Case Law United States v. Carmona

United States v. Carmona

Document Cited Authorities (32) Cited in (1) Related

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

Thomas J. Gleason and Gleason Law Offices, P.C. on brief for appellant.

Joshua S. Levy, Acting United States Attorney, and Karen Eisenstadt, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before Kayatta, Selya, and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Ronald Yoel Marte Carmona was convicted on charges stemming from multiple fentanyl sales. On appeal, he challenges the district court's denial of his motions to suppress the fruits of a Terry stop. He adds that the evidence supporting his six convictions was insufficient. Concluding, as we do, that the Terry stop was grounded in reasonable, articulable suspicion and that the verdicts are supported by the record evidence, we affirm.

I

"We rehearse the relevant facts, recounting them 'in the light most hospitable to the verdict, consistent with record support.' " United States v. Concepcion-Guliam, 62 F.4th 26, 29 (1st Cir.) (quoting United States v. Tkhilaishvili, 926 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2019)), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 144 S. Ct. 171, 217 L.Ed.2d 67 (2023). We then lay out the travel of the case.

A

In early 2019, Travis Roy bought about 150 to 200 grams of fentanyl every two to three days from a seller, whom he knew as "Guy." Roy communicated with Guy by text message. Roy texted Guy the type and quantity of drugs he wanted, and Guy texted him the location in Lawrence or Methuen, Massachusetts at which he could pick up the drugs and make payment. When Roy reported to that location on the specified date, a runner would give him the drugs and take his payment. Roy never met with Guy. Nor did he know Guy's actual name.

In May of that year, Roy became a confidential informant, and law enforcement began an investigation to uncover Guy's identity. New Hampshire State Trooper Sergeant Shane Larkin — assigned to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) task force — orchestrated several controlled buys between Roy and Guy. Before each of the controlled buys, law enforcement agents met with Roy to equip him with audio recording devices and provide him with the money he needed to pay for the drugs. During each buy, the agents conducted surveillance of the location where Roy would meet Guy's runner. And after each buy, the agents met with Roy to retrieve both the recording devices and the drugs obtained. Throughout the investigation, Roy contacted Guy by text message to three different phones.

The first controlled buy took place on May 21, 2019. The day before, Roy texted Guy on Phone #1 to order twenty "sticks" (about 200 grams) of fentanyl. On the day of the buy, Guy texted Roy the address where he could meet Guy's runner to pick up the fentanyl. The exchange between Roy and the runner took seconds. Subsequent testing confirmed that the drugs consisted of 197.6 grams of fentanyl.

In early June, Guy texted Roy to inform Roy that he had changed his phone number. The second controlled buy took place on July 10, 2019. The day before, Roy and Guy coordinated by text messages to Phone #2 the purchase of another twenty sticks of fentanyl. The exchange took place the next day: Roy and a runner — who was later identified as Santo Andres Lara — met at a specified location, the runner gave Roy the drugs, and Roy gave the runner the payment.1 Subsequent testing confirmed that the drugs consisted of 196.5 grams of fentanyl.

In July of 2019, law enforcement obtained a ping warrant for Phone #2, which allowed them to obtain information from that phone's service provider about that phone's location at regular intervals. Location data revealed that Phone #2 was frequently at a residential building (the Riverside residence) in Lawrence. The data also revealed that Phone #2 was at another residential building (the Alder residence) for a few hours each night. Based on this information, the agents concluded that Guy resided at the Riverside residence and maintained a stash house at the Alder residence.

The third and fourth controlled buys took place on July 31, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively. The day before each purchase, Roy texted Guy at Phone #2 to buy twenty sticks of fentanyl. On the day of the exchange, Guy texted Roy from Phone #2 to tell him where he should meet the runner. Once there, an individual approached Roy's vehicle to give him the fentanyl and retrieve the payment. Subsequent testing confirmed that the drugs exchanged during the third purchase consisted of 194.4 grams of fentanyl; the drugs exchanged during the fourth purchase consisted of 197.3 grams of fentanyl.

On August 15, 2019, Braintree Police Sergeant Matthew Heslam and another agent were surveilling the Riverside residence when Sergeant Heslam received information — pursuant to the ping warrant — that Phone #2 was at the residence. At about 6:00 PM, the agents observed a taxicab arrive and the defendant (carrying a cell phone) exited a rear-side door of the residence and climbed into the taxicab. Suspecting that the defendant was Guy, Sergeant Heslam stopped the taxicab, falsely claiming that the driver had committed a traffic violation, in order to investigate the defendant's identity. As a result of the stop, Sergeant Heslam learned the defendant's name and that he lived at the third-floor apartment in the Riverside residence. The defendant was not arrested.

The fifth controlled buy took place on September 19, 2019. The objective for that buy, though, was to locate Guy's stash house. For that reason, Sergeant Larkin planned a "double deal." Roy requested his usual twenty sticks of fentanyl, and upon receiving them, he requested an additional ten sticks of fentanyl (presumably to give law enforcement the opportunity to follow the runner to the stash house). Although the runner delivered the additional fentanyl that day, law enforcement was unable to locate the stash house. Subsequent testing confirmed that the drugs exchanged that day consisted of 297.3 grams of fentanyl.

Less than one week later, Guy texted Roy to let Roy know that he had changed his phone number. Law enforcement then obtained a ping warrant for Phone #3. On October 3, 2019, Lawrence Police Officer David Moynihan, Jr., received information that Phone #3 was located at a multifamily home (the Butler residence) in Lawrence, and he set up surveillance. At about 11:30 AM, Officer Moynihan observed the defendant exit the house, hand something to the driver of a vehicle that had pulled up in front of the house, and return to the house. Because the house had two floors and it was unknown which floor the defendant was on, two uniformed agents were tasked with entering the house and investigating which apartment the defendant was occupying.

Lawrence Police Officer Eduardo De La Cruz went up to the second floor. When the defendant answered the door, Officer De La Cruz told him that he was looking for a fictitious individual. The defendant stated that the individual sought did not live there. After Officer De La Cruz asked the defendant if he was sure, the defendant stated, "I'm the only person that lives here. No one lives here. Only me."

On October 11, 2019, law enforcement agents executed a search warrant of the second-floor apartment in the Butler residence. The defendant was present at the time. In the one furnished bedroom, the agents found $1,555 in cash, Phone #3, and two jewelry receipts. One receipt identified the defendant as the buyer and listed Phone #3 as his telephone number. The defendant was arrested.

B

In due course, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts returned a six-count indictment against the defendant and Lara. As relevant here, the indictment charged the defendant with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl (count one), see 21 U.S.C. § 846, and five counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute forty grams or more of fentanyl (counts two through six), see 21 U.S.C. § 841. Each of the distribution counts corresponded with a particular controlled buy.

In May of 2020, the defendant moved to suppress the fruits of the August 15 traffic stop, arguing that the stop was unconstitutional because it was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In December of 2020, the defendant filed an amended motion to suppress not only the fruits of the traffic stop but also the fruits of the October 11 search of the Butler apartment. The government opposed both motions, and the court heard argument on August 4, 2021. The court denied the defendant's motions, finding that the agents possessed reasonable suspicion to effectuate the August 15 stop.

The defendant's trial began on July 12, 2022. The government presented testimony from Sergeant Larkin, Sergeant Heslam, Officer Moynihan, Officer De La Cruz, Massachusetts State Trooper Ryan Dolan, Roy, and Lara. It also introduced, among other things, recordings of each of the sales, photographs of the fentanyl, and an extraction report linking all three phones to the same user. At the close of the government's case in chief, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). The district court deferred decision. The defendant then presented the testimony of FBI Agent Evan Kalaher in order to highlight to the jury an inconsistency in Lara's testimony. At the close of all the evidence, the defendant again moved for judgment of acquittal, see id., and the court again deferred decision.

On July 18, 2022, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. Following the filing of the defendant's memorandum in support of the motions for judgment of acquittal and the government's opposition, the...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex