## Facts

- Gabriel and Alberto carjacked Héctor Pérez-Torres in Puerto Rico and kept him handcuffed in his own vehicle for hours.
- Several hours after the initial taking, they arrived at the home of Neliza’s parents with Pérez still restrained in the car; Gabriel lived there with Neliza.
- Neliza called her brother José to come outside to speak with Gabriel; Gabriel paid José to guard Pérez while Gabriel and Alberto left to withdraw money using Pérez’s ATM card.
- While José guarded Pérez, he called Gabriel nervously; Neliza answered and assured José they were nearby.
- Pérez attempted to escape; after a struggle, Gabriel, Alberto, and Neliza arrived and subdued Pérez, restoring control over him and the car.
- Neighbors approached during the commotion; Neliza told them not to get involved and helped close a gate to keep them away.
- Later, Gabriel and Alberto killed Pérez; Neliza was not charged as a direct participant in the killing, but evidence showed she and Gabriel later instructed José to threaten neighbors to keep them silent.
- Although a co-defendant carried a firearm during the episode, there was no evidence Neliza knew about the gun or acted to facilitate its carriage or use.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Neliza’s conviction for aiding and abetting a carjacking resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 2119(3), where she allegedly became involved after the initial seizure of the vehicle.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported her conviction for conspiracy to commit the carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 371, given her later entry into the scheme.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported her conviction for aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
4. Whether asserted trial and procedural errors required a new trial.

## Decision

- Affirmed the convictions for aiding and abetting a carjacking resulting in death (§ 2119(3)) and conspiracy (§ 371).
- Reversed the § 924(c) conviction for