United States of America v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
702 F.2d 496 (1983)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's participation in a conspiracy to import a large quantity of a controlled substance does not, by itself, provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute that substance. The government must present additional evidence demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of and agreement to join the separate distribution scheme.
Facts:
- Undercover law enforcement agents in Louisiana posed as marijuana unloaders and were hired by smugglers.
- The smugglers informed the agents that a converted shrimp boat, the ALEX LUZ, had departed from Colombia with a cargo of marijuana, and provided a description and rendezvous point.
- The U.S. Coast Guard vessel VALIANT sighted the ALEX LUZ, which matched the description, approximately 40-50 miles south of the rendezvous point, heading towards it.
- The ALEX LUZ had its lights reversed to appear to be moving in the opposite direction and radically changed course from north to south upon sighting the VALIANT.
- After being denied permission to board, the Coast Guard obtained permission from the Venezuelan government, as the ALEX LUZ was flying a Venezuelan flag.
- The ALEX LUZ attempted to flee but was forced to stop by the Coast Guard.
- Eight Colombian crew members, including defendant Levino Michelena-Orovio, emerged with their bags packed.
- A search of the vessel revealed 363 bales (over twelve tons) of marijuana in the hold, but no fishing equipment or other cargo.
Procedural Posture:
- Levino Michelena-Orovio and others were charged in a federal district court with conspiracy to import marijuana, attempting to import marijuana, and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Michelena-Orovio filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- A jury convicted Michelena-Orovio on the two conspiracy counts.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment.
- The government's motion to dismiss the substantive count of attempting to import marijuana was granted.
- Michelena-Orovio, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a crew member's participation in a conspiracy to import a large quantity of marijuana, without more evidence, provide sufficient proof to convict for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute it in the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A crew member's participation in a conspiracy to import a large quantity of marijuana does not, without more, constitute sufficient evidence to prove a knowing and voluntary agreement to join a separate conspiracy to distribute it in the United States. The court affirmed the conspiracy to import conviction but reversed the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute conviction. The court followed the precedent of United States v. Cadena, finding it better-reasoned than conflicting cases. The court reasoned that while the large quantity of marijuana makes it rational to infer that someone planned to distribute it, it is not a logical or rational inference that a 'lowly, non-English speaking seaman' on the high seas knew of or joined that specific distribution plan. The government failed to provide evidence that Michelena-Orovio had a 'stake in the venture' of distribution, engaged in prolonged cooperation with distributors, or had any knowledge of the plans for the contraband once it reached shore. His involvement began and ended on the vessel, and mere knowledge that the drugs would be used illegally is insufficient to establish participation in the distribution conspiracy.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Randall, Circuit Judge
Yes. Participation in a conspiracy to import such a large quantity of contraband provides sufficient evidence for a jury to infer participation in the conspiracy to distribute it. The dissent agrees with affirming the conspiracy to import conviction but would also affirm the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute conviction. The dissenting judge argued that the line of cases starting with United States v. Mann is better-reasoned and more consistent with general conspiracy law, particularly the 'chain conspiracy' doctrine established in cases like United States v. Bruno. Given that there is no legal market for twelve tons of marijuana, its importation is inextricably linked to a plan for distribution; the importation scheme would be worthless without it. Common sense dictates that a crew member involved in such a massive smuggling operation knows of and relies upon the existence of a distribution network, thereby making him a participant in the entire criminal venture.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in drug conspiracy law by requiring a clear evidentiary distinction between a conspiracy to import and a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. By adopting the Cadena rule, the court increased the government's burden of proof, mandating specific evidence linking a defendant to the domestic distribution scheme beyond their role in the initial importation. This decision protects lower-level participants, like foreign crew members, from being convicted of a separate, domestic conspiracy based solely on inference from the quantity of drugs involved. It forces prosecutors to develop evidence of a defendant's knowledge, stake, or active participation in the distribution plan to secure a conviction on that charge.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States of America v. Levino Michelena-Orovio (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"