USA v. Sanchez-Chala et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
[1] GREGORIO SÁNCHEZ-CHALA,
Defendant.
CRIM. NO. 22-234-1 (RAM)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	Gregorio 	Sánchez-
Chala’s 	(“Sánchez-Chala” 	or 	“Defendant”) 	Informative 	Motion
Regarding Late Disclosure of DEA Reports of Investigation Provided
as 	Jencks 	Material 	(“Motion”) 	whereby 	Defendant 	seeks 	the
dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
prosecutorial 	misconduct. 	(Docket 	No. 	196). 	For 	the 	reasons
outlined 	below, 	the 	Court 	hereby 	DENIES 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	and
request for dismissal.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an at-sea interdiction by the Puerto
Rico Police Bureau (“PRPB”) United Forces for Rapid Action (“FURA”
for 	its 	Spanish 	acronym) 	with 	Defendant’s 	vessel 	La 	Zulyi 	on 	May
11, 2022. (Docket No. 1-1). FURA agents noted that the vessel was
navigating from international waters into Puerto Rico territorial
waters 	and 	stopped 	the 	vessel 	to 	conduct 	an 	inspection 	of 	the
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 6

Criminal No. 22-234-1 (RAM) 	2
vessel’s 	documents. 	Id. 	at 	3. Sánchez-Chala 	was 	one 	of 	three
occupants 	aboard 	the 	vessel 	at 	the 	time 	of 	the 	interdiction. 	Id.
at 2-3. After several procedural incidents, the vessel was scanned
and 	searched, 	revealing 	a 	hidden 	compartment 	containing
approximately 	311.8 	kilograms 	of 	packages 	testing 	presumptively
positive for cocaine. Id. at 3.
In 	the 	pending 	Motion, 	Defendant 	asserts 	that 	on 	September
30, 2025, in anticipation of the Change of Plea hearing scheduled
for October 2, 2025, the Government produced two heavily redacted
DEA Reports of Investigation (“ROIs”) as Jencks material. Id. ¶ 1,
9. Both ROIs (one dated 2023 and the other 2024) are interviews of
cooperators 	describing 	a 	May 	10, 	2022 	drug 	smuggling 	venture
whereby 	the 	cooperators 	planned 	to 	transport 	kilos 	of 	narcotics
from the Dominican Republic and conduct an at sea transfer of the
drugs 	with 	a 	Puerto 	Rican 	vessel. 	(Docket 	Nos. 	198-1 	and 	198-2).
Defendant 	argues 	that 	the 	ROIs 	show 	that 	the 	drug 	transfer 	took
place 	at 	the 	island 	of 	Desecheo, 	contradicting 	the 	testimony
provided 	by 	Agent 	Angel 	Crespo-Dones 	(“Agent 	Crespo”) 	at 	the
Suppression 	Hearing. 	(Docket 	No. 	196 	¶ 	22). 	Moreover, 	Defendant
asserts that the ROIs should have been produced to defense counsel
as exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963).
Id. 	¶ 	32. 	Accordingly, 	Defendant 	asks 	that 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	the
case 	for 	lack 	of 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	and 	prosecutorial
misconduct.
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 6

Criminal No. 22-234-1 (RAM) 	3
The Government filed a Response opposing Defendant’s request
and provided unredacted versions of the ROIs. (Docket Nos. 210 and
212). The Government asserts that the ROIs were produced to notify
their intention to seek a sentencing enhancement due to Defendant’s
leadership 	role. 	Id. 	at 	3. 	Moreover, 	the 	Government 	posits 	that
the ROIs do not constitute Brady evidence as the statements therein
are 	not 	exculpatory 	nor 	favorable 	as 	to 	Defendant’s 	innocence,
rather they support a finding of guilt. Id. at 2-3. The Government
also contends that Defendant erroneously conflates the lawfulness
of 	FURA’s 	initial 	interdiction 	with 	the 	existence 	of 	federal
jurisdiction. 	Id. 	at 	11. 	In 	contrast, 	the 	Government 	maintains
that 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	exists 	because 	the 	superseding
indictment 	charges 	Sánchez-Chala 	with 	violating 	the 	Controlled
Substances Act and the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”).
Id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A 	key 	issue 	at 	the 	Suppression 	Hearing 	was 	the 	legality 	of
the initial intervention with the vessel. (Docket No. 94). Sánchez-
Challa asserted that the vessel was traveling within United States
territorial 	waters, 	specifically 	fishing 	around 	the 	island 	of
Desecheo. (Docket No. 111 at 2, 8). However, if the vessel crossed
borders 	by 	traveling 	from 	international 	waters 	into 	territorial
waters, 	as 	alleged 	by 	the 	Government 	and 	supported 	with 	Agent
Crespo’s 	testimony, 	FURA 	agents 	acting 	as 	customs 	officers 	could
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 6

