Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of June, two thousand and four.
PRESENT:
HON. ELLSWORTH VAN GRAAFEILAND, HON. ROBERT D. SACK, HON. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v- No. 03-1504
RAYMOND VALENCIA, also known as "Panama,"
Defendant-Appellant.
For Appellant: GINO JOSH SINGER, New York, NY.
For Appellee: JOHN P. COLLINS, JR., Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, Celeste L. Koeleveld, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.
Defendant-appellant Raymond Valencia was charged with one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B). After an initial conviction based on a guilty plea, which this court affirmed, Valencia filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
successfully challenging his conviction on the ground that he had not allocuted to having conspired with anyone other than a government informant. After Valencia withdrew his guilty plea and waived his right to a jury, Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(a), the district court conducted a bench trial and subsequently entered a judgment of conviction. On appeal, Valencia argues that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and (2) venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York.
In an appeal from a judgment after a bench trial, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo, United States v. Coppola, 85 F.3d 1015, 1019 (2d Cir. 1996), and the district court's factual findings for clear error, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); White v. White Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 2001). "[A]
defendant raising an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction faces a 'heavy burden,'
because we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor." United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir. 2004).
Valencia is unable to carry this heavy burden. After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the district court reasonably to find that Valencia was a member of a conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws. That the identity of his co-conspirator remains unknown does not bar this result, United States v. Harris, 8 F.3d 943, 946 (2d Cir. 1993), nor, given the wholesale quantity of cocaine involved, does the "buyer-seller" rule apply, see United States v. Medina, 944 F.2d 60, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1991).
Valencia waived his objection to venue by not raising it in a timely motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. United States v. Bala, 236 F.3d 87, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2000).
Moreover, even were this objection preserved for appellate review, Valencia's phone call from Queens to a government informant in Manhattan in order to discuss the contemplated drug transaction constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, establishing venue in the Southern District with respect to the conspiracy charge. See United States v. Naranjo,
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - United States of America, Appellee, v. Abdul Majid Bala, Also Known as Sealed Defendant #2, Defendant, Kantilal Patel, Also Known as Sealed Defendant #1, Defendant-Appellant., 236 F.3d 87 (2nd Cir. 2000)
- US Code - Title 21: Food and Drugs - 21 USC 812 - Sec. 812. Schedules of controlled substances
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2255 - Sec. 2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - United States of America, Appellee, v. Eddie Harris, Delaine Gipson, Gilbert Harris, Sheila Boykin, Anthony Mcfadden and Liz Jones, Defendants, Edward Guy, Defendant-Appellant., 8 F.3d 943 (2nd Cir. 1993)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. Coppola, Jr., Individually and as Executor of the Estate of James M. Coppola, Sr., and Barbara Coppola, Defendants-Appellants, Ida Coppola and George Coppola, as Executors of the Estate of James M. Coppola, Sr., Defendants., 85 F.3d 1015 (2nd Cir. 1996)
See other documents that cite the same legislation