US v. Martin Mendez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00930-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998820983].. [10-4782, 10-4803]

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4782

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARTIN MENDEZ, a/k/a Tilin, a/k/a Chico, a/k/a Gordo,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-4803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELVER DIAZ-VEGA, a/k/a Elver Vega-Diaz, a/k/a Elver MendezVega, a/k/a Al, a/k/a Raymond Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00930-CMC-1; 3:09-cr-00930-CMC-2)

Submitted:

February 27, 2012

Decided:

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

March 29, 2012

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

Page: 2 of 6

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael W. Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina; Wallace H. Jordan,
Jr., WALLACE H. JORDAN, JR., PC, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellants. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Susan Z.
Hitt,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Columbia,
South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

Page: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
A

federal

jury

convicted

Martin

Mendez

and

Elver

Diaz-Vega of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and
distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006); convicted Mendez of three counts of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and aiding and
abetting,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

2

(2006),

21

U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (2006), and three counts of use of a communication
facility

to

commit

a

felony

and

aiding

and

abetting,

in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 843; and convicted
Diaz-Vega

of

possession

of

a

firearm

in

relation

to

a

drug

trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006),
and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of
18

U.S.C.

§

922(g)(5)

(2006).

The

district

court

sentenced

Mendez to a total of 240 months of imprisonment and sentenced
Diaz-Vega to a total of 300 months of imprisonment, and they now
appeal.

Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Mendez argues that the district court erred

in instructing the jury regarding the amount of drugs for which
it could find Mendez responsible.

As Mendez failed to object to

the jury instructions before the district court, we review this
issue for plain error.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).

To meet this

standard, Mendez must demonstrate that there was error, that was
3

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

Page: 4 of 6

plain, and that affected his substantial rights.

Id.

Moreover,

even if Mendez demonstrates plain error occurred, we will not
exercise

discretion

to

correct

the

error

“unless

the

error

seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).
“We review a jury instruction to determine whether,
taken as a whole, the instruction fairly states the controlling
law.”

United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
U.S.C.A.

§ 841(b)

(West

2006

&

Supp.

2011),

“the

Under 21
amount

of

narcotics attributable to a defendant dictates the period of
incarceration
offense.”
2005).
drugs,

for

a

defendant

convicted

of

the

substantive

United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 312 (4th Cir.
In a prosecution for a conspiracy involving multiple

a

district

court

must

assess

the

quantity

of

drugs

attributable to each coconspirator by relying on the principles
set forth in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
Id.

“Under current precedent, rather than the district court

applying Pinkerton principles when determining the appropriate
sentence under § 841(b), that same court must instead instruct
the

jury

to

use

determination.”

Pinkerton

principles

Id. at 314.

4

when

making

the

same

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

Page: 5 of 6

Pursuant to Pinkerton, a coconspirator is liable for
the amount of drugs with which he was personally involved, or
the amount that other members of the conspiracy were involved in
whose

actions

“were

both

reasonably

foreseeable

and

furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.”
at 311 (citing Pinkerton, 328 U.S. at 640).

in
Id.

Here, the district

court properly instructed the jury regarding the amount of drugs
for which it could hold Mendez responsible in accordance with
the Pinkerton principles.

We therefore find no plain error in

the court’s charge to the jury.
Mendez

and

Diaz-Vega

also

argue

that

the

district

court erred in allowing a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination at a hearing on the Appellants’
motion for a new trial.
a

motion

for

a

new

We review a district court’s denial of

trial

for

abuse

of

discretion.

States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

“The Sixth

Amendment grants a defendant the right to compel testimony by
witnesses in his defense.
testimony

conflicts

self-incrimination,
particularized

with

however,

inquiry

into

When a defendant’s right to compel
a

witness’

a

court

the

must

legitimacy

witness’ assertion of the privilege.”

privilege
make
and

a

against

proper

scope

of

and
the

United States v. Sayles,

296 F.3d 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).

The district court may excuse a witness from
5

Appeal: 10-4782

Document: 89

testifying

only

Date Filed: 03/29/2012

upon

a

finding

Page: 6 of 6

that

the

witness

“could

legitimately refuse to answer any and all relevant questions.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We have

thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court conducted a proper inquiry and did not err in allowing the
witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal

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

AFFIRMED

6