaria giving the jury his claims the district instruction court on erred by not He

proposed

"attempt."

further contends that the court's instruction on "attempt" was an incorrect statement of the law. to give a jury instruction is 4 "The decision to give or not reviewed for an abuse of

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 5

discretion."

United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 398 (4th Cir. "`[This court] review[s] a jury instruction to taken as a whole, the instruction fairly

2006) (en banc). determine

whether,

states the controlling law.'" requested "(1) was instruction correct; (2) is

Id.

A court's refusal to give a error if the instruction by the

reversible not

was

substantially

covered

court's charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, seriously that failure the to give the requested ability to

instruction

impaired

defendant's

conduct his defense."

United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32

(4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). In instances when the Appellant claims the jury United If error

instruction was erroneous, this court reviews de novo. States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003).

is found, reversal only warranted when "the error is prejudicial based on a review of the record as a whole." Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 923 (4th Cir. 1997). Insofar as Santamaria urged the district court to give the jury his instruction on attempt, we find no reversible error because Santamaria's ability to conduct his defense was not United States v.

seriously impaired. instruction given by

We also conclude that even if the jury the district court was erroneous, the

supposed error was not prejudicial.

5

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 6

This court reviews a district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, and will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational. United States v. Cole, Jan. 21, 2011). __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 184550, *6 (4th Cir.

We will "look at the evidence in a light most

favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing marks its prejudicial Relevant the effect." evidence of Id. is (internal quotation any of

omitted). to make

"evidence fact

having that is

tendency

existence

any

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Evid. 401. Such evidence is admissible. Fed. R.

See Fed. R. Evid. 402.

"[R]elevance typically presents a low barrier to admissibility." United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 346 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, evidence is relevant if it is "worth consideration by the jury" or has a "plus value." United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d

991, 998 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially confusion of outweighed the of by the or danger of unfair the time, prejudice, or by

issues, undue

misleading waste of

jury, or

considerations

delay,

needless

presentation of cumulative evidence."

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

We conclude that evidence that Santamaria assaulted a co-conspirator as the conspiracy was winding down was clearly 6

Case: 10-4279

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 7

relevant toward the charged conspiracy and the charge that he intimidated a witness. We further conclude that the probative

value of the evidence was significant and it was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

7