Criminal No. 22-234-1 (RAM) 	4
conduct a routine search without the requirement of probable cause
pursuant to the border search exception. (Docket No. 159 at 7).
Having 	conducted 	a 	review 	of 	the 	unredacted 	ROIs, 	the 	Court
finds 	that 	they 	do 	not 	contradict 	the 	testimony 	provided 	at 	the
suppression 	hearing 	and 	thus 	do 	not 	impact 	the 	Court’s 	finding
that 	FURA 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	conduct 	the 	initial 	stop. 	In 	its
relevant parts, the content of the ROI dated 2023 (the “2023 ROI”),
provides 	that: 	(1) 	on 	May 	10, 	2022, 	a 	vessel 	departed 	from 	the
Dominican 	Republic 	towards 	Desecheo 	Island 	in 	Puerto 	Rico; 	(2) 	a
Puerto 	Rican 	vessel 	arrived 	at 	the 	coordinates 	and 	the 	vessels
conducted 	a 	drug 	load 	sea 	transfer; 	and 	(3) 	the 	cooperator 	was
subsequently 	informed 	that 	the 	Puerto 	Rico 	drug-laden 	vessel 	was
interdicted 	while 	returning 	from 	Desecheo 	Island. 	(Docket 	Nos.
198-2 	at 	9-10 	and 	212-1 	at 	9-10). 	It 	does 	not 	state 	where 	the
vessel 	was 	traveling, 	or 	seen 	traveling 	from, 	at 	the 	time 	it 	was
stopped by FURA agents.
On 	the 	other 	hand, 	the 	ROI 	dated 	2024 	(the 	“2024 	ROI”)
contains no specific mention of Desecheo Island or where the Puerto
Rico 	vessel 	was 	traveling 	from 	when 	it 	was 	stopped. 	(Docket 	Nos.
198-1 	and 	212-2). 	The 	2024 	ROI 	does 	outline 	the 	drug 	smuggling
venture whereby a vessel from the Dominican Republic would conduct
an at sea transfer with another vessel that would deliver the drugs
to 	its 	destination 	in 	Puerto 	Rico. 	(Docket 	Nos. 	198-1 	at 	4 	and
212-2 	at 	4). 	It 	similarly 	reflects 	that 	a 	few 	days 	after 	the 	at-
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 6

Criminal No. 22-234-1 (RAM) 	5
sea transfer, the cooperator was informed that the receiving vessel
had 	been 	seized 	by 	law 	enforcement 	in 	Puerto 	Rico. 	(Docket 	Nos.
198-1 at 5 and 212-2 at 5).
“A 	Brady 	error 	occurs 	when 	the 	prosecution 	suppresses
‘material’ 	evidence 	that 	is 	favorable 	to 	the 	accused...In 	most
circumstances, exculpatory evidence is material only ‘if there is
a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to
the 	defense, 	the 	result 	of 	the 	proceeding 	would 	have 	been
different,’” Gilday v. Callahan, 59 F.3d 257, 267 (1st Cir. 1995)
(quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, (1995); United States
v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)).
In the case at bar, neither ROI provides information regarding
where 	the 	Puerto 	Rico 	vessel 	was 	traveling 	from 	or 	where 	it 	was
seen when initially spotted by FURA agents. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the ROIs do not contradict Agent Crespo’s testimony at
the 	Suppression 	Hearing 	and 	would 	not 	impact 	the 	Court’s 	finding
that 	FURA 	agents 	had 	jurisdiction 	to 	conduct 	the 	initial 	stop.
Sánchez-Chala’s 	Motion, 	which 	crucially 	lacks 	“citations 	and
supporting 	authorities” 	as 	required 	by 	Local 	Rule 	112, 	fails 	to
establish that the ROIs constitute Brady material, that the Court
lacks 	jurisdiction, 	or 	that 	prosecutorial 	wrongdoing 	occurred.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request for dismissal of the present case
is DENIED.
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 6

Criminal No. 22-234-1 (RAM) 	6
III. CONCLUSION
For 	the 	aforementioned 	reasons, 	Gregorio 	Sánchez-Chala’s
Informative 	Motion 	Regarding 	Late 	Disclosure 	of 	DEA 	Reports 	of
Investigation 	Provided 	as 	Jencks 	Material 	at 	Docket 	No. 	196 	is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28 th day of January 2026.
s/Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cr-00234-RAM Document 243 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 6