United States of America v. BENITO SALINAS and RODOLFO VARGAS

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
U NITED STATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
BENITO SALINAS and R ODOLFO
VARGAS,
Defendants‐Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 11 CR 795 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.
A RGUED A PRIL 18, 2014 — D ECIDED A UGUST 18, 2014
Before BAUER , EASTERBROOK, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
BAUER , Circuit Judge. Rodolfo Vargas (“Vargas”) and Benito
Salinas (“Salinas”) were convicted of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841 and 846 (Count One), as well as two counts each of
using telephones in furtherance of the conspiracy in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (Counts Two, Three, Four, and Five).
Vargas pleaded guilty to Count One, and was sentenced to 121

-- 1 of 20 --

2 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
months’ imprisonment. Salinas proceeded to trial and was
convicted on Counts One, Four, and Five. He was sentenced to
120 months’ imprisonment.
Vargas now appeals his sentence, claiming that the district
court erroneously imposed a three‐level enhancement for his
role as a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy, unduly
lengthening his sentence. Salinas appeals as well, on different
grounds. He contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to uphold his conviction and that an erroneous jury
instruction prejudiced his case. We uphold the decisions of the
district court with respect to both defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
In February 2011, the Drug Enforcement Administration
(“DEA”) began to investigate Jorge Villa (“Villa”), a known
Chicago drug dealer. Though Villa was the focus of their
investigation, the DEA also targeted Vargas, Villa’s supplier.
To further their investigation, the DEA received permission to
wiretap 19 phones from June 2011 to November 2011. Villa
owned two of the wiretapped phones.
In the summer of 2011, Vargas served as the middleman for
three drug transactions between Villa and a Mexico‐based
supplier. Vargas supplied the drugs up front to Villa without
requiring payment at the time of delivery with the understand‐
ing that Villa would pay him for the drugs after he sold them.
On July 18, 2011, Vargas called Villa and told him that he
obtained 1,000 pounds of marijuana for him; Villa confirmed

-- 2 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 3
that he would send someone to pick it up. 1 Following the call,
Villa sent Armando Vega‐Medina 2 (“Armando”), his courier,
to pick up the marijuana. Armando and Villa then distributed
the marijuana to customers and collected payment.
On August 5, 2011, Vargas spoke with Villa in a series of
telephone calls. Vargas said that his courier, Salinas, would
come to pick up the money Villa owed him for the 1,000
pounds of marijuana that he fronted him in July. Vargas also
instructed Villa on how to package the money for transport. He
explained that the money needed to be carefully packaged a
certain way so that it would fit into hidden compartments in
Salinas’ tractor‐trailer. He said, “[I]f it doesn’t fit in the
refrigerator [unit of Salinas’ trailer] … he is going to reject it.”
Vargas then gave Salinas’ phone number to Villa and told him
to make arrangements to meet with Salinas.
On the morning of August 6, 2011, Vargas and Villa made
arrangements in a telephone conversation. They discussed
where Salinas would meet with Villa’s courier, Armando.
Vargas told Villa to keep him informed of any updates. Shortly
1 Villa was additionally indicted and charged with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
On July 9, 2012, he pleaded guilty. In exchange for a lighter sentence, Villa
agreed to testify at Salinas’ trial.
2 The transcripts from Salinas’ trial conflict with appellants’ and appellee’s
briefs regarding Armando’s last name. At trial, Villa called his courier
“Armando Vargas;” DEA agents identified him as “Armando Vega.”
Salinas’ brief refers to the man only as “Armando,” whereas Vargas’ and
the government’s briefs refer to him as “Armando Vega‐Medina.” To
mitigate the confusion, we will refer to him as “Armando” here.

-- 3 of 20 --

4 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
thereafter, Villa called Salinas to tell him that Armando would
call Salinas’ phone and pick him up “in about ten minutes.”
DEA agents were surveilling Armando at this time.
Armando left his residence and drove to the Rio Valley Market
where he met with Salinas. They left in Armando’s car and
drove back to his house. Agents observed the two entering
Armando’s residence; about an hour later, they were seen
exiting the house, and Salinas was carrying a large black duffel
bag. Armando drove Salinas back to the market. Salinas carried
the black duffel bag to the rear end of his tractor‐trailer and
spent about thirty minutes inside the trailer with the doors
closed. Salinas then returned to the driver’s seat and drove
away.
DEA Agent Berghofs followed Salinas’ tractor‐trailer. As
Salinas approached the Illinois‐Indiana border, Berghofs
contacted the Indiana DEA as well as Indiana State Police
(“ISP”) for assistance. ISP then began following Salinas. At
approximately 5:30 p.m., ISP activated its lights in Indiana and
stopped Salinas’ tractor‐trailer in New Buffalo, Michigan, just
one mile over the border.
Michigan State Trooper Russell Bawks (“Bawks”) arrived
and asked Salinas about his travel plans. Salinas stated that he
had carried a load of broccoli from St. Louis to Illinois, and that
he was now traveling to Michigan to pick up cucumbers which
he planned to transport back to Texas. Bawks then asked
Salinas for consent to search his tractor‐trailer; Salinas con‐
sented. Bawks told Salinas they were looking for money, and
specifically asked Salinas if he had more than $10,000 in his
tractor‐trailer. Salinas said he did not have money in the

-- 4 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 5
tractor‐trailer. Inside the trailer, Bawks found a bag filled with
several tubes of caulk, a caulk gun, and a putty knife covered
in fresh caulk; he also noted that the trailer smelled of fresh
caulk. Bawks then discovered cuts in the fiberglass wall of the
trailer which were covered in fresh caulk and concealed behind
the trailer’s refrigeration unit. He asked Salinas to help him
access the compartments so that they could avoid damaging
the trailer. At this point, Salinas admitted he had $311,000
concealed in the trailer, and helped police access two hidden
compartments where he stored the money. The $311,000,
wrapped in plastic wrap and duct tape and packaged in heat‐
sealed bags, had been concealed in two freshly‐caulked lead‐
lined compartments.
Salinas claimed the money was his, so Michigan police took
him to the station for an interview. He was read his Miranda
rights, and agreed to speak to police. He claimed the $311,000
was his life savings and that he kept the money in his trailer
because he did not trust banks. Police then seized the $311,000,
along with Salinas’ cell phone and his tractor‐trailer. They
told Salinas that if he wanted to get the money back, he
could submit a Notice of Claim form. Salinas posted a $5,000
bond and attempted to reclaim the seized money by submit‐
ting a Notice of Claim form. When the form asked about his
“interest in the property,” Salinas again claimed that the
money was his.
On August 8, 2011, Vargas phoned Villa and told him to
stop using his phone because Salinas had been stopped by
police and his phone had been confiscated; Vargas was
concerned that the police “might’ve gotten some numbers off
of it.”

-- 5 of 20 --

6 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
On November 7, 2011, Salinas and Vargas were arrested.
On November 9, they were indicted and charged by a grand
jury; a superseding indictment was filed on November 30,
2011. On December 7, 2011, Salinas and Vargas pleaded not
guilty; Vargas later changed his plea to guilty, but Salinas
proceeded to trial.
A. Vargas’ Plea Deal and Sentencing
Vargas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846
(Count One); the government dismissed the other counts
against him. Vargas admitted that he was responsible for 1,723
kilograms of marijuana, which placed him at a base offense
level of 32 under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(a)(5) and (c)(4). The district
court allowed a three‐level reduction for Vargas’ acceptance
of responsibility, dropping his total offense level to 29. The
probation officer, however, recommended a three‐level
enhancement under § 3B1.1(b) due to Vargas’ role as a mana‐
ger or supervisor in the conspiracy, since Vargas “oversaw”
the delivery of the marijuana and the proceeds, was a contact
person for Villa, gave Salinas’ phone number to Villa, and
provided instructions on how to package the drug money.
With the enhancement, Vargas’ resulting guidelines range was
121–151 months.3
Vargas objected to the manager/supervisor enhancement
arguing that it should not be imposed since he acted only as a
3 Without the enhancement, Vargas would have qualified for the “safety
valve” provision, which would have dropped his applicable guidelines
range to 70–87 months.

-- 6 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 7
messenger and a middleman. He claims that he did not act as
a manager or supervisor because he did not exercise decision‐
making authority, recruit members, or have control over other
participants. He also pointed out that he did not set the price
of the drugs, handle the drugs or the proceeds, and received
only a small fee for his services ($25 per pound of marijuana).
The district court considered Vargas’ objection to the
enhancement but overruled it. In reaching its conclusion, the
court relied on the probation officer’s recommendation in the
Presentence Investigation Report, the evidence presented at
Salinas’ trial such as the intercepted phone conversations
implicating Vargas, as well as Vargas’ recitation of facts in his
plea declaration. The court sentenced Vargas to 121 months in
prison, a four‐year term of supervised release, and a special
assessment of $100. Vargas timely appealed his sentence.
B. Salinas’ Trial
The government presented several witnesses at trial,
including DEA Special Agent Charles Baumgartner (“Baum‐
gartner”), who was qualified as an expert witness. He testified
about the methods used by drug traffickers to conceal money,
including using hidden compartments and packaging the
money in tape‐wrapped, heat‐sealed bundles. He also noted
that lead‐lined compartments, like the two Salinas had built in
his trailer, are often used by drug traffickers to conceal their
contents from law enforcement since X‐ray machines cannot
penetrate them. He testified that the bundles of money taken
from Salinas’ trailer were consistent with the way drug
proceeds are bundled.

-- 7 of 20 --

8 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
After the government rested its case, Salinas moved for
judgment of acquittal. He claimed that the government failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he either knew that
the conspiracy involved illegal drugs or that he deliberately
avoided learning that the money he transported was connected
to illegal drugs. In response to Salinas’ motion, the government
highlighted the evidence that would allow the jury to reason‐
ably conclude that Salinas either knew that the money was
connected to illegal drugs or that he deliberately avoided
learning the truth about the origin of the money. The govern‐
ment pointed to the wiretapped conversation between Salinas
and Villa, Salinas’ collection and transportation of the money,
his surreptitious interactions with Armando, his efforts to con‐
ceal the uniquely‐packaged money in his trailer, and his initial
denials that he had over $10,000 in his tractor‐trailer followed
by his admission he was in fact carrying $311,000. Moreover,
even after the police discovered the hidden money, Salinas lied
that the money was actually his life savings and filed a Notice
of Claim form in an attempt to recover the money as his own.
Based on this evidence, the court concluded that a jury could
find every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt
and so denied Salinas’ motion for judgment of acquittal.
Towards the end of trial, the parties agreed on a set of jury
instructions. One of the government’s proposed instructions
taken from the Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions
for the Seventh Circuit (1999), commonly referred to as the
“ostrich instruction,” stated:
When the word “knowingly” or the phrase “the defen‐
dant knew” is used in these instructions, it means that
the defendant realized what he was doing and was

-- 8 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 9
aware of the nature of his conduct, and did not act
through ignorance, mistake or accident. Knowledge
may be proved by a defendant’s conduct, and by all the
facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You may
infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and
indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a
strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed
or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet
shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn, you may
conclude that he acted knowingly, as I have used that
word.
Salinas did not object to the use of this instruction. The jury
found Salinas guilty on all counts. Following trial, Salinas filed
a motion for a new trial, but the court denied his motion. He
now appeals his sentence, claiming both that the evidence
presented by the government at trial was insufficient to convict
him and that the ostrich instruction given at his trial was
prejudicial.
II. DISCUSSION
Since Salinas and Vargas appeal on different grounds, we
will discuss each defendant in turn. We begin with Vargas’
objection to the three‐level manager/supervisor enhancement
that was applied to his sentence.
A. Vargas’ Objection to the Manager/Supervisor En‐
hancement
The district court’s decision to apply an enhancement is
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Johnson, 489 F.3d 794,
796 (7th Cir. 2007). We will reverse a district court’s application

