US v. Jose Morale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00480-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999473137].. [13-4955]

Appeal: 13-4955

Doc: 58

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE JOAQUIN MORALES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00480-RWT-1)

Submitted:

October 31, 2014

Decided:

November 12, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan S. Zucker, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN ZUCKER, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Sandra Wilkinson, Martin J. Clarke, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Katherine Mcfee, Student Law Clerk, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4955

Doc: 58

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Jose Joaquin Morales of using
a facility of interstate commerce to facilitate a murder for
hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (2012).

The district

court

Morales

sentenced

appeals.

Morales

to

life

imprisonment.

now

Finding no error, we affirm.
Morales

first

argues

on

appeal

that

the

Government

violated a proffer agreement by introducing at trial statements
he made to a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) employee.

We review

evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and review de novo
the question of whether a proffer agreement remains in effect.
United States v. Gillion, 704 F.3d 284, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
interpret

proffer

“examin[ing

the]

agreements
express

defendant is in breach.”

based

terms
Id.

to

on

their

determine

We

language,

whether

the

We have thoroughly reviewed the

record and conclude that district court did not err in admitting
Morales’ statements at trial.
Morales next argues that the district court erred in
refusing to strike the testimony of the BOP employee because he
had destroyed his rough notes of his interview with Morales that
were later incorporated into another government agent’s report.
“The

Jencks

Act

requires

the

[g]overnment

to

turn

over

any

statement of a witness in its possession once the witness has
testified on direct examination, provided the statement relates
2

Appeal: 13-4955

Doc: 58

Filed: 11/12/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

to the testimony of the witness.”
Co.,

219

§ 3500(b)

F.3d

300,

(2012)).

316
“The

(4th

United States v. Bros. Const.

Cir.

term

2000)

(citing

‘statement’

in

18

U.S.C.

§ 3500(b)

is

defined by statute to include, among other things, ‘a written
statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted
or approved by him.’”

United States v. Smith, 31 F.3d 1294,

1301 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1) (2012)).
“Jencks Act violations constitute harmless error when
they result in no prejudice to the defense.”
Schell, 775 F.2d 559, 567 (4th Cir. 1985).

United States v.

We review a district

court’s ruling on a Jencks Act motion to determine whether it
was clearly erroneous, United States v. Roseboro, 87 F.3d 642,
645 (4th Cir. 1996), and we conclude that the district court did
not

clearly

err

in

denying

Morales’

motion

to

strike

the

testimony.
Morales also argues that several comments made by the
prosecutor during closing arguments were improper and rendered
the trial unfair.

Morales preserved his challenge to one such

comment by raising it in the district court, and we review this
claim de novo.

See United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 307

(4th Cir. 2005).

We review the comments that Morales did not

raise below for plain error.

See United States v. Mitchell, 1

F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).

To demonstrate plain error,

Morales must show that (1) the district court erred, (2) the
3

Appeal: 13-4955

error

Doc: 58

was

rights.

Filed: 11/12/2014

plain,

and

Henderson

(3)

v.

the

United

Pg: 4 of 5

error

affected

States,

133

his

S.

substantial

Ct.

1121,

1126

(2013).
A
argument
trial

prosecutor’s

will

with

mandate

unfairness

retrial
as

denial of due process.”
omitted).

We

improper

consider

to

remarks

only
make

if
the

they

during
“so

resulting

closing

infected

the

conviction

a

Id. at 240 (internal quotation marks
six

factors

in

determining

whether

a

prosecutor’s arguments were so prejudicial as to have deprived
the defendant of a fair trial, including:
(1) whether the government’s remarks misl[ed] the
jury, (2) whether they were extensive, (3) the
strength of the evidence supporting conviction absent
the comments, (4) whether the government deliberately
made the comments to mislead the jury, (5) whether the
defendant invited the comments, and (6) the presence
of a curative instruction.
United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 197 (4th Cir. 2012).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal
authorities and conclude that Morales has failed to demonstrate
that any improper remarks rendered the trial unfair. *
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

*

Morales also argues that the cumulative errors require
reversal of his conviction.
As we conclude he has failed to
demonstrate that the district court erred, we reject this
argument.

4

Appeal: 13-4955

legal

Doc: 58

contentions

Filed: 11/12/2014

are

Pg: 5 of 5

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

5