United States v. Ronald Contreras
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Ronald Contreras
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 40
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4745
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD HERRERA CONTRERAS, a/k/a Espeedy, a/k/a Speedy, a/k/a Joster
Hrndz, a/k/a Chucho,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-4746
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PABLO MIGUEL VELASCO BARRERA, a/k/a Oscuro, a/k/a Pablo Miguel
Barrera Velasco, a/k/a Miguel Barrera,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-4005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 40
v.
HENRY ZELAYA MARTINEZ, a/k/a Certero, a/k/a El Kakarra,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-4006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DUGLAS RAMIREZ FERRERA, a/k/a Mortal, a/k/a Darwin, a/k/a Artillero,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-4020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELMER ZELAYA MARTINEZ, a/k/a Killer, a/k/a Morenito Martinez, a/k/a Perez
Danillo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00123-RDA-4; 1:18-cr-
00123-RDA-8; 1:18-cr-00123-RDA-6; 1:18-cr-00123-RDA-12; 1:18-cr-00123-RDA-2)
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 40
Argued: December 10, 2024 Decided: August 14, 2025
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 22-4745, 22-4746, 23-4006, 23-4020 affirmed, and No. 23-4005 affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and remanded, by published opinion. Judge Berner wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Quattlebaum joined. Judge Quattlebaum wrote a
concurring opinion.
ARGUED: Paul Peter Vangellow, Falls Church, Virginia; Paul Graham Beers, GLENN,
FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Alexander
Edward Blanchard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jesse I. Winograd, LAW OFFICE OF JESSE
WINOGRAD PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Ronald Herrera Contreras. David
J. Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant Henry Zelaya Martinez. Benjamin M. Schiffelbein, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant Duglas Ramirez
Ferrera. Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant Elmer Zelaya Martinez. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, Cristina C. Stam, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 4 of 40
BERNER, Circuit Judge:
This case arises from the kidnapping and murder of two children by members of the
La Mara Salvatrucha gang, also known as “MS-13.” Appellants Ronald Herrera Contreras,
Pablo Miguel Velasco Barrera, Henry Zelaya Martinez, Duglas Ramirez Ferrera, and
Elmer Zelaya Martinez were each indicted on eight counts and they were tried together.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts for all of the Appellants following an
eight-week trial. Appellants appeal their convictions. We affirm the guilty verdicts on all
counts. We vacate the sentence of Henry Zelaya Martinez and remand for the sole purpose
of his resentencing.
I. Background 1
Appellants were members of MS-13, a violent transnational gang. 2 MS-13 engages
in crimes including: aggravated assault; robbery; homicide; extortion; and human,
narcotics, and firearm trafficking. The gang has a complex hierarchical structure, including
subdivisions called programs and even smaller local groups called “cliques.” 4 J.A. 1316. 3
1
We review the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial and
in the hearings for the motion to suppress, in this case the Government. United States v.
Sanders, 107 F.4th 234, 240–41 (4th Cir. 2024).
2
In previous cases, this court has detailed the history, structure, and purpose of MS-
13. E.g., United States v. Contreras-Avalos, 139 F.4th 314, 318 (4th Cir. 2025); United
States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256, 261 (4th Cir. 2010).
3
Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 5 of 40
Appellants were all members or associates of the Park View Locos Salvatrucha (PVLS)
clique 4 which operates in Northern Virginia and elsewhere.
Two children (Victim 1 and Victim 2) 5 were brutally murdered by Appellants in the
summer of 2016. Appellants lured each of them to a remote park at night where they
stabbed them to death. Victim 1 and Victim 2 knew one another. Victim 2 became a
low-ranking affiliate of PVLS at just thirteen years old. Victim 2 had introduced Victim 1
to members of PVLS with the hope that he too would join. Like Victim 2, Victim 1 also
became a low-ranking affiliate of PVLS. Victim 2 was just fourteen years old at the time
he was murdered. Victim 1 was seventeen.
In August 2016, Victim 2 forwarded a photo of Victim 1 to several high-ranking
PVLS leaders. On the basis of the photo, the PVLS leaders concluded that Victim 1 was
affiliated with a rival gang. They immediately issued a “green light”—gang parlance for a
death sentence—calling for Victim 1 to be murdered.
Several MS-13 members, including Elmer and Henry Zelaya, Ramirez Ferrera, and
Herrera Contreras, devised a plot to carry out this directive. The MS-13 members told
Victim 1 to come to the park by himself to attend an MS-13 meeting. Victim 1 complied
and came to meet the members. Victim 1 walked with the MS-13 members to a secluded
area in the park. Velasco Barrera remained behind to serve as a lookout. There, Victim 1
Herrera Contreras and Ramirez Ferrera were members of different local cliques of
4
MS-13, though both were affiliated with PVLS.
5
We will refer to the minor victims as Victim 1 and Victim 2 to protect their privacy
and that of their bereaved families.
5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 6 of 40
was brutally murdered. Henry Zelaya was the first to stab Victim 1. The others joined,
stabbing Victim 1 to death using knives, a machete, and a pickaxe. Velasco Barrera
eventually left his lookout spot and also took part in the murder. At least one person
recorded a video during the murder. The assistant chief medical examiner assigned to
examine Victim 1’s corpse testified that he had been stabbed over 100 times. The group
then dug a shallow grave in the park, butchered Victim 1’s body, and buried his remains.
Sometime after murdering Victim 1, Ramirez Ferrera, Henry and Elmer Zelaya, and
Herrera Contreras unlocked and examined Victim 1’s cellphone. There they discovered
that their ostensible reason for murdering Victim 1—that he had been a member of a rival
gang—had been a mistake. On Victim 1’s phone, they discovered a photo of him flashing
an MS-13 hand sign. This indicated that Victim 1 had not, in fact, been associated with a
rival gang. The group hid their discovery from the PVLS leadership. Because of their roles
in the murder, Elmer and Henry Zelaya, Ramirez Ferrera, and Velasco Barrera all received
promotions within the PVLS clique. 6
Later that summer, rumors began to spread that Victim 2 was cooperating with law
enforcement. Based on little more than guesses and gossip, PVLS leadership decreed that
Victim 2 must be killed and approved a “green light” calling for his murder. In September,
Elmer Zelaya, Herrera Contreras, and other MS-13 members picked up Victim 2 and drove
him to the same park where they murdered Victim 1 the prior month. There, Appellants
6
Herrera Contreras was not promoted for his participation in murder of Victim 1
because his local clique did not give him permission to participate in the PVLS-sanctioned
murder. This was not for a lack of trying, however. Herrera Contreras actively sought a
promotion for his role in Victim 1’s murder.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 7 of 40
together with other MS-13 members stabbed Victim 2 to death. Elmer Zelaya cut Victim
2’s neck with a knife. For about half an hour, Appellants and the others attacked Victim 2
with knives, a machete, and a pickaxe. Herrera Contreras directed another gang member to
remove Victim 2’s Nike Cortez shoes. As they had done with Victim 1, Appellants
butchered Victim 2’s body and buried it in a freshly dug shallow grave.
Portions of Victim 2’s murder were videoed by one of the Appellants on a cellphone.
Victim 2’s autopsy indicated that he had been stabbed so forcefully that his lower jaw was
bisected, portions of his skull were fractured into 13 pieces, and his thigh bones and one of
his shinbones were fractured. After the murder, Herrera Contreras regularly wore the shoes
that had been taken from Victim 2’s corpse. Once again, because of their role in the murder,
Elmer Zelaya, Ramirez Ferrera, and Velasco Barrera received promotions within PVLS. 7
* * *
A federal grand jury returned an eight-count indictment charging Appellants with
the following counts:
• Count 1: Conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder of Victim 1
in aid of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5);
• Count 2: Conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder of Victim 2
in aid of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5);
• Count 3: Conspiracy to kidnap Victim 1, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1201(c);
7
Herrera Contreras also did not receive a promotion for participating in the murder
of Victim 2, likely because he did not have the permission of his MS-13 clique to
participate.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 8 of 40
• Count 4: Conspiracy to kidnap Victim 2, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1201(c);
• Count 5: Murder of Victim 1 in aid of racketeering activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and (2);
• Count 6: Murder of Victim 2 in aid of racketeering activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and (2);
• Count 7: Kidnapping of Victim 1 resulting in death, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and (2); and
• Count 8: Kidnapping of Victim 2 resulting in death, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and (2).
Four of the eight counts, Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, were charged under the Violent Crimes in
Aid of Racketeering Activity statute, or VICAR. 18 U.S.C. § 1959. VICAR requires the
prosecution to prove the crimes were committed as part of a criminal enterprise and
pursuant to a pattern of racketeering activity. Id.
Appellants pled not guilty and exercised their constitutional right to a jury trial. The
trial lasted over eight weeks. Following the close of the Government’s case, Appellants
moved for judgments of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district
court denied the motions. Appellants renewed their motions to dismiss at the close of
evidence, which the district court also denied. The jury convicted Appellants on all eight
counts. Appellants were sentenced to ten years’ incarceration on each of Counts 1 and
Count 2 and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on each of Counts 3 to 8,
to run concurrently, followed by five years’ supervised release.
Appellants raise numerous issues on appeal, some individual, some joint, and some
collective. Having considered all of Appellants’ arguments, we now turn to our analysis.
8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 9 of 40
We begin by addressing various challenges to evidentiary rulings made by the district
court. Next, we turn to the district court’s denial of requested jury instructions. Finally, we
address specific individual and joint challenges.
II. Analysis
A. Evidentiary Challenges
Appellants raise a number of challenges to the admission of certain evidence during
trial, which we discuss in turn below.
1. Expert Testimony
Over Appellants’ repeated objection, the district court qualified Ricardo Guzman, a
Houston Police Department sergeant, as an expert witness and permitted him to testify
about the history, rules and activities of MS-13. Appellants contend that the district court
improperly qualified Guzman as an expert because he lacked the requisite experience with
MS-13 in the Mid-Atlantic region. They also argue that Guzman’s testimony improperly
relied upon inadmissible hearsay. We address these arguments in turn.
A district court may admit the testimony of a “witness who is qualified as an expert
by knowledge, skill, experience, [or] training” if (1) “the expert’s . . . specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue”; (2) “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data”; (3) “the testimony is the
product of reliable principles and methods”; and (4) “the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable
application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. A
witness’s qualifications under Rule 702 are judged liberally. Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374,
9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 10 of 40
377 (4th Cir. 1993). We review a district court’s qualification of an expert witness for an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292–94 (4th Cir. 2010).
Guzman testified regarding his extensive professional experience with MS-13 and,
of particular relevance here, with MS-13 homicide investigations. He participated in
approximately 25 MS-13 homicide investigations as both a sergeant and task force officer,
five of which were in the “DMV” (the region that includes the District of Columbia, and
its surrounding suburbs in Maryland and Virginia). Guzman had attended relevant
professional trainings in the United States and Central America. At trial, Guzman testified
specifically about becoming familiar with PVLS in Virginia through his investigative
work. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
qualifying Guzman as an MS-13 expert.
Appellants’ argument that Guzman’s testimony was improperly based on
inadmissible hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause also fails. “To be admissible
in federal court, evidence must satisfy both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the [U.S.
Constitution’s] Confrontation Clause.” United States v. Seward, 135 F.4th 161, 166 (4th
Cir. 2025). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may opine on facts or data in
the case for which she has been made aware of or personally observed. Rule 703 also
permits an expert to rely on inadmissible evidence if experts in that field “would reasonably
rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.” Fed. R. Evid. 703.
Constitutional concerns can, however, be implicated by the admission of a type of hearsay
referred to as testimonial hearsay. Although the Supreme Court has not provided an
exhaustive or comprehensive definition of “testimonial hearsay,” it can include
10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 11 of 40
“extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as
affidavits, . . . or confessions” and custodial interrogations. United States v. Udeozor, 515
F.3d 260, 268(4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Crawford v. Washington,541 U.S. 36
, 51–52
(2004)). We review evidentiary rulings involving the Confrontation Clause de novo.
Seward, 135 F.4th at 166.
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that admitting testimonial
hearsay by a nontestifying witness generally violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment
Confrontation Clause rights unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant
had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 541 U.S. at 53–54. Thus, expert
witnesses are barred from repeating testimonial hearsay as evidence. United States v.
Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 198–99 (2d Cir. 2008). Expert witnesses are not, however, precluded
from “offering their independent judgments merely because those judgments were in some
part informed by their exposure to otherwise inadmissible evidence.” United States v.
Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir. 2009). The proper question for a court, therefore, is
“whether the expert is, in essence, giving an independent judgment or merely acting as a
transmitter for testimonial hearsay.” United States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256, 275 (4th Cir.
2010) (quoting Johnson, 587 F.3d at 635).
Guzman’s testimony did not run afoul of this rule. Far from serving as a “conduit or
transmitter for testimonial hearsay,” Guzman gave “an independent judgment . . . applying
his training and experience to the sources before him.” Johnson, 587 F.3d at 635. Guzman
explained to the jury the history and structure of MS-13. His testimony was based on his
extensive experience, knowledge, and personal observations, much of which was not
11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 12 of 40
derived from testimonial hearsay. The fact that Guzman’s “expertise was in some shaped
by [his] exposure to testimonial hearsay does not mean that the Confrontation Clause was
violated when [he] presented [his] independent assessment[ ] to the jury.” Id. at 636.
Appellants’ counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine him, and did so. See id.
Accordingly, we conclude that there was no violation of the Confrontation Clause.
2. Historical Racketeering Evidence
Appellants next contend that the district court abused its discretion in admitting
“historical racketeering evidence.” They argue that this evidence misled the jury and
prejudiced Appellants in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. As used in this case,
“historical racketeering evidence” refers to evidence the Government introduced regarding
three other MS-13 murders in which Appellants had no involvement.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits, but does not require, a federal court to
“exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403. Rule 403 generally favors admissibility, and district courts “enjoy wide
discretion to determine what evidence is admissible under the Rule.” Udeozor, 515 F.3d at
265. A district court’s Rule 403 decision to admit evidence will not be overturned except
under the most extraordinary circumstances. Id.
We see no extraordinary circumstances here. The Government’s evidence about the
three other murders had significant probative value particularly to the Government’s case
12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 13 of 40
under VICAR because it was required to show there was a racketeering enterprise. See,
e.g., United States v. Martinez, 92 F.4th 1213, 1242–49 (10th Cir. 2024).
Although the evidence was most certainly prejudicial—it established that
Appellants, as members of MS-13, were members of an enterprise that carried out
murders—it was not unduly so. The danger of unfair prejudice was not substantially
outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Udeozor, 515 F.3d at 264. Any
prejudice was mitigated by defense counsel’s opportunity to cross-examine the relevant
witnesses. Counsel solicited testimony that their clients were not involved in the three other
murders. The district court also instructed the jury that Appellants were “not on trial for
any act or any conduct not specifically charged in the indictments,” 12 J.A. 5357, and we
presume jurors follow the instructions of the district court. United States v. Camara, 908
F.3d 41, 49(4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Olano,507 U.S. 725, 740
(1993)).
We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
Government’s historical racketeering evidence. 8
3. Video and Photo Evidence
Appellants maintain that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted
certain disturbing and graphic videos and photos. Specifically, they challenge three
categories of evidence: two videos of the murders, photos of the excavation of Victim 1
and Victim 2’s graves, and autopsy photos.
8
Because we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
this evidence, we need not decide whether Velasco Barrera preserved his evidentiary
objection or whether a harmless or plain error standard would apply.
13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 14 of 40
“Rule 403 authorizes a trial court to ‘exclude relevant evidence if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by a danger of,’ as relevant here, ‘unfair prejudice.’” United
States v. McCabe, 103 F.4th 259, 277 (4th Cir. 2024) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403). Graphic
evidence is regularly admitted, including photos showing the state of a victim’s corpse
upon discovery. United States v. Simpson, 44 F.4th 1093, 1098 (8th Cir. 2022); United
States v. Perry, 35 F.4th 293, 325 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting photos of corpses with “open wounds, blood and gore”).
“Autopsy photos can have immense probative value, if, for example they confirm the
prosecution’s theory about the manner in which the crime was committed.” United States
v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Certain evidence and testimony presented at trial was undoubtedly gruesome.
Perhaps the most disturbing of all were two videos recorded during Victim 2’s murder. We
agree with the Government, however, that the videos’ probative value outweighed the risk
of unfair prejudice. The videos placed several of the Appellants at the scene of the crime;
corroborated witness testimony; helped establish the victims’ identities; and depicted parts
of the events that were the subject of the charges.
While the Government could have relied on other video and photo evidence to meet
its burden of proof, Rule 403 “does not bar powerful, or even ‘prejudicial’ evidence.”
United States v. Gartmon, 146 F.3d 1015, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also United States v.
Lujan, 603 F.3d 850, 858 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he vicious, brutal nature of a defendant’s
conduct is not itself sufficient to justify a complete exclusion of evidence tending to show
the defendant engaged in those acts.”). The video was not duplicative of other evidence the
14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 15 of 40
Government presented at trial nor did the Government introduce the video evidence solely
for its shock value. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 121–24 (3d Cir. 2016).
Applying a deferential standard of review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting video evidence of the crime.
Appellants point out that following the showing of one of the videos, the jury sent
a note to the district court asking for a warning prior to the showing of graphic videos.
Appellants maintain that this note is evidence of the jury’s extreme emotional reaction to
the videos. While the videos might have been disturbing to the jury, unfair prejudice
requires a showing of “a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be excited to
irrational behavior, and that this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the
offered evidence.” Udeozor, 515 F.3d at 264 (citation omitted). On our review of the
record, we cannot say that the video evidence was so unfairly prejudicial that it risked
causing the jury to act irrationally.
Appellants also object to the admission of 27 photographs of the sites where
Appellants attempted to bury the victims’ remains. Although some jurors may have been
shocked by what they saw, Appellants have failed to establish that any prejudicial effect of
the photos’ admission substantially outweighed their probative value.
15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 16 of 40
Finally, Appellants challenge the admission of certain gruesome autopsy photos
showing the victims’ bodies in varying states of decomposition. 9 These photos had
significant probative value. They corroborated the testimony of the former assistant
medical examiner, the forensic anthropologist, and other witnesses; helped establish intent;
and allowed the jury to see for themselves the abhorrent nature of the crime. While the
photos may have been upsetting for the jury to view, such was the nature of the crime. We
discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in admitting this evidence.
B. Jury Instruction Challenges
1. Duress Instruction
Appellants challenge the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on a duress
defense. The crux of Henry Zelaya, Ramirez Ferrera, and Velasco Barrera’s theory of
defense was that they acted under duress because MS-13 members who fail to cooperate
with gang orders would be punished with physical violence or even death. 10 In support of
this theory, Henry Zelaya and Ramirez Ferrera proposed a jury instruction on a coercion
defense. Velasco Barrera’s counsel referenced a duress instruction during his opening
9
The photos introduced into evidence were a small fraction of the photos available
to the Government in support of its case. The Government introduced sixteen photos of
Victim 1’s remains and two photos of Victim 2’s remains. Of these, only six photos of
Victim 1’s body were shown to the jury, while both photos of Victim 2 were shown. The
Government was in possession of dozens of other autopsy and crime scene photos it could
have moved into evidence.
10
Herrera Contreras and Elmer Zelaya did not propose a duress instruction or
otherwise oppose the Government’s request to preclude such a defense. Their unpreserved
claims that they were entitled to such a defense are reviewed under the plain error standard.
United States v. Jackson, 126 F.4th 827, 861 n.11 (4th Cir. 2025).
16
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 17 of 40
statement. The district court declined to provide a duress instruction as to any defendant
for any of the counts alleged.
This court reviews the district court’s refusal to provide a requested jury instruction
under the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Cannady, 924 F.3d 94, 101 (4th
Cir. 2019). To establish a duress defense, a defendant “must produce evidence which would
allow the factfinder to conclude” that: he “was (1) under unlawful and present threat of
death or serious bodily injury; (2) did not recklessly place himself in a situation where he
would be forced to engage in criminal conduct; (3) had no reasonable legal alternative (to
both the criminal act and the avoidance of the threatened harm);” and that there was “(4) a
direct causal relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened
harm.” United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir. 1989).
Assuming without deciding that such a defense is even available for VICAR murder
or VICAR conspiracy to commit murder, Appellants cannot establish that all four
Crittendon factors are met. Our analysis begins and ends with the first Crittendon factor.
“[G]eneralized fears will not support” the duress defense. Crittendon, 883 F.2d at 330.
Instead, a defendant must show that a “real and specific threat existed at the time” of the
defendant’s illegal conduct. Id. No such evidence is reflected in the record. Consider, for
example, United States v. Mooney, 497 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2007). There, the first Crittendon
factor was satisfied where an individual held a gun to the defendant’s forehead, requiring
the defendant to take a gun from the individual, thereby forcing the defendant to possess a
firearm unlawfully. Mooney, 497 F.3d at 406. Appellants, by contrast, intentionally and
voluntarily went to the park for the sole purpose of participating in the murders. To be sure,
17
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 18 of 40
within the MS-13 hierarchy, obedience is required. Refusing to comply with an MS-13
order would almost certainly bring consequences, potentially fatal ones. One witness, who
was ordered to strike Victim 2 with a weapon, explained that if he declined to obey the
order, it might have been he who was killed. The duress defense is a narrow one, however.
A generalized fear of reprisal, even one that is likely, is no defense to criminal conduct.
See United States v. King, 879 F.2d 137, 139 (4th Cir. 1989).
We need not reach the remaining Crittendon factors. We therefore hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on duress.
2. Jury Instruction on a Lesser Included Offense
Henry Zelaya maintains that the district court abused its discretion when it declined
to instruct the jury on whether aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was a lesser
included offense of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder in aid of racketeering
activity. The district court decided against giving a lesser included offense instruction,
concluding that “the evidence in this case does not support a rational inference that Henry
Zelaya Martinez merely assaulted the victims.” 12 J.A. 5337–38.
We review the denial of a proposed jury instruction under the abuse of discretion
standard. E.g., Cannady, 924 F.3d at 101. Under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 31(c)(1), a jury can return a guilty verdict as to “an offense necessarily included
in the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 31(c)(1) (emphasis added). A defendant is
entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if 1) “the elements of the lesser
offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense,” Schmuck v. United States, 489
U.S. 705, 716–17 (1989), and 2) “the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him
18
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 19 of 40
guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S.
205, 208 (1973).
In this case, the asserted lesser included offense (aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon) is not a subset of the greater offense (conspiracy to commit kidnapping and
murder in aid of racketeering activity). 11 See, e.g., Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 716–17; United
States v. Walker, 75 F.3d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1996). A few examples illustrate why this is
the case. An individual can commit conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping in aid of
racketeering without committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A defendant
could also commit conspiracy to murder or kidnap an individual without using a deadly
weapon. 12 Further, a conspiracy is an agreement, while aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon requires that the crime be completed. The differences between the statutory
elements are sufficient to defeat Henry Zelaya’s challenge. Therefore, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a lesser included offense instruction.
11
According to Henry Zelaya’s proposed instruction, for aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
1) “committed an unlawful assault upon another,” 2) “did so with a dangerous weapon,”
and 3) “did so with intent to do bodily harm.” 12 J.A. 5306. By contrast, for conspiracy to
commit kidnapping and murder in aid of racketeering, the jury was instructed that the
Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) “an enterprise engaged in, or
the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce existed,” 2) “the enterprise
was engaged in racketeering activity,” 3) “the defendant had a position in the enterprise,”
4) “the defendant knowingly and unlawfully conspired with others to kidnap and/or
murder” either victim, and 5) “one of the defendant’s purpose in doing so was to maintain
or increase his position in the enterprise.” 12 J.A. 5375–76.
12
That this conspiracy involved deadly weapons is of no import to our analysis
because our analysis is based on the statutory elements. See Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 716–17.
19
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 20 of 40
C. Individual and Joint Challenges
We turn now to other challenges raised by Appellants individually and jointly.
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Velasco Barrera contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of
Counts 5 and 6: murder of Victim 1 and Victim 2 in aid of racketeering activity. We also
address a similar challenge to Counts 7 and 8: kidnapping Victim 1 and Victim 2 resulting
in their deaths, seemingly joined by all Appellants. After the close of evidence, Velasco
Barrera moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that the Government failed to produce
sufficient evidence and improperly relied on unreliable witnesses. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal. United States
v. Freitekh, 114 F.4th 292, 308 (4th Cir. 2024). “A defendant challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence bears a ‘heavy burden’ to overturn his conviction.” United States v. Hunt,
99 F.4th 161, 184 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Clarke,843 F.3d 288
, 297 (4th
Cir. 2016)). This court must affirm the jury’s verdict if, after drawing all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). We must refrain from making
any credibility determinations. Rather, we “assume that the jury resolved all contradictions
in testimony in favor of the [prosecution].” Freitekh, 114 F.4th at 308 (quoting United
States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 572 (4th Cir. 2011)).
20
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 21 of 40
a. Counts 5 & 6: Murder in Aid of Racketeering Activity
In cases arising under VICAR, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant’s “general purpose” in committing the alleged crime “was to
maintain or increase his position in the enterprise.” United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997, 1003
(4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Conception, 983 F.2d 369, 381 (2d Cir. 1992)).
To establish that a defendant had the “requisite purpose,” the prosecution must present
evidence “from which ‘the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant committed his
violent crime because he knew it was expected of him by reason of membership in the
enterprise or that he committed it in furtherance of that membership.’” United States v.
Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 931(4th Cir. 2018) (Floyd, J., concurring) (quoting Fiel,35 F.3d at 1004
). A defendant may still be convicted under VICAR “even if maintaining or increasing
his position in a racketeering enterprise is not his ‘only or primary concern’ in carrying out
a violent crime.” Id.at 927 (quoting United States v. Tipton,90 F.3d 861, 891
(4th Cir.
1996)).
The Government presented ample evidence at trial showing that one of Velasco
Barrera’s motives in carrying out the murders was to be promoted with in the MS-13
hierarchy. Indeed, he was promoted after each one.
Appellants contend that they had not been promised promotions for participating in
the murders, and question the veracity of certain witnesses’ testimony. Appellants point to
the testimony of one witness who stated that none of the Appellants were promised a
promotion for assaulting or murdering Victim 2. That same witness also testified, however,
that MS-13 members are expected to commit violent acts, including murder, and—
21
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 22 of 40
depending on their rank rank—may even be required to participate in those murders. This
testimony was confirmed by additional witnesses. Further evidence suggested Elmer
Zelaya told certain MS-13 members that anyone who participated in the murders would
receive a promotion. According to one witness, Elmer Zelaya told him “that some other
people were going to be promoted to another rank . . . [b]ecause they had participated in
the murder.” 7 J.A. 2954.
Appellants urge us to reverse their convictions because the Government relied on
the testimony of cooperating witnesses. Appellants maintain that cooperating witnesses are
categorically unreliable because they are willing to say whatever is necessary to further
their own self-interests. Appellants’ argument would require us to evaluate the testimony
of the Government’s cooperating witnesses. Our role is not to assess the credibility of
witnesses; indeed we are precluded from making credibility determinations. That is the
constitutionally-enshrined province of the jury. The jury heard the witnesses’ testimony,
listened to their cross-examinations, and observed their demeanor and body language. As
the district court noted: the jurors are “the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of
each of the witnesses called to testify.” 12 J.A. 5360. We will not usurp their role.
Our standard of review requires us to view all evidence in favor of the Government,
not against it. A rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Velasco
Barrera carried out the murders, at least in part, to increase his position in MS-13.
b. Counts 7 & 8: Kidnapping Resulting in Death
Counts 7 and 8, kidnapping resulting in the death of Victim 1 and Victim 2, required
the Government to prove that Appellants inveigled the victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
22
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 23 of 40
In this context, inveigling means “lur[ing] or entic[ing] through deceit or insincerity.”
United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 375, 378 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Inveigle, Black’s Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). This court has explained that inveigling does not require the
use of force or violence. See id. at 378–80.
A rational juror could find that Appellants inveigled Victim 1 and Victim 2. The
evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a juror to find that gang members lured each
victim to the park under the false pretense that a meeting would take place.
Appellants maintain that neither Victim 1 nor Victim 2 could have been inveigled
because the victims were themselves affiliated, or indeed members, of MS-13. This
assertion is without foundation. The VICAR statute contains no exception for gang
members or affiliates who murder fellow members.
2. Severance of Defendants and Counts
Velasco Barrera also challenges the district court’s refusal to sever the counts and
each defendant’s trial. He contends that the joinder of the counts was inappropriate because
Victim 1 and Victim 2 were murdered on separate occasions. He also contends that joinder
of defendants may have caused the jury to find him guilty by association and to use a
codefendant’s confession against him in contravention of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S.
123 (1968). We affirm the district court’s ruling that the counts and defendants were
properly joined.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8 and 14 guide our analysis. We first review
de novo whether the district court properly joined the offenses and defendants under Rule
8(a) and 8(b). United States v. Young, 989 F.3d 253, 265 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v.
23
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 24 of 40
Mackins, 315 F.3d 399, 412 (4th Cir. 2003). If the initial joinder was proper, we must then
determine whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule 14 of Criminal
Procedure in denying the pre-trial motion to sever. Young, 989 F.3d at 265.
Rule 8(a) outlines the permissibility of joinder of offenses. It provides that an
indictment “may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the
offenses charged—whether felonies or misdemeanors or both—are of the same or similar
character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute
parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). “[V]ery broad joinder” is
permitted because of the increased efficiency in trying a defendant on related counts in one
trial. United States v. Mir, 525 F.3d 351, 356 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385 (4th Cir. 2005)). Joinder is the “rule rather than the
exception.” Id.(quoting United States v. Acker,52 F.3d 509, 514
(4th Cir. 1995)). It avoids
duplicative testimony and additional jury empanelment, promotes economical use of
judicial resources, and minimizes the likelihood and inequity of inconsistent verdicts. See
id.; Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993).
Rule 8(b) governs the joinder of defendants. It establishes that an indictment may
charge multiple defendants “if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or
transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or
offenses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). “There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials
of defendants who are indicted together.” Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 537.
Rule 14 explains when a district court may sever trials. The district court may
separate trials of counts, sever defendants’ trials, or fashion relief that justice requires if
24
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 25 of 40
joinder appears to prejudice the defendants or the prosecution. Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).
“Demonstrating prejudice is a high hurdle,” because prejudice “exists ‘only if there a
serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the
defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.’”
Young, 989 F.3d at 266 (quoting United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 348 (4th Cir. 2010)).
To establish that the district court abused its discretion, a defendant must show that he was
prejudiced by the denial of his motion to server. Lighty, 616 F.3d at 348 (“[A] defendant
must show that he was prejudiced by the denial of a severance motion in order to establish
that the district court abused its broad discretion in that regard.”).
With these principles in mind, we begin by addressing the joinder of the charges.
The joinder of the charges was appropriate. The offenses were committed close in time and
followed the same pattern. See United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir.
2012). Appellants lured a “green lit” victim to a park at night where they attacked and
killed him. 4 J.A. 1343. Appellants committed the charged crimes with the same purpose
of furthering the “mission” of MS-13 and getting promoted in the gang. We therefore
conclude that the initial joinder was proper. See, e.g., United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755,
769 (4th Cir. 2011) (“In determining whether two offenses are connected with or constitute
parts of a common scheme or plan for purposes of Rule 8(a), we have read the rule
‘flexibly’ to require simply a ‘logical relationship’ between offenses charged in the
indictment.”).
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
pre-trial motion to sever the counts. Velasco Barrera failed to show that joinder resulted in
25
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 26 of 40
prejudice. United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1999). His conclusory
assertion that the jury viewed all of the defendants as “associated in fact” cannot suffice to
establish prejudice. The Government presented overwhelming evidence of Velasco
Barrera’s guilt and his role in the murders, and the district court properly instructed the
jury that it must find each defendant guilty independently. We discern no abuse of
discretion in the denial of the motion to sever.
We similarly hold that the district court properly joined the defendants’ trials.
Appellants were all charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder in aid of
racketeering activity. Joinder is “highly favored” in conspiracy cases, and this case is no
exception. See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 368 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted) (“[W]hen an indictment properly has joined two or more defendants under the
provisions of Rule 8(b), severance pursuant to Rule 14 is rarely granted.”).
Velasco Barrera has not established that he was prejudiced by being tried together
with his codefendants. It is the “exceptional case” where severance is granted on the basis
of concerns about a “spillover effect” from one defendant’s case to that of another. United
States v. Oloyede, 933 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir. 2019). A defendant is not entitled to
severance “because the evidence against one defendant is not as strong as that against the
other,” or “because separate trials would more likely result in acquittal.” Akinkoye, 185
F.3d at 197. “Rules 8(b) and 14 are designed ‘to promote economy and efficiency and to
avoid a multiplicity of trials,’” without violating the defendants’ right to a fair trial. Zafiro,
506 U.S. at 540(quoting Bruton,391 U.S. at 131
n.6). Velasco Barrera’s speculative and
26
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 27 of 40
conclusory allegations regarding possible prejudice do not satisfy his burden. United States
v. Najjar, 300 F.3d 466, 473 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539–40.
Velasco Barrera also failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the admission of
certain statements by his codefendants such that the jury would be prevented from making
a reliable judgment about his guilt or innocence. In Bruton v. United States, the Supreme
Court held that a defendant’s right to cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause is
violated when a facially incriminating extrajudicial statement by one codefendant is
introduced against another codefendant. 391 U.S. at 126, 129–31.This is true even if the
court instructs the jury to consider the confession only against a particular codefendant.
See id. at 132–36. Bruton is a narrow rule: “If the statement of a non-testifying codefendant
incriminates another only by virtue of linkage to other evidence at trial—that is, if it
incriminates ‘inferential[ly]’ rather than ‘facially’”—then Bruton is not implicated. United
States v. Benson, 957 F.3d 218, 228 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208–09 (1987)). Yet Velasco Barrera concedes that
the Government did not introduce any statements by a codefendant that facially implicated
him. The district court also properly instructed the jury that it may only consider statements
made by a defendant to law enforcement agents in deciding the charge against that specific
defendant, and that it must decide each defendant’s case according to his own acts,
statements, conduct, and relevant evidence. See Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539–41. The district
court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasco Barrera’s pre-trial motion
to sever.
27
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 28 of 40
3. Admission of Witness’s Handwritten Note
Velasco Barrera 13 contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting
a handwritten note from a cooperating witness under the “Present Sense Impression”
exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(1). The present sense impression exception
provides that “a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or
immediately after the declarant perceived it” is not excluded by the prohibition against
hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 803(1). Past recollections recorded are also excepted from the rule
against hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 803(5). Under this exception, a “record that: (A) is on a
matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and
accurately; (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the
witness’s memory; and (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge,” may be read into
evidence, although it may be admitted as an exhibit if it is offered by an adverse party.
Fed. R. Evid. 803(5).
The district court admitted as an exhibit a note written by a witness who had been
incarcerated with Velasco Barrera and Ramirez Ferrera and spoke with them both. The
witness memorialized his conversations with Velasco Barrera and Ramirez Ferrera in
various handwritten notes. The witness wrote that Velasco Barrera told him that a weapon
13
In their opening brief, the remaining Appellants also contend that they were
prejudiced by the admission of the note due to a “spillover effect.” The only individual
directly incriminated by the witness’s note was Velasco Barrera, and he filed a written
opposition to its admission. Elmer Zelaya and Ramirez Ferrera challenged the admission
of the note on other grounds that Appellants failed to raise in their opening brief.
Accordingly, those claims were forfeited. See, e.g., United States v. Suncar, 142 F.4th 259,
261 n.2 (4th Cir. 2025) (explaining that claims not raised in the opening brief are forfeited).
28
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 29 of 40
used during one of the murders had been buried and later thrown into the Potomac River
to prevent it from being found.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the note about the disposal
of the weapon under the present sense impression hearsay exception. The witness 1) was
personally present for the conversation with Velasco Barrera; 2) provided a factual
description of the conversation; and 3) memorized the conversation as quickly as he could
after he returned to his cell. These circumstances satisfy the requirements of the present
sense impression hearsay exception. Fed. R. Evid. 803(1); see United States v. Portsmouth
Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 323 (4th Cir. 1982). Velasco Barrera contends that the district
court should have considered the admissibility of the note instead under the past
recollection recorded hearsay exception. Even if the note could be properly admitted under
that exception, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it under the present
sense impression exception.
4. Imposition of Life Sentences
We turn next to Velasco Barrera’s challenge to the district court’s imposition of four
mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole as statutorily required for Counts
5 through 8: murder in aid of racketeering activity and kidnapping resulting in death.
Velasco Barrera contends that, because he had only recently turned eighteen at the time of
the offenses, the imposition of multiple life sentences violates the Eighth Amendment’s
29
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 30 of 40
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. We review this constitutional question de
novo. See United States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 575 (4th Cir. 2014).
Our governing precedents draw a bright line at the age of eighteen in the imposition
of these serious penalties. 14 In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court held that the
imposition of the death penalty on minors violates the Eighth Amendment. 543 U.S. 551,
568 (2005). The Court thereafter expanded protections for children under eighteen. E.g.,
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 70 (2010). In Miller v. Alabama, the Court held only that
mandatory life without parole for those under age eighteen violates the Eighth Amendment,
567 U.S. 460, 489 (2012), though it said nothing about barring mandatory life without
parole sentences for crimes committed by those who are legally adults. E.g., United States
v. Chavez, 894 F.3d 593, 609 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the district court did not err in
imposing mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole on Velasco Barrera
who had reached the legal age of majority.
14
As an eighteen-year-old, Velasco Barrera was an “emerging adult.” Emerging
adulthood “refers to the transitional period” from approximately ages eighteen to
twenty-five. Clare Ryan, The Law of Emerging Adults, 97 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1131, 1134
(2020). Neuroscience indicates that the brain continues to develop past age eighteen and
into the twenties, affecting the ability of an individual to make decisions, assess risks, and
regulate emotions. See id. at 1140. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the
“qualities that distinguish [children] from adults do not disappear when an individual turns
[eighteen].” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 574 (2005).
30
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 31 of 40
5. Suppression of Evidence
Henry Zelaya appeals the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress certain
evidence at trial. We affirm the district court’s ruling.
We review legal determinations de novo and underlying factual findings under the
clear error standard. United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 2018). Because the
district court denied Henry Zelaya’s motions to suppress, we review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Hilton, 701 F.3d 959, 964 (4th
Cir. 2012). 15
a. Suppression of Evidence from the Arrest
We begin with Henry Zelaya’s contention that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress all evidence following his arrest.
At the core of the Fourth Amendment is the right of an individual to “retreat” into
his home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Collins v.
Virginia, 584 U.S. 586, 592 (2018) (quoting Florida v. Jardines,569 U.S. 1, 6
(2013)).
The curtilage, or the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” is
considered part of the home for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. Id. (quoting
15
Our inquiry as to the challenged search and seizure concerns whether Henry
Zelaya’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. See United States v. Castellanos, 716
F.3d 828, 833 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013). This inquiry “requires a determination of whether the
disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth
Amendment was designed to protect.” Id. The Government assumed that Henry Zelaya had
a legitimate expectation of privacy at his mother’s home because there was testimony at
the hearing indicating that he had stayed at his mother’s home the day before he was
arrested. See United States v. Green, 106 F.4th 368, 376 (4th Cir. 2024); Minnesota v.
Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 (1990).
31
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 32 of 40
Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6). A warrantless search of an individual’s home or curtilage is
considered presumptively unreasonable. See United States v. Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 494
(4th Cir. 2001).
The so-called “knock-and-talk” is an exception to the warrant requirement. Covey
v. Assessor of Ohio Cnty., 777 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2015). Under the knock-and-talk
exception, “a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock,
precisely because that is ‘no more than any private citizen might do.’” Id. (quoting
Jardines, 569 U.S. at 8). This permits an officer “to approach the home by the front path,
knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer)
leave.” Id.at 192–93 (quoting Jardines,569 U.S. at 8
). An officer may also “bypass the
front door (or any other entry point usually used by visitors) when circumstances
reasonably indicate that the officer might find the homeowner elsewhere on the property.”
Id. at 193.
Voluntary consent is another exception to the warrant requirement. Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 222 (1973). “The voluntariness of consent to search is a
factual question, and as a reviewing court, we must affirm the determination of the district
court unless its finding is clearly erroneous.” United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650
(4th Cir. 1996). We examine the totality of the circumstances, including the characteristics
of the individual who supposedly consented—her age, maturity, intelligence, experience—
and the conditions under which she gave consent—including the officer’s conduct, the
number of officers present, as well as the duration, timing, and location of the search. Id.
Whether an individual knows of her right to refuse consent is a relevant factor, although
32
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 33 of 40
the prosecution need not “demonstrate that the [individual] knew of [her] right to refuse
consent to prove that the consent was voluntary.” Id.
When the district court bases a finding of voluntariness “on the oral testimony at a
suppression hearing, the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong since the [district
court] had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v.
Wilson, 895 F.2d 168, 172 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). We may not reverse the
district court’s determination that consent was voluntarily given “unless it can be said that
the view of the evidence taken by the district court is implausible in light of the entire
record.” Lattimore, 87 F.3d at 651.
With this background in mind, we turn to the facts relevant to this challenge. A
Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) conducted an “arrest operation” at a home in Woodbridge, Virginia, to apprehend
Henry Zelaya pursuant to a federal arrest warrant. Henry Zelaya was not there, however.
Law enforcement agents then proceeded to Alexandria, Virginia, to conduct a
knock-and-talk at the home of Henry Zelaya’s mother. She lived in an apartment on the
ground floor of a garden-style complex. Her apartment had front and back entrances. The
back entrance opened to a small concrete patio and yard, with access to the complex’s
parking lot. Law enforcement observed people entering and exiting the unit through the
back entrance.
FBI Special Agent Carlos Fontanez knocked on the window in the back of the home.
He was accompanied by several officers. Agent Fontanez introduced himself, and Henry
Zelaya’s mother permitted him and the other officers to enter her home. Once inside, Agent
33
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 34 of 40
Fontanez explained that the FBI had an arrest warrant for Henry Zelaya and that it would
be ideal for him to surrender. Henry Zelaya’s mother disclosed to Agent Fontanez that her
son was in the back of the apartment. The agents subsequently arrested Henry Zelaya, who
had his cellphone on his person. The FBI later obtained a search warrant and extracted data
from the phone.
i. Knock-and-Talk Exception
The district court did not clearly err in finding that the officers reasonably knocked
on the back entrance to conduct the knock-and-talk, instead of the front door. See, e.g.,
Covey, 777 F.3d at 193. Agent Fontanez observed people enter and leave Henry Zelaya’s
mother’s home through the back entrance. Testimony from the evidentiary hearing
indicated that the back entrance was “[v]ery accessible” from the sidewalk and parking lot.
2 J.A. 583. Another witness testified that there were no signs, fencing, walls, or other
indicators that the back entrance was not to be used. We discern no clear error with the
district court’s findings that the officers reasonably approached Henry Zelaya’s mother’s
back entrance and that no trespass occurred.
ii. Voluntary Consent to the Search
Henry Zelaya also argues that any evidence from his arrest should have been
suppressed because law enforcement agents coerced his mother into consenting to a search
of her home. Upon review of the totality of the circumstances, the district court’s
conclusion that Henry Zelaya’s mother voluntarily consented was not clearly erroneous.
Ample evidence in the record supports the finding that Henry Zelaya’s mother
consented to the search. Agent Fontanez testified that he introduced himself, showed his
34
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 35 of 40
credentials, and speaking in Spanish—Henry Zelaya’s mother’s native language—he
explained that the FBI was looking for her son, and asked if the agents could come inside
and speak to her. Although Henry Zelaya contends that the agents exceeded the scope of
his mother’s consent because only Agent Fontanez had been allowed to come inside, Agent
Fontanez’s testimony indicates otherwise. He testified that he asked Henry Zelaya’s mother
if they “could come inside and talk to her,” and she “invited [them] inside,” which supports
a finding that she granted consent to the officers to enter. 2 J.A. 611. Once inside her home,
Agent Fontanez spoke to her for several minutes before she divulged that Henry Zelaya
was in the home.
Henry Zelaya’s mother testified that she felt threatened by the presence of several
agents surrounding her apartment and was pressured into giving up her son to protect her
family. The district court concluded that Henry Zelaya’s mother’s testimony was not
credible, however, finding her statements contradictory and inconsistent. Guided by our
deferential standard of review and the district court’s credibility determinations, we find
no clear error.
b. Suppression of Post-Arrest Statements
We turn next to Henry Zelaya’s contention that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress incriminating statements he made following his arrest because his
waiver of rights, as announced in Miranda v. Arizona, was not made voluntarily,
knowingly, or intelligently. 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).
The analysis of whether an individual waived his Miranda rights has two
components. United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134, 139 (4th Cir. 2002). “First, the
35
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 36 of 40
relinquishment of the right[s] ‘must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product
of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.’” Id. (quoting
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)). “Second, ‘the waiver must have been made
with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences
of the decision to abandon it.’” Id.at 140 (quoting Burbine,475 U.S. at 421
). The court
examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including “the
characteristics of the defendant, the setting of the interview, and the details of the
interrogation” to determine the validity of a Miranda waiver. Id. Although we “must make
an independent determination on the issue of voluntariness, the district court’s findings of
fact on the circumstances surrounding the confession are to be accepted unless clearly
erroneous.” Id.
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Henry Zelaya’s waiver was
knowing and intelligent. After reviewing the recording of the interrogation, the district
court found that Agent Fontanez read through each Miranda right slowly in Henry Zelaya’s
native language, Spanish, as Henry Zelaya listened closely. Agent Fontanez repeatedly
asked Henry Zelaya if he had questions about his rights and gave Henry Zelaya an
opportunity to ask questions. Agent Fontanez provided ample time for Henry Zelaya to
review and consider his waiver of Miranda rights.
We also conclude that Henry Zelaya’s waiver was voluntary. Nothing in the record
indicates that Henry Zelaya was intimidated, coerced, or deceived. To the contrary, the
district court found that Agent Fontanez explained what was occurring using everyday
language, asked Henry Zelaya to confirm his understanding of his rights, and waited for
36
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 37 of 40
his affirmative nod of comprehension. The district court’s factual findings as to the
circumstances of Henry Zelaya’s interrogation were not clearly erroneous.
Henry Zelaya argues that Agent Fontanez’s “rapport-building” before apprising him
of his Miranda rights prevented him from making a free and deliberate choice to waive his
rights by leading him to answer questions that exposed him to potential criminal liability.
Prior to reading Henry Zelaya’s Miranda rights, Agent Fontanez asked Henry Zelaya
questions about his background, including where he was born and when and how he entered
the United States. In response to these questions, Henry Zelaya shared information to Agent
Fontanez about how he entered the United States without an immigration inspection, which
is a federal offense.
This court has recognized an exception to Miranda for “routine booking questions
securing ‘biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services,’ although
this exception does not apply to questions, even during booking, that are designed to elicit
incriminatory admissions.” United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 608 (4th Cir. 1994)
(internal citations omitted) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990)
(plurality opinion)). At least one other circuit has “held that, in certain circumstances,
questioning regarding identity, address, or other routine background matters” may “provide
incriminating evidence,” and such questioning does not fall under the booking exception.
Id.at 609 (citing United States v. Henley,984 F.2d 1040, 1042
(9th Cir. 1993); United
States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 894 F.2d 1043, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v.
Disla, 805 F.2d 1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 1986)). Although this court has yet to adopt this
37
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 38 of 40
limitation to the booking exception, Henry Zelaya’s responses could have been
incriminating. Id.
We need not decide whether Agent Fontanez erred in asking about Henry Zelaya’s
immigration status, or the reach of the booking exception, because we find any error
harmless. Elsheikh, 103 F.4th at 1014. The district court did not permit the Government to
introduce any of Henry Zelaya’s statements relating to immigration. Moreover, Henry
Zelaya did not challenge any trial testimony that was admitted as part of the pre-Miranda
questioning and his immigration status had no bearing on the charges against him. See id.
6. Rogers Errors
Finally, Henry Zelaya and the Government agree that the district court made errors
in imposing Henry Zelaya’s sentence. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir.
2020). In Rogers, this court recognized “that a material discrepancy between written and
orally articulated discretionary conditions of supervision violates a criminal defendant’s
right to be present for sentencing.” United States v. Bullis, 122 F.4th 107, 117 (4th Cir.
2024) (citing Rogers, 961 F.3d at 296).
It is undisputed that the district court’s oral pronouncements and written judgment
are inconsistent, with material differences. Unlike its oral pronouncement, the district
court’s written conditions required that Henry Zelaya partially pay the costs of a drug
treatment program and prohibited him from using marijuana or cannabis. The district court
also erred in referencing local rules promulgated by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia that did not exist at the time of sentencing. See United States
38
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 39 of 40
v. Smith, 117 F.4th 584, 605–07 (4th Cir. 2024). We therefore vacate Henry Zelaya’s
sentence and order resentencing.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the convictions and sentences of Ronald
Herrera Contreras, Pablo Miguel Velasco Barrera, Duglas Ramirez Ferrera, and Elmer
Zelaya Martinez. As for Henry Zelaya Martinez, we affirm his conviction but vacate his
sentence and remand for resentencing.
No. 22-4745 (Ronald Herrera Contreras) – AFFIRMED
No. 22-4746 (Pablo Velasco Barrera) – AFFIRMED
No. 23-4005 (Henry Zelaya Martinez) – AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
No. 23-4006 (Duglas Ramirez Ferrera) – AFFIRMED
No. 23-4020 (Elmer Zelaya Martinez) – AFFIRMED
39
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4745 Doc: 146 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 40 of 40
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I join the majority opinion in full and write separately with respect to our decision
to vacate and remand Henry Zelaya’s sentence. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th
Cir. 2020), United States v. Bullis, 122 F.4th 107, 117 (4th Cir. 2024) and a number of
other cases require this result. Even so, I write to reiterate my concerns about our circuit’s
jurisprudence in this area. See United States v. Kemp, 88 F. 4th 539, 547–53 (4th Cir. 2023)
(Quattlebaum, J., concurring). Despite my concerns, however, I agree that the majority
opinion properly applies our circuit’s precedent.
40
Reference
- Status
- Published