-- 9 of 20 --

10 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
of an enhancement only if a review of the evidence leaves us
with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Id.
Section 3B1.1(b) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
permits the court to apply a three‐level enhancement to a
defendant’s sentence if the district court finds that the defen‐
dant “was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or
leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more partici‐
pants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). While
§ 3B1.1 never expressly defines the terms “manager” or
“supervisor,” the terms “should be straightforwardly under‐
stood as someone who helps manage or supervise a crime
scheme.” United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778, 790 (7th Cir.
2012). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines list seven factors that
the court may consider when deciding whether the § 3B1.1
enhancement should be applied: (1) the defendant’s exercise of
decision‐making authority, (2) the nature of his participation
in the commission of the offense, (3) the defendant’s recruit‐
ment of accomplices, (4) the defendant’s right to a larger share
of the fruits of the crime, (5) the degree of the defendant’s
participation in planning or organizing the offense, (6) the
nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) the degree of
control and authority the defendant exercised over others.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, commentary n.4; United States v. Vaughn, 722
F.3d 918, 935 (7th Cir. 2013). These factors, however, need not
be given equal weight, and the key inquiry is “whether the
defendant exercised some control over at least one other
participant.” United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097, 1104, n.3
(“[S]lavish adherence to [the factors] is unnecessary: the
ultimate question is what relative role the defendant played.”).

-- 10 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 11
While serving as a mere middleman in a drug distribution
chain is not enough to qualify the defendant as a manager or
supervisor, a defendant may be considered a manager or
supervisor if he “tells people what to do and determines
whether they’ve done it,” United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694,
697 (7th Cir. 2012), or exerts “at least indirect control over
[others] … as they did what he wanted, when he wanted it and
where he wanted it done.” United States v. Richards, 198 F.3d
1029, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000).
In Figueroa, we affirmed the district court’s imposition of a
three‐level manager/supervisor enhancement to the defen‐
dant’s sentence even though he claimed that he was “merely
transmitting orders” and “had no discretion.” 682 F.3d at 697.
We noted that the defendant continuously supervised another
man, told him where to get drugs, where to deliver drugs, and
how to get paid. Id. at 697–98. In affirming the enhancement,
we explained that “[a] supervisor, a manager, tells people what
to do and determines whether they’ve done it” and “[t]hat was
the defendant’s job.” Id. at 697.
Similarly, in United States v. Ortiz, 463 Fed. Appx. 580, 581
(7th Cir. 2011), we affirmed the district court’s imposition of a
§ 3B1.1(b) enhancement based on the defendant’s role in a drug
conspiracy. The defendant recruited another man to participate
in the conspiracy, exercised control over him by giving him
directions and a vehicle containing hidden compartments to
transport drugs, and compensated him for his participation. Id.
In light of the defendant’s “relative responsibility and control
over other participants,” we found that the district court was
“amply justified” in imposing a manager/supervisor enhance‐
ment. Id.; see also United States v. Hicks, 418 Fed. Appx. 534, 536

