United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

692 F.
2d 116
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
Harold Fernando Perez MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Virgilio RIVAS-IGLESIAS, Rafael Antonio Jimenez Barros,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 81-5671, 81-5676.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1982.
Terrence T. Dariotis, Tallahassee, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Munoz.

James R. Flynn, Flynn & Powers, Tallahassee, Fla., for Iglesias.
Roy L. Glass, St. Petersburg, Fla., for Barros.
Nickolas P. Geeker, U.S.Atty., Pensacola, Fla., Michael T. Simpson,
Asst.U.S.Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for U.S.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
(Opinion August 6, 1982, 11th Cir., 1982, 681 F.2d 1372)
Before RONEY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Because appellants on petition for rehearing contend that there is insufficient

evidence to permit the case to go to the jury, we restate the basic facts,
following a careful reading of the entire transcript. We strike the section

numbered and substitute the following in its place:
2
The government concedes in its brief that "what the government is required to
prove under Count II is that an agreement to import marijuana into the United
States existed, that each defendant knew of that agreement, and that with that
knowledge each defendant voluntarily participated in the agreement."
Here, no one contends that there was not a conspiracy at least on the part of the
American captain of the Panamanian flagship and "other persons unknown" to
do precisely what 21 U.S.C. Sec. 952(a) forbids. A short statement of the facts
which could readily be found by the jury is necessary to demonstrate the
manner in which the government contends that it adequately carried its burden.
The Alaskan I was a Panamanian vessel, berthed in Colon, Panama. Its

