United States v. Garcia

── United States v. Garcia ── Case No.: 24-1673 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 25, 2026 Category: General 24-1673 United States v. Garcia UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 24-1673 ISRAEL GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant, JEVAUN CHARLES, ALYSHA BELTRE, DEURI CARAMBOT, SHAKUR CULBERT, ALVIN FERNANDEZ, JASON GONZALEZ, MALCOLM RIVERA, MIKE SILVA, DANIEL SILVA, MAXWELL SMITH, MARLON WATSON, KEWAANNEE WILLIAMS, Defendants. ____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: CARLA SANDERSON (Megan Wall-Wolff, Wall-Wolff LLC, New York, NY, on the brief), Carla Sanderson Law, New York, NY. For Appellee: MAGGIE LYNAUGH (Jonathan L. Bodansky, Jacob H. Gutwillig, James Lightenberg, on the brief), for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the June 7, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Israel Garcia appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of (1) murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; (2) participation in a narcotics trafficking conspiracy, 2 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) and (C); (3) murder while engaged in a narcotics trafficking conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; (4) use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime that results in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) and 2; (5) using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2; and (6) attempted witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) and 2. Garcia is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Garcia argues that (1) the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for murder in aid of racketeering; (3) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by not permitting him to present surrebuttal evidence. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, an