-- 11 of 20 --

12 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
(7th Cir. 2011) (upholding the district court’s application of a
§ 3B1.1(b) enhancement to the defendant’s sentence when he
“had both relative responsibility and control over other
coconspirators”).
Here, Vargas had both relative responsibility in telling
others what to do and exerted at least indirect control over
them. Vargas arranged the marijuana delivery to Villa, put
Villa in contact with Salinas so that the drug proceeds could
make their way back to Mexico, and instructed Villa how to
package the drug money so that it would fit in the hidden
compartments in Salinas’ trailer. After Salinas was stopped and
arrested, Vargas called Villa to explain what had happened
and cautioned Villa to stop using his phone so that he would
not be apprehended as well. Though Vargas downplays his
role in the conspiracy, his activities more than suffice to qualify
him as a manager or supervisor. Therefore, the district court
was well within its discretion to impose the manager/ supervi‐
sor enhancement.
B. Salinas’ Sufficiency of the Evidence Challenge
Salinas argues that the district court erred when it failed to
grant his motion for judgment of acquittal as well as his
motion for a new trial. He contends that the evidence pre‐
sented by the government at trial was insufficient to demon‐
strate that either he knew that the money was connected to
illegal drugs or that he was willfully blind to that fact.
In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and ask
whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essen‐
tial elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson

-- 12 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 13
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We will uphold a jury’s
verdict unless “the record is devoid of the evidence from
which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” United States v. Mire, 725 F.3d 665, 678 (7th Cir. 2013)
(quoting United States v. Stevenson, 680 F.3d 854, 856 (7th Cir.
2012)).
To convict a defendant of conspiracy under §§ 841 and 846,
the government must prove the existence of a conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and
that the defendant knowingly or intentionally became part of
the agreement. Mire, 725 F.3d at 679. The government must
put forth “substantial evidence that the defendant knew of the
illegal objective of the conspiracy and agreed to participate.”
United States v. Thornton, 197 F.3d 241, 254 (7th Cir. 1999). The
defendant must also know that the substance in question is a
controlled substance. United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515, 525
(7th Cir. 2005). “A jury may consider evidence of the activities
surrounding a defendant in determining the defendant’s
knowledge of the conspiracy.” Thornton, 197 F.3d at 254.
The defendant’s knowledge can be proven directly or by
demonstrating that the defendant deliberately avoided
learning about the drugs. United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988,
1000 (7th Cir. 2012). “[A] defendant may not escape criminal
liability simply by pleading ignorance ‘if he knows or strongly
suspects he is involved in criminal dealings but deliberately
avoids learning more exact information about the nature and
extent of those dealings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Garcia,
580 F.3d 528, 536 (7th Cir. 2009)). The main question is “what
the defendant knew and whether that knowledge raises a
reasonable inference that [he] remained deliberately ignorant

-- 13 of 20 --

14 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
of facts constituting criminal knowledge.” United States v.
Ramirez, 574 F.3d 869, 877 (7th Cir. 2009). “The circumstances
surrounding the defendant may be sufficient to infer that,
given what the defendant knew, he must have forced his
suspicions aside and deliberately avoided confirming for
himself that he was engaged in criminal activity.” United States
v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867, 873 (7th Cir. 2007).
Salinas admits that he knew he was transporting $311,000
in hidden compartments in his trailer from Chicago to Texas,
and does not contest the fact that the money found in his trailer
came from drug sales. His only argument is that the govern‐
ment failed to meet its burden of proving that he knew that the
money came from the sale of controlled substances or that he
deliberately avoided finding out it was so connected.
Despite his assertions, the jury could have easily deter‐
mined, based on Salinas’ actions and the surrounding circum‐
stances, that he either knew the money was linked to illegal
drugs or deliberately looked the other way. Salinas spoke to
Villa, a known drug trafficker, and arranged to pick up
$311,000 from Villa’s courier, Armando. Despite the large
amount of money, Salinas never asked where the money came
from. In addition, Salinas had specially‐designed two lead‐
lined compartments built into his trailer in order to transport
the money, which was concealed from view and difficult to
access. At trial, the jury heard testimony from the govern‐
ment’s drug trafficking expert, Baumgartner, that lead‐lined
compartments, like the ones Salinas had built in his trailer, are
often used by drug traffickers to conceal their contents from
law enforcement. Salinas also knew the money would only fit
in the hidden compartments if it was packaged a certain way,

