Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 15-4235
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00310-GBL-3)
Argued:
Decided:
Edgar
Javier
Bello
Murillo
appeals
his
At the time of
(an
IPP).
Bello,
citizen
of
Colombia,
has
not
Indeed,
Process
Clause.
As
explained
below,
we
affirm
Bellos
convictions.
I.
A.
Agent Watson began serving the DEA in the year 2000, having
previously worked as a Sheriffs Deputy in Louisiana and as a
Deputy United States Marshal in Mississippi. 1
IPP
and
thereby
Prevention
and
Protected
Persons,
protected
Punishment
of
by
Crimes
Including
the
Convention
Against
Diplomatic
on
the
Internationally
Agents
(the
IPP
drove
with
taxicab
other
taxi
through
armed robberies.
paseo
in
Bogot,
drivers
to
millionario
Colombia,
mug
and
where
rob
(millionaires
he
wealthy
ride)
First, one
to
the
others.
Next,
another
taxicab
containing
Armed
The assailants would demand from the victim his cash, valuables,
credit
cards,
accounts.
and
personal-identification
Typically,
another
conspirator
numbers
in
yet
for
bank
third
as
lookout,
or
using
the
victims
bank
cards
to
withdraw cash.
On or about June 20, 2013, a taxicab operated by one of
Bellos
Carrying
coconspirators
a
knife,
Bello
picked
up
rode
in
Agent
a
Watson
second
in
taxicab
Bogot.
with
his
After travelling
Inside, Figueroa
least
four
times.
Watson
ultimately
escaped
from
his
Within a
returned
an
indictment
against
six
defendants,
murder of an IPP,
1114
(Count
2);
conspiracy
to
kidnap
an
IPP,
in
Counts
from
Colombia
District of Virginia.
for
prosecution
in
the
Eastern
extradition
request
as
to
Count
2.
In
so
ruling,
the
No. 1:13-cr-00310 (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2015), ECF No. 292-1, at
29-30 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). 3
Bello
Two weeks
Sepulveda, No. 1:13-cr-00310 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2014), ECF No.
119, at 1.
States
Government.
Id.
at
5-6.
Bello
contended
that,
Id. at
6.
As
explained
relied primarily
in
its
on
our
opinion
recent
of
November
decision
in
6,
2014,
United
which
States
v.
Brehm, 691 F.3d 547 (4th Cir. 2012), the district court denied
the dismissal motion.
that
prosecuting
Bellos
him
in
due
the
process
rights
are
not
violated
by
United
States
for
the
murder
and
for
these
offenses
is
proper
under
Id. at 620.
the
Fourth
Applying the
aiding
and
contravention
of
abetting
18
U.S.C.
the
murder
1116(a)
of
an
and
2,
[IPP],
and
in
further
Id. at 1
hearing.
At
Counts 1 and 3.
the
hearing,
Bello
entered
guilty
pleas
on
Count 4 as to him.
plea agreement.
On April 16, 2015, the district court sentenced Bello to
concurrent sentences of 440 months in prison on Counts 1 and 3.
Bello
timely
noted
this
appeal,
and
we
possess
jurisdiction
II.
Bellos sole claim on appeal is that his prosecution in the
United
States
Clause.
contravened
the
Fifth
Amendments
Due
Process
claim.
2009).
A.
The
Fifth
Amendment
provides
that
no
person
shall
be
See
United States v. Brehm, 691 F.3d 547, 552 (4th Cir. 2012). 4
We
between
applying
the
defendant
particular
and
statute
the
to
the
United
States,
accused
would
so
that
not
be
marks omitted) (citing United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 111
(2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 24849
(9th Cir. 1990)).
thereto,
we
agree
with
Bellos
concession
at
oral
defendant
in
the
United
States
if
his
actions
the
United
States
protecting
its
diplomatic
has
agents
while
they
interest
represent
in
this
thus
could
not
have
foreseen
being
haled
into
United
in
that
Brehm,
the
however,
defendants
that
[f]air
understand
10
warning
that
they
does
could
We
not
be
(D.C.
Cir.
2013)
(What
appears
to
be
the
animating
unwary
when
he
has
evidently criminal.
engaged
in
conduct
that
is
self-
(concluding
that
prosecution
in
States
was
not
contractor
stabbed
British
victim
at
NATO-operated
foreign
organization
defendants
overseas
supplied
for
use
11
weapons
against
to
U.S.
known
terrorist
citizens
and
property).
Absent
fundamental
unfairness,
Bellos
Fifth
the
South
African
defendant
was
prosecuted
in
In
this
Moreover,
Brehm
had
signed
an
agreement
with
the
States
criminal
jurisdiction.
See
id.
at
549.
We
his
prosecution
was
fundamentally
unfair,
but
the
jurisdiction
under
its
agreement
12
with
the
See id.
Afghan
III, opened for signature Dec. 14, 1973, 28 U.S.T. 1975, 1035
U.N.T.S. 167.
State.
Id.
at
art.
III,
1.
According
to
the
The
kidnapping
Convention
and
murdering
also
an
specifies
IPP
shall
that
be
the
crimes
treated,
for
of
the
in
its
territory.
Meanwhile,
other
State
Parties
the
offender,
Colombian
the
authorities
Convention
have
affords
apprehended
Colombia
the
the
alleged
option
of
alone
is
sufficient
to
quell
any
concern
that
we
reject
Bellos
contention
that
because
the
argument
fails
at
its
start,
in
that
the
mens
rea
1201(a)(4)
offense) are
limited
(the
to
object
the
of
intent
the
kidnapping
necessary
for
conspiracy
murder
and
Id.
Our review
the
existence
of
the
fact
that
confers
federal
from 1111, 1112, and 1113, which spell out the elements of
the offenses of murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder or
manslaughter, respectively, when committed [w]ithin the special
maritime
and
Section
1111,
territorial
for
jurisdiction
example,
specifies
of
the
that
United
[m]urder
States.
is
the
In other
16
words,
1111
identifies
the
substantive
elements
of
murder,
See
United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377, 384 (4th Cir. 2013)
(explaining
that
first-degree
premeditation,
while
murder
second-degree
under
murder
1111
requires
requires
simply
country.
See
part,
jurisdiction
over
18
U.S.C.
that
the
the
murder
1116(c)
United
of
an
States
IPP
(providing,
may
outside
in
exercise
the
United
clearly
intended
murder offense.
to
be
jurisdictional
element
of
the
17
persons
do
any
overt
act
to
effect
the
object
of
the
As
when
that
person
is
an
IPP.
As
such,
1201
of
Title
18,
1201(a)
spells
out
the
essential
v.
Satisfying
Lewis,
the
662
F.2d
elements
of
1087,
1088
1201(a),
(4th
we
See United
Cir.
have
1981).
observed,
Lentz, 383 F.3d 191, 201 (4th Cir. 2004) (emphasis and internal
quotation marks omitted).
kidnapping
elements
do
offense
not,
include
however,
mens
require
rea
a
requirement.
perpetrator
to
Those
know
the
See Wayne R.
as
one
of
the
statutorily-declared
bases
statutory
supporting
also jurisdictional.
551
U.S.
128,
neighbors
the
speak
proposition
that
for
That is,
in
terms
1201(a)(4)
of
is
135
(2007)
(reading
proximate
statutory
are
structures).
adjacent
More
and
specifically,
that
have
remarkably
1201(a)(1)
implicates
similar
criminalizes
interstate
or
kidnapping
offense
foreign
commerce.
States.
Section
1201(a)(3)
punishes
kidnapping
Each
of
the
four
subparagraphs
surrounding
at
1090
(concluding
that
pre-IPP
Convention
version
of
19
kidnapping
conspiracy
in
contravention
of
1201(c).
III.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
20