crewmen, which included Rivas, as cook, were shipped on at that port and were
given promises of wages of $1,0001 apiece instead of their usual $60.00 biweekly pay, in connection with a trip to Colombia to pick up a load of
marijuana and to deliver it "toward the north in the Gulf of Mexico."2 Rivas is
the only member of the crew of the vessel whose appeal is now before us. The
ship sailed from Panama with an American captain, arrived off Colombia three
days later, where it picked up 46,000 pounds of marijuana from small boats.
Appellants Barros and Munoz came aboard with the marijuana under the
direction of an American named Russell and a Colombian named Cobos. They
were armed with a carbine, which they subsequently both carried from time to
time on the ship. They performed none of the duties of seamen or members of
the crew and according to witnesses had the duty to "guard the marijuana." The
ship proceeded to the vicinity of Cozumel, Mexico some five days later, where
it then circled for one day until the captain obtained instructions from Russell
which he did not communicate to the crew, but after which he set a course north
which would take the ship to the coast of Florida. When he reached the
Appalachee Bay area on February 27, 1981, a small power boat with
Americans, including Russell, aboard, took the American captain from the
Alaskan I, the Panamanian captain, the two Colombians, Barros and Munoz,
and Rivas, the cook, ashore after a Coast Guard plane had circled the Alaskan I.
The Coast Guard went aboard to prevent the vessel from sinking. There they
discovered the 23 tons of marijuana. They then arrested the captains, the
Colombians, Rivas, and eight or nine other members of the crew, some of
whom were subsequently released.
There was additional evidence in the nature of expert testimony to the effect
that Mexico was not a marijuana importing country and that only the United
States and Canada would be importers north of Colombia.3 There was also
evidence that it was obvious to all on board that the Alaskan I was heading
north for the three days after it left the vicinity of Cozumel and that the United
States was its obvious destination. There was no evidence that any of these
three appellants protested or in any way objected to the then obvious purpose of
carrying the cargo of marijuana to the place where it finally ended up, off the
coast of Florida.
6
We deal first with the appeal of Rivas, who was a member of the crew. Here,
no one could argue that the evidence did not establish the alleged conspiracy
beyond a reasonable doubt at least between the owner of the ship, the American
captain, Cobos, the owner of the marijuana, and Russell, the American who
oversaw its loading and met the ship on its arrival in the United States. As
already stated, the jury could believe that Rivas was signed on at Colon with
the promise of wages of $1,000 instead of his usual $60 bi-weekly pay to
become a member of the crew of a ship to go to Colombia to pick up a load of
marijuana and to deliver it "toward the north in the Gulf of Mexico." Neither is
there any dispute about the fact that after it became apparent to all on board that
there would be no delivery off the Yucatan peninsula and after the vessel
pursued a course to the north for several days, Rivas made no effort to
complain or to protest or to notify anybody that he wished to have no part or
further participation in the vessel's mission to deliver the load of marijuana. We
conclude that these facts sufficiently supplied the nexus with the United States
to support the jury's findings as to Rivas.
Moreover, since the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Unit
B), by which we are bound, in United States v. Freeman, et al., 660 F.2d 1030
(5th Cir. 1981), the burden on the United States to establish the participation by
any crew member on a ship heavily laden with marijuana over a period of
several days to prove the existence of a conspiracy and participation of each of
those persons as a member of the conspiracy is relatively light. In Freeman, the
Court said:In United States v. DeWeese, 632 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 451 U.S. 902, 101 S.Ct. 1967, 68 L.Ed.2d 290 (1981); we relied
explicitly on United States v. Alfrey, 620 F.2d 551 (5th Cir. 1980), in holding
that:
8 the probable length of the voyage, the large quantity of marijuana on board, and
...
the necessarily close relationship between the captain and his crew were factors
from which the jury could reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
9Id. at 1273; see United States v. Alfrey, 620 F.2d 551, 556 (5th Cir. 1980).
Here we have (1) the same lengthy voyage (10 days); (2) the same large
10
Here we have (1) the same lengthy voyage (10 days); (2) the same large
quantity of marijuana (41,000 pounds); and (3) the same close relationship
between captain and crew inferable from the length of the voyage and the size
of the vessel.... In sum, the three Alfrey-DeWeese factors alone would be
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to import.
11
660 F.2d at 1035 (footnote omitted).
12
Here, again, we have (1) the same lengthy voyage (10 days) as to two of the
appellants and (13 days as to the other); (2) the same large quantity of
marijuana (46,000 pounds); and (3) the same close relationship between captain
and crew inferable from the length of the voyage and the size of the vessel.
Thus, under Freeman, it seems clear that whatever conspiracy had been
concocted by the owner of the vessel and the captain and whichever others of
the crew (not testified to) may have been in on the entire deal the government
has established a prima facie case of conspiracy to import. See also, United
States v. Julio-Diaz, 678 F.2d 1031 (11th Cir. 1982).
13
Then, dealing with the appeal of the two Colombians, their contentions
approach the ingenuous. They argue as if they were mere passengers on board
the ship, completely overlooking the evidence that they came on under the
direction of the American Russell with the sole purpose of guarding the
marijuana which feat they would have fully accomplished but for the fact that
the Alaskan I was in a sinking condition when it approached its destination.
Nevertheless, they were then taken off the vessel by Russell who provided
money for them to find their way to Miami. Being actors in every stage of the
handling of the 23 tons of marijuana, and having been placed there and having
been met at the end of the destination by one of the principal conspirators, the
jury could certainly find that they had full knowledge of the conspiracy and
intended to participate in it.
14
With this substitution for section in the original opinion, the Petition for
Rehearing is DENIED.
The government on oral argument claims that it had been agreed that the
amount would be paid in American currency. We do not find any testimony to
this effect other than use of the term "$1,000.00." There was evidence that
American currency was customarily used in Panama
There was other evidence given by the chief engineer that at the time the crew
were shipped on they were told they were to deliver the load of marijuana to a
port off the Yucatan peninsula known as Woman's Island

3
Testimony of this kind was considered by this Court in United States v.

Freeman, et al., 660 F.2d 1030, 1034 (5th Cir. 1981)

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

692 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals,

Terrence T. Dariotis, Tallahassee, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Munoz.

Because appellants on petition for rehearing contend that there is insufficient

following a careful reading of the entire transcript. We strike the section

The Alaskan I was a Panamanian vessel, berthed in Colon, Panama. Its

660 F.2d at 1035 (footnote omitted).

port off the Yucatan peninsula known as Woman's Island

Testimony of this kind was considered by this Court in United States v.

You might also like