United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT

15-2675 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JORGE LAFONTAINE, JOSE LAFONTAINE, JOSE ISMAEL VENTURA, AKA MAELO, Defendants, KEVIN VENTURA, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK CITY) OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT & SPECIAL APPENDIX John C. Meringolo MERINGOLO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 11 Evans Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 347-599-0992 Counsel for Appellant LANTAGNE LEGAL PRINTING 801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 644-0477 A Division of Lantagne Duplicating Services TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 I. The Evidence At Trial ....................................................................................... 5 A. The Marijuana Conspiracy ........................................................................... 5 B. The Arson and Felony Murder of Noel Montanez ....................................... 5 C. The Conspiracy and Murder-for-Hire of Eugene Garrido and Carlos Penzo ................................................................................................. 9 II. The Jury Charge ............................................................................................. 14 III. Sentencing ..................................................................................................... 15 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 17 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 19 I. Ventura’s Conviction on Count One Should Be Vacated Because, Following Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), Arson Is Not A Crime of Violence Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3). ................................. 19 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 19 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 20 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 22 1. Arson Is Not A Crime of Violence Under the “Elements” Clause. ........ 22 i 2. Arson Is Not A Crime of Violence Under the “Risk-of-Force” Clause. ..................................................................................................... 26 II. Ventura’s Conviction on Counts One, Four, and Five Should Be Vacated Because the Jury Charge As to §924(c) Violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. .................................................................. 27 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 27 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 28 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 29 1. The 1998 Amendments to 18 U.S.C. §924(c) Broadened the Scope of the Statute to Include Conduct that Was Not Illegal in 1995 and 1996 When the Offenses of Conviction Occurred. .......................................... 29 2. Use of the Amended Statutory Language Prejudiced Ventura and Constituted an Ex Post Facto and a Due Process Violation. .................. 31 III. Ventura’s Conviction on Counts One, Four, and Five Should Be Vacated Because the District Court’s Aiding and Abetting Instruction Was Insufficient Under Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014). ....... 36 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 36 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 36 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 38 IV. Ventura’s Case Should Be Remanded for Resentencing Because the District Court Erred in Imposing Two Consecutive 20-Year Sentences on Count Four and Five, Which Occurred As One Continuous Incident. .................... 41 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 41 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 42 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 43 ii V. Ventura’s Case Should Be Remanded for Resentencing Because the District Court Erred in Concluding that 18 U.S.C. §924(j) Incorporates the Mandatory Minimum Sentences in 18 U.S.C. §924(c) ................................. 43 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 43 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 44 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 46 VI. The Case Should Be Remanded for Resentencing on Counts Two and Three Because the Jury Did Not Find Either of the Penalty Enhancing Elements of 18 U.S.C. §1958 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and Ventura Could Therefore Be Sentenced to No More Than Ten Years on Each Count. ......................... 48 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 48 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 48 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 49 VII. The Evidence Was Insufficient to Convict Ventura on Counts One Through Five Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. ............................................... 52 A. Standard of Review .................................................................................... 52 B. Applicable Law ........................................................................................... 53 C. Discussion ................................................................................................... 54 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 55 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 57 ADDENDUM iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013)............................................... 48, 49 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ......................................................... 48 Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) ................................................... 29, 32 Baptiste v. Attorney Gen., 841 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2016) .......................................... 26 Bruno v. United States, 383 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2004) ................................................. 38 Burrage v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 881 (2014) ...................................................... 49 Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (2000) ................................................................... 28 Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 447 U.S. 102 (1980) ......... 45 Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013) ................................................. 22 Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) .................................................................. 46 Garcia v. Gonzalez, 455 F.3d 465 (4th Cir. 2006) .................................................. 25 Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000) ..................................................................... 28 Greenberg v. Comptroller of the Currency, 938 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1991) .................. 29 Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) ............................................................... 20 Jobson v. Ashcroft, 326 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 24 Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) ......................................... 1, 17, 20 Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ....................................................... 24 Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) ........................................................... 49 iv Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) ..................................................................... 24 Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) ........................................... 30, 32 Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014) ......................................... passim Sessions v. Dimaya, 15-1498 ............................................................................ 20, 26 United States v. Acosta, 470 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2006) ...................................... 22, 25 United States v. Agrawal, 726 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2013) .......................................... 34 United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2001),vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002) ............................................................................................

Load more