Fermin Castillo, convicted of leading a fentanyl distribution and money laundering conspiracy, has lost his appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The court upheld his conviction and the 25-year prison sentence, rejecting a series of challenges to the trial proceedings.
The case, which involved a large-scale fentanyl operation in Boston, saw Castillo organizing drug sales and the movement of drug proceeds back to Mexico. The court addressed several key arguments raised by Castillo, including claims of government misconduct, evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing issues.
The Factual Background
The court’s opinion details Castillo’s involvement in a fentanyl distribution ring operating in Boston between March 2020 and March 2021. Castillo, who primarily resided in Mexico during this time, coordinated many of the drug transactions and the transfer of money back to Mexico. He used WhatsApp to communicate with his associates in Boston, including Cesar Alejandro Castro Pujols (“Castro”) and Andre Heraux Martinez (“Heraux”).
While not directly involved in street-level drug sales, Castillo occasionally visited Boston to assist with the operation. The organization used vehicles with hidden compartments to move drugs and cash. Law enforcement, after months of surveillance, searched a stash house at 800 Hyde Park Avenue and seized multiple kilograms of fentanyl and related paraphernalia.
Pretrial Challenges: Government Misconduct Dismissed
Castillo attempted to have the indictment against him dismissed, alleging “outrageous government misconduct” related to his arrest in the Dominican Republic. He argued that U.S. Marshals were involved in the arrest, which he claimed violated his due process rights, Department of Justice policy, and the Mansfield Amendment. The district court denied the motion.
The appeals court affirmed this decision, stating that even if U.S. Marshals were involved, the circumstances did not constitute the “outrageous government misconduct” necessary to warrant dismissal of the indictment. The court emphasized that the alleged violations, such as the arrest abroad without proper authorization, did not shock the “universal sense of justice.”
Evidentiary Challenges: Mostly Unsuccessful
Castillo raised several evidentiary objections, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted certain evidence. The court reviewed these challenges, distinguishing between preserved and unpreserved objections. Preserved objections were reviewed for abuse of discretion, while unpreserved objections were reviewed for plain error.
Castillo challenged the admission of prior drug-dealing activities, specifically testimony about a fentanyl sample delivery in January 2019, before the charged conspiracy period, and testimony from Castro about drug dealing with Castillo before that period. The appeals court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the limited testimony about the sample delivery, and even if it did, the error was harmless. The court also found that Castillo waived his argument that Castro’s testimony about pre-2020 drug operations violated Rule 403.
Castillo also contested the admission of pen register data, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay. The appeals court determined that the pen register data was not hearsay because it was machine-generated data and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the exhibits.
Castillo further argued that evidence of a $1,000 wire transfer to Sinaloa, Mexico, should have been excluded, claiming it was not relevant and caused unfair prejudice. The appeals court found that this challenge was unpreserved and, therefore, waived.
Castillo also claimed that the district court erred in admitting “overview” testimony, from Trooper Simpkins and Officer Concannon. The appeals court reviewed the specific instances of this testimony and found that it was properly admitted.
Finally, Castillo argued that the combined effect of these alleged evidentiary errors warranted reversal. The court found that because the individual errors were harmless, their cumulative effect did not require reversal.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims Rejected
Castillo argued that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during opening and closing arguments. The appeals court, applying the plain error standard due to the lack of objections at trial, found no reversible error.
Castillo challenged the government’s opening statement, claiming it mischaracterized the drug operation and improperly appealed to community emotion. The court found that while the opening may have overstated some points, it did not demonstrate bad faith or prejudice the trial’s outcome.
Castillo also contested statements made in the closing argument, including the reference to “Sinaloa,” misstatements of evidence, and alleged mischaracterization of testimony. The court found that the reference to Sinaloa was accurate given the evidence presented and that the other misstatements did not prejudice the jury.
Jury Instruction and Sentencing Issues
Castillo argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on an element of the money laundering statute. However, because this issue was not preserved, the court found that Castillo waived the plain error argument.
Castillo also raised several sentencing challenges. He argued that his sentence violated the principles of *Apprendi v. New Jersey* and *Alleyne v. United States* because the jury’s verdict found “fentanyl” as the drug involved, not the chemical name. The appeals court determined that because Castillo did not object to the verdict form or the use of the term “fentanyl” throughout the trial, his argument was waived.
Castillo lodged additional complaints about the reasonableness of his sentence. He challenged the application of a “stash house” enhancement, arguing there was insufficient evidence. The court found that the evidence presented supported the enhancement.
Castillo also claimed the government improperly referenced a Sinaloa-based cartel at sentencing. The appeals court determined that the government did not make such a reference.
Finally, Castillo argued that his sentence was unreasonable because it was significantly longer than that of his co-conspirator, Castro. The appeals court found that the sentences were not comparable because Castro had pled guilty and cooperated with the government, making their situations materially different.
Conclusion: Conviction and Sentence Affirmed
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, after considering all of Castillo’s arguments, affirmed his conviction and the 25-year sentence. The court found no reversible errors in the district court’s rulings and determined that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.