-- 14 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 15
so he went to Armando’s home to inspect the way the money
had been packaged to ensure that it would fit.
When Salinas was stopped by police, he consistently lied to
them about the money he was transporting. Initially, he told
Bawks that he did not have over $10,000 in his tractor‐trailer.
Only after police searched his trailer and discovered the
hidden compartments did Salinas change his story and admit
that he had $311,000 stashed in his trailer. At this point, Salinas
lied again, telling Bawks that the money was his life savings
even though he had received the money from Armando just
hours before. Salinas then attempted to continue the charade
by protesting the seizure of the $311,000, filing a false Notice of
Claim form, and asserting once again that the money belonged
to him. These facts provided more than ample grounds for the
jury to conclude that Salinas either knew that the $311,000 was
linked to illegal drugs or that he just simply chose not to know.
C. Salinas’ Objections to the Ostrich Instruction
i. The District Court’s Decision to Give the Ostrich
Instruction
Salinas also contends that the district court committed plain
error when it gave the ostrich instruction at his trial. The
ostrich instruction should be given only where the defendant
claims to lack guilty knowledge and the government presents
evidence from which a jury could conclude that the defendant
deliberately avoided learning the truth. Fluker, 698 F.3d at
1000–01. Here, Salinas claims he did not know that the money
in his tractor‐trailer was linked to illegal drugs, so we need
only determine whether the government presented sufficient
evidence from which the jury could have concluded that

-- 15 of 20 --

16 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
Salinas deliberately avoided learning the truth about the
money.
Salinas never objected to the ostrich instruction at trial, so
we review the court’s decision to give the instruction for plain
error. United States v. Colvin, 353 F.3d 569, 577 (7th Cir. 2003).
To prevail under this standard, Salinas must prove that the
district court’s decision to give the ostrich instruction
improperly influenced the jury’s verdict. United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 735 (1993).
Though Salinas admits that he spoke with Villa, met with
Armando, and agreed to transport the $311,000, he contends
that he simply followed instructions on how to transport the
cash and had no knowledge that the money stemmed from
drug activity. His actions, however, indicate otherwise—that
either he knew the money came from drug sales or deliberately
avoided learning the truth. The government presented evi‐
dence at trial demonstrating that Salinas had reason to ques‐
tion the origin of the money he was transporting. Salinas was
contacted by Villa, a known drug trafficker, to arrange for the
transportation and delivery of a large sum of money. Without
asking Villa any questions about where the money came from,
Salinas agreed to meet with Armando, a complete stranger,
and to go to his house. There, Salinas carefully inspected the
money, which had been heat‐sealed and specially packaged.
Salinas still asked no questions. Furthermore, Salinas had two
special lead‐lined compartments built inside his trailer. He
planned to transport the money in these compartments, and
would not accept the money from Armando unless it would fit
inside. When Salinas was stopped by law enforcement, he lied
about transporting the money; when the hidden compartments

-- 16 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 17
in his trailer were discovered, he admitted he was carrying
$311,000, but then lied to the police again, claiming that the
money was his life savings. Based on these facts, a jury could
have reasonably concluded that Salinas either knew the money
was linked to illegal drugs or strongly suspected that the
money came from illegal drug activity, but failed to ask
questions simply because he did not want to know. We find
that it was not plain error for the district court to give the
ostrich instruction.
ii. Salinas’ Objection to the Language of the Ostrich
Instruction
Salinas also argues that the language of the ostrich instruc‐
tion was improper, and allowed the jury to convict him of mere
negligence.
The ostrich instruction given at Salinas’ trial was the
Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction for the Seventh Circuit at the
time. It states:
When the word “knowingly” or the phrase “the defen‐
dant knew” is used in these instructions, it means that
the defendant realized what he was doing and was
aware of the nature of his conduct, and did not act
through ignorance, mistake or accident. Knowledge
may be proved by a defendant’s conduct, and by all the
facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You may
infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and
indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a
strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed
or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet
shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn, you may

-- 17 of 20 --

18 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
conclude that he acted knowingly, as I have used that
word.
We will reverse a district court’s decision to give a jury
instruction “only if it appears both that the jury was misled
and that the instructions prejudiced the defendant.” United
States v. Dickerson, 705 F.3d 683, 688 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting
United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718, 731 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Even though the ostrich instruction given at Salinas’ trial
did not specifically state that the defendant could not be
convicted for “mere negligence,” it made it clear to the jury
that the defendant needed to “realiz[e] what he was doing and
[be] aware of the nature of his conduct, and … not act through
ignorance, mistake or accident.” The instruction required
the jury to find that Salinas acted “knowingly,” consciously
“shut[ting] his eyes for fear of what he would learn,” so we
find no error.
Salinas further argues that we should find the instruction
erroneous because the Committee on Federal Criminal Jury
Instructions of the Seventh Circuit substantially revised the
ostrich instruction several months after his trial. The Commit‐
tee Comment after Section 4.10 reads:
[The] “ostrich” instruction[] will not be appropriate in
every case in which knowledge is an issue. Such an
instruction is appropriate “where (1) the defendant
claims a lack of guilty knowledge, and (2) the govern‐
ment has presented evidence sufficient for a jury to
conclude that the defendant deliberately avoided
learning the truth.” Carani, 492 F.3d at 873 (citing United
States v. Carrillo, 435 F.3d 767, 780 (7th Cir. 2006)).

-- 18 of 20 --

Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378 19
Deliberate avoidance is more than mere negligence; “the
defendant must have ‘deliberately avoided acquiring knowl‐
edge of the crime being committed by cutting off his curiosity
through an effort of the will.’” Id. at 873 (quoting United States
v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 796 (7th Cir. 2006)). “[E]vidence merely
supporting a finding of negligence—that a reasonable person
would have been strongly suspicious, or that a defendant
should have been aware of criminal knowledge—does not
support an inference that a particular defendant was deliber‐
ately ignorant.” Carrillo, 435 F.3d at 781 (citing United States v.
Stone, 987 F.2d 469, 472 (7th Cir. 1993) (explaining that it is
improper to use an ostrich instruction “to convict [a defendant]
on the basis of what [he] should have known”)).
Though the Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instruc‐
tions of the Seventh Circuit revised the prior pattern criminal
jury instruction to include an express statement that deliberate
avoidance needs to be more than mere negligence, this does
not mean that the prior pattern criminal jury instruction was
an incorrect statement of the law. Though it used different
language than the current instruction, the instruction made
clear that Salinas needed to “realiz[e] what he was doing and
[be] aware of the nature of his conduct, and … not act through
ignorance, mistake or accident.” The instruction “fairly and
accurately summarized the law,” United States v. Jefferson, 334
F.3d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 2003), so we find no error.
Finally, Salinas cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Global‐
Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), a civil
case that narrowed the definition of “willful blindness,”
explaining that “a willfully blind defendant is one who takes
deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of

-- 19 of 20 --

20 Nos. 12‐3769 & 13‐1378
wrongdoing and who can almost be said to have actually
known the critical facts.” Id. at 2070–71. He now urges us to
apply that definition to Salinas’ case. While several of our sister
circuits have mentioned incorporating Global‐Tech’s definition
into their criminal jury instructions for knowledge (see, e.g.,
United States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 702 n.19 (5th Cir. 2012)
(“although Global‐Tech was a civil case, the standard seems to
apply equally in criminal deliberate ignorance cases”); United
States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 278 n.16 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
Supreme Court appears to now prefer the appellation of
‘willful blindness’ … which uses ‘conscious avoidance’”);
United States v. Butler, 646 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing
Global‐Tech in defining willful blindness), we have yet to do so.
And even if we were to do so, the result in Salinas’ case would
be the same. The government presented sufficient evidence
supporting a finding that Salinas either knew that the money
he transported was linked to illegal drugs or deliberately
avoided such knowledge, so any error related to the ostrich
instruction given at Salinas’ trial would have been harmless.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the
district court.

-- 20 of 20 --