United States v. Carrillo

D. Nevada

United States v. Carrillo

785 F. Supp. 884, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6633, 1992 WL 46499

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

DocketNo. CR-N-91-108-ECR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 785 F. Supp. 884 (United States v. Carrillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Carrillo, 785 F. Supp. 884, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6633, 1992 WL 46499 (D. Nev. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARD C. REED, Jr., Chief Judge.

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

On January 27, 1992, defendant Padrón filed a Motion to Change Venue of Count Two of the Indictment to the Central District of California (document # 62a). Defendants Benavidez (document # 54) and Carrillo (document # 61) joined in the motion. Plaintiff filed an opposition (document #70) on February 7, 1992.

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (document #s 62a, 54, 61) is DENIED as to all three [885]*885defendants participating in the motion. As to defendants Benavidez and Carrillo, this Court is a proper venue because those defendants, according to the Indictment, committed acts pursuant to Count Two in Nevada.

As to defendant Padrón, the issue is somewhat more difficult because the Indictment does not charge him with committing acts pursuant to Count Two in Nevada. Nonetheless, the motion should be denied. Padron’s reliance on United States v. Medina-Ramos, 834 F.2d 874 (10th Cir.1987) is misplaced. In that case, no defendant had committed any acts in New Mexico, the state where the contraband was seized from a train. Thus, the court held that New Mexico was not a proper venue.

In our case, as stated, Benavidez and Carrillo committed numerous acts in Nevada. Not only did these acts relate to Count Two, Possession with the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, but they also related to Count One, Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine. Padrón, Benavidez and Carrillo are charged in both Counts One and Two. Thus, under a Pinkerton theory, Padrón may be liable for the acts of his co-conspirators Benavi-dez and Carrillo. On this basis, the acts committed by Benavidez and Carrillo in Nevada may, certainly for the purposes of this motion, be attributed to Padrón because of Count One. Consequently, Nevada is a proper venue in which to try Padrón on Count Two.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDWARD C. REED, Jr., Chief Judge.

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

On January 27, 1992, defendant Padrón filed a Motion to Change Venue of Count Two of the Indictment to the Central District of California (document # 62a). Defendants Benavidez (document # 54) and Carrillo (document # 61) joined in the motion. Plaintiff filed an opposition (document #70) on February 7, 1992.

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (document #s 62a, 54, 61) is DENIED as to all three [885]*885defendants participating in the motion. As to defendants Benavidez and Carrillo, this Court is a proper venue because those defendants, according to the Indictment, committed acts pursuant to Count Two in Nevada.

As to defendant Padrón, the issue is somewhat more difficult because the Indictment does not charge him with committing acts pursuant to Count Two in Nevada. Nonetheless, the motion should be denied. Padron’s reliance on United States v. Medina-Ramos, 834 F.2d 874 (10th Cir.1987) is misplaced. In that case, no defendant had committed any acts in New Mexico, the state where the contraband was seized from a train. Thus, the court held that New Mexico was not a proper venue.

In our case, as stated, Benavidez and Carrillo committed numerous acts in Nevada. Not only did these acts relate to Count Two, Possession with the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, but they also related to Count One, Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine. Padrón, Benavidez and Carrillo are charged in both Counts One and Two. Thus, under a Pinkerton theory, Padrón may be liable for the acts of his co-conspirators Benavi-dez and Carrillo. On this basis, the acts committed by Benavidez and Carrillo in Nevada may, certainly for the purposes of this motion, be attributed to Padrón because of Count One. Consequently, Nevada is a proper venue in which to try Padrón on Count Two.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 F. Supp. 884, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6633, 1992 WL 46499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carrillo-nvd-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack