United States v. Rosario-Orangel

── United States v. Rosario-Orangel ── Case No.: 20-1275 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: March 20, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, 20-1283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. EDUARDO ROSARIO-ORANGEL, a/k/a Barba, a/k/a Cholon; AVELINO MILLÁN-MACHUCA, a/k/a Papito Machuca, a/k/a El Fuerte, a/k/a Viejo, a/k/a Gordo; LUIS H. QUIÑONES-SANTIAGO, a/k/a Hiram, Defendants, Appellants. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Thompson, Circuit Judge, Burroughs, District Judge.* Kendys Pimentel-Soto, with whom Kendys Pimentel-Soto Law Office LLC was on brief, for appellant Eduardo Rosario-Orangel. Alejandra Bird López, with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Rachel Brill, Federal Public Defender, and Franco L. Pérez-Redondo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, were on brief, for appellant Avelino Millán-Machuca. Javier A. Morales-Ramos, for appellant Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago. * Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.  Alexander L. Alum, Assistant United States Attorney, with W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Francisco A. Besosa-Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, Juan Carlos Reyes-Ramos, Assistant United States Attorney, and Ricardo A. Imbert-Fernández, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee. March 20, 2026 - 2 -  BARRON, Chief Judge. We once again address challenges that Luis H. Quiñones-Santiago, Eduardo Rosario-Orangel, and Avelino Millán-Machuca1 bring to their federal convictions based on statements that they contend were wrongly admitted into evidence at their joint trial in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The convictions are, with respect to each of these defendants, for conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 846. In an earlier opinion in these consolidated appeals, we rejected these three defendants' other challenges to their convictions. We explained at that time, however, that we could not resolve their challenges based on alleged hearsay statements because the District Court had not made key findings about their admissibility. For the same reason, we also explained that we could not resolve Millán's challenge based on cumulative error, because we concluded that the findings, once made, might bear on it. We therefore remanded for the District Court to make the Consistent with the appellants' opening briefs and our 1 practice regarding "Spanish naming customs," we refer to the appellants as "Quiñones," "Rosario," and "Millán," respectively. United States v. Rosa-Borges, 101 F.4th 66, 68 n.1 (1st Cir. 2024); see Caz v. Garland, 84 F.4th 22, 25 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023). - 3 - appropriate findings, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeals brought by Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán. The District Court has now made the relevant findings and concluded, based on them, that the statements at issue were properly admitted into evidence. The parties have provided supplemental briefing addressing those findings, and we have carefully reviewed the parties' filings and th