USA v. Chanderpersad Kandhai

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10391
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00274-ODE-JFK-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHANDERPERSAD KANDHAI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 14, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2
A jury found Chanderpersad Kandhai guilty on both counts of an indictment,
conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846 (Count One), and importing a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1) (Count Two),1 and the
District Court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 121 months. Kandhai
now appeals his convictions, seeking a new trial on the basis of the District Court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence, two of the court’s evidentiary rulings at
trial, and one of the instructions contained in the court’s charge to the jury prior to
its deliberations. We find no merit in any of these challenges and accordingly
affirm Kandhai’s convictions.
The facts that led to Kandhai’s convictions are these: On April 27, 2013,
Kandhai, a Dutch national, arrived at the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta,
Georgia, on a flight from Quito, Ecuador. DEA agents were waiting for him,
having been tipped by a confidential informant, Osvaldo Aquino, that he was
carrying narcotics. Aquino had provided the agents with copies of Kandhai’s
passport, his itinerary, and photographs of Kandhai and the suitcase he would be
carrying.2
1 Kandhai, Sandro Ortiz-Guzman, and Nelson Antonio Beato were charged in both
counts. 2 Ortiz-Guzman had given these items to Aquino.
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

3
The agents seized the suitcase shown in the photograph before it got to the
baggage conveyor, searched it and found cocaine, and placed it on the conveyor.
When the suitcase reached the baggage claim area, Kandhai claimed it and
proceeded to the customs check point. There, customs agents opened the suitcase
and found the cocaine. Kandhai was immediately arrested and taken into custody.
I.
Following his indictment, Kandhai moved the District Court to suppress the
warrantless search of his suitcase as unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who held an evidentiary
hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that
that the motion be denied. Kandhai did not object to the R & R’s findings and
recommendation pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(1), (2), and
the District Court, adopting the R & R and the recommendation denied Kandhai’s
motion. The customs agents did not need a warrant to search the suitcase because
the search was conducted at the functional equivalent of the border. Under the
border search exception, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not
apply.
Kandhai’s failure to object to the R & R’s findings and recommendation
operated to waive his “right to review.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). In United
States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1343 (11th Cir. 2015), we held that this rule
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4
barred our review because the defendant failed to object to the findings and
recommendation in the Magistrate Judge’s R & R.
II.
Kandhai argues that the District Court abused its discretion by admitting,
under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), his prior 2009 conviction for importing
cocaine into the Netherlands3 because the conviction occurred five years prior to
the instant offense, and thus was too remote to be considered, and its probative
value was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R.
Evid. 403.
Rule 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of a crime or other bad acts
to prove a defendant’s character, but permits admission of such evidence for other
purposes, such as showing intent. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We apply a three-part test
to determine the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence: (1) the evidence must be
relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) sufficient evidence
must be presented for a jury to find that the defendant committed the extrinsic act;
and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed
by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence
403. United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). Under Rule
403, a court may exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
3 Kandhai stipulated to the conviction.
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

5
Kandhai’s 2009 conviction was highly probative of his intent to smuggle
cocaine into the United States in his suitcase. That the conviction occurred five
years prior to the instant offense did not diminish its probative value on the issue of
intent. See e.g., Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346. And such value was not outweighed
by a danger of unfair prejudice, especially in light of the District Court’s limiting
instruction which mitigated the possibility of prejudice.
III.
Kandhai argues that the court abused its discretion (1) in admitting e-mails
between an alleged co-conspirator and the confidential informant, Aquino, because
the Count One conspiracy had not been established by a preponderance of the
evidence, and (2) in admitting the photograph of his passport found within an e-
mail account, because it had not been authenticated in accordance with Federal
Rule of Evidence 901(a).
Statements made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the
conspiracy are not considered hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). In order to be
admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the government must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the conspiracy
included the declarant and the defendant against whom the statement is offered;
and (3) the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the
conspiracy. United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166,1177–78 (11th Cir. 2005).
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6
Under Rule 901(a), documents are not admissible at trial unless they are
properly authenticated by evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is
what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Authentication may be
accomplished through the testimony of a witness with knowledge. Fed. R. Evid.
901(b)(1); United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2011) (ruling
that the government properly authenticated online chat transcripts where a
detective “testified that he participated in the online chats and the transcripts were
accurate copies of those conversations”).
We find no abuse of discretion in these evidentiary rulings. First, the
conspiracy was well established through Aquino’s testimony and the evidence as a
whole. Among other things, Aquino testified that Ortiz-Gomez provided him with
photographs of Kandhai and his luggage and that the couriers in this operation
were typically aware of the amount of cocaine they were carrying. Second,
Aquino’s testimony also authenticated the photograph of Kandhai’s passport.
IV.
Kandhai asserts that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on the
charge of importing a controlled substance. Specifically, by providing a general
instruction on willfulness and then instructing the jury that to support the
importation charge Kandhai merely had to “knowingly” import a suitcase
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

7
containing cocaine, the court created the possibility for the jury to convict Kandhai
under a lesser standard.
To support a proper conviction for importation of a controlled substance, the
government must show that a defendant “knowingly or intentionally” imported a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952. 21 U.S.C. § 960(a). The
term “willfully” does not appear in the statute or the indictment, rather each uses
the language “knowingly and intentionally.” See § 960(a). The inclusion of an
intent requirement in the statutory language “tilts against any possibility that
Congress intended any additional scienter requirement.” See United States v.
Polar, 369 F.3d 1248, 1252–53 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a district court did
not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on willfulness where the
statute only required that the defendant act “knowingly”).
We find that the court’s instruction, which followed this circuit’s pattern
jury instruction on importing, clearly and correctly laid out the elements of
importing cocaine into the United States. The court was not required to include the
word “willfully,” as the statute itself does not. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-10391 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --