USA v. Calderon-Valcarcel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JAMES PARKS,
Defendant.
19-CR-87-LJV-JJM
DECISION & ORDER
Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by one of the defendants,
James Parks (“James”).1 Docket Item 1240. Along with his son, Lavon Parks
(“Lavon”), James was convicted after a jury trial of various drug and firearm offenses.
See Docket Item 1057. James asks this Court to reconsider the portion of its decision
and order on his Rule 29 motion related to his aiding and abetting the discharge of a
firearm (counts 4 and 5). More specifically, James argues that this Court overlooked
the Second Circuit’s decisions in United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 1994),
and United States v. Delgado, 972 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2020), which he cited in his Rule 29
briefing but were not discussed in the Court’s decision and order. See generally Docket
Item 1240.
This Court indeed considered Medina and Delgado when it issued its decision
and order, but for the reasons explained below, both cases are inapposite. Thus, the
Court denies James’s motion for reconsideration.
1 Because the two defendants have the same last name, the Court will refer to
them by their first names solely for ease of reference.
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 8

2
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
“Motions for reconsideration brought in criminal cases are assessed under the
civil reconsideration standard, since there is no express criminal procedure provision for
such motions.” United States v. Stevens, 2021 WL 48516, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 6,
2021) (citing United States v. Larson, 2013 WL 6196292, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 27,
2013)), aff’d, 857 F. App’x 44 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order). “Reconsideration is
generally justified in any one of the following three circumstances: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)); see also Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining that “reconsideration will generally be
denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court”).
DISCUSSION2
As noted above, James argues that this Court’s decision overlooked the Second
Circuit’s decisions in Medina and Delgado and that under those cases, his Rule 29
motion should be granted as to counts 4 and 5. This Court disagrees.
As this Court explained in its decision and order, there was ample evidence that
James aided and abetted Lavon’s shooting and killing Kevin Turner. Among other
2 The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the factual background and will
refer to the facts only as necessary to explain its analysis.
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 8

3
things, Timothy Harris and Michelle Edwards testified that on the day of the shooting,
Lavon and James came to their residence, and Lavon asked whether Harris knew “a
guy named Buffalo.” See Docket Item 1073 at 9; Docket Item 1020 at 9-10. Harris later
learned that “Buffalo” was one of Turner’s nicknames. Docket Item 1073 at 19-20, 66.
At Lavon’s request, Harris and Edwards then took a ride in a truck with Lavon and
James, who was driving. See Docket Item 1020 at 12-14. While they were driving
around, Lavon asked Harris whether he knew of any “drug houses.” Docket Item 1073
at 9; see Docket Item 1020 at 16. After a short drive “around the corner,” they stopped
back at Harris and Edwards’s house. See Docket Item 1073 at 9-11. Edwards saw a
gun in the front seat “[i]n between [Lavon] and [James],” and as she exited the truck,
she told Harris what she saw. Docket Item 1020 at 17-18, 41-42; Docket Item 1073 at
12-13.
Lavon then told Edwards “to give him a call” when they “purchased some drugs.”
Docket Item 1020 at 19. When they got back to their house, Edwards and Harris texted
Turner and asked him to bring them $20 worth of crack cocaine. Docket Item 1073 at
13-14; Docket Item 1020 at 19-21. At Edwards’s direction, Harris then did what Lavon
had instructed: he texted Lavon to “[c]ome now.” Docket Item 1073 at 15; see Docket
Item 1020 at 19-20. Turner soon delivered the crack cocaine to Harris and Edwards,
and almost immediately after Turner left, Harris and Edwards heard four shots. Docket
Item 1073 at 16; Docket Item 1020 at 22-23. When they looked out their window, they
saw that Turner had been shot on their porch. Docket Item 1073 at 16; Docket Item
1020 at 22-23.
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 8

4
Additionally, video surveillance showed a pickup truck that Detective Troy Earp
testified belonged to James arriving at a Coastal gas station—approximately two blocks
from the murder scene and one block from Lavon’s apartment—about 40 minutes
before the shooting. See Docket Item 1026 at 70-71, 85-86, 95. James went inside the
gas station; looked at the video monitors, which show all the angles of video
surveillance; and then exited the gas station without purchasing anything. See id. at 93-
94. And at approximately 4:28 p.m., a few minutes before the murder, other video
surveillance showed James’s truck pulling into a Valero gas station about one block
from the shooting, stopping in the parking lot in front of a camera, and then pulling
away. See id. at 94-97.
The government argued in its summation that James was “looking at cameras for
a reason”—because Lavon “need[ed] to know which way to go home without being
seen.”3 Docket Item 1077 at 4. And, according to the government, that plan worked:
Lavon cannot be seen on any of the cameras following the murder because “[t]hey did
their homework before the shooting.” See id. at 6. Taking the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, as the Court must on a Rule 29 motion, there was ample
evidence supporting these theories.
3 James moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33
because Earp made the unsolicited statement that in his opinion this was
“reconnaissance.” See Docket Item 1134 at 64-65. As explained in this Court’s
decision and order denying James’s Rule 33 motion, the Court sustained an objection to
that testimony, and there was “no indication that the jury considered Earp’s statement
despite the Court’s sustaining the objection.” See Docket Item 1237 at 39. But there
was nothing improper about the government’s arguing in closing that the jury should
infer from the evidence presented that James was assisting Lavon in avoiding detection.
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 8

5
In Medina and Delgado, by contrast, the Second Circuit vacated aiding and
abetting convictions where there was no evidence that the respective defendants had
“acted in any way to facilitate or encourage” the crimes. See Delgado, 972 F.3d at 77
(quoting Medina, 32 F.3d at 45). In other words, rather than “‘help[ing]’ or ‘positively
encourag[ing]’ the commission of a crime,” each of those defendants merely was “‘a
companion’ to the actual perpetrator of the crime.” See id. at 76 (quoting United States
v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1962)).
In Medina, the defendant, Roberto Medina, had been convicted of aiding and
abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence—
attempted robbery—in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See Medina, 32 F.3d at 42. The
evidence showed that Medina had conspired with others to attempt the robbery. Id. at
43. But, the Second Circuit held, there was insufficient evidence to convict Medina of
aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during that attempted robbery.
In support of the aiding and abetting conviction, the government relied on the
following evidence: “(a) Medina once referred to robberies as ‘stickups’; (b) Medina
offered a gun to [coconspirator Jose] Lopez and was told that [coconspirator Louie]
Villanueva was already planning to carry a gun; and (c) Medina later supplied Lopez
with a .31 caliber revolver.” Id. at 45. The problem, the court explained, was that
“Medina [could not] be convicted as an aider and abettor under [section] 924(c) merely
because he knew that a firearm would be used or carried and, with that knowledge,
performed an act to facilitate or encourage the robbery itself.” Id. Instead, “the
language of the statute require[d] proof that he performed some act that directly
facilitated or encouraged the use or carrying of a firearm.” Id. And, the court found,
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 8

6
under that standard the evidence was insufficient because “[t]he gun Medina gave to
Lopez was not carried or used by anyone during the attempted robbery and, therefore,
Medina’s efforts to aid and abet the carrying of that gun [could not] support a [section]
924(c) conviction.” Id.
Moreover, although Villanueva and another coconspirator had “carried a semi-
automatic weapon to the attempted robbery, . . . there [was] no evidence that Medina
acted in any way to facilitate or encourage the use or carrying of those weapons.” Id.
Rather, “[b]y the time Medina learned that a firearm would be carried by Villanueva (just
two or three hours before the scheduled robbery), Villanueva had already independently
determined to carry a firearm.” Id. at 45-46. And “[s]ince the use of that firearm was a
foregone conclusion, and since there is no evidence that Villanueva was told of
Medina’s offer to supply a gun, Medina could not have counseled or encouraged
Villanueva to carry or use it.” Id. at 46. Finally, while Medina was the mastermind
behind the robbery, “his plans did not entail a gun that was actually used or carried
during the attempted robbery.” Id. at 42.
In Delgado, the Second Circuit found there was insufficient evidence for aiding
and abetting liability despite the fact that the defendant, Domenico Anastasio, “was
present when the [g]ang planned its attack,” and “[k]nowing full well the murderous
intentions of the assembled group, . . . attempted to acquire a firearm of his own so that
he could join the shooters.” 972 F.3d at 74. But Anastasio did not ultimately attend the
shooting; indeed, after the shooters returned, he “complained, ‘[W]hy didn’t you let me
go?’” Id. (citation omitted).
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 8

7
Thus, the Second Circuit found that “Anastasio’s conduct [wa]s not enough to
satisfy the affirmative act requirement of federal accomplice liability.” Id. at 77.
“Although Anastasio was present while members of the [gang] discussed and
formulated its scheme for revenge, nothing in the record suggest[ed] that Anastasio
spoke during—much less contributed to—this planning process,” the court said. Id.
“Nor ha[d] the government offered evidence that Anastasio’s mere presence at [the]
apartment [where the planning occurred] encouraged or otherwise influenced the [g]ang
to commit the murders.” Id. 	“He did not, for example, supply any of the firearms used
during the shooting; provide any information on the location of the [rival gang]; serve as
a look-out during the shooting; transport any of the shooters to or from [the location of
the crime]; or, after the crime, help shield the shooters from police investigation.” Id.
Here, by contrast, there was evidence that James did several things to facilitate
Lavon’s shooting Turner. More specifically—viewing the proof in the light most
favorable to the government—James drove Lavon around to assist him in planning for
the shooting and helped Lavon avoid detection afterwards. To find otherwise would
view evidence and draw inferences in James’s favor, which this Court cannot do on a
Rule 29 motion.
CONCLUSION
For all those reasons, James’s motion for reconsideration, Docket Item 1240, is
DENIED.
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 7 of 8

8
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	November 24, 2025
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:19-cr-00087-LJV-JJM Document 1242 Filed 11/24/25 Page 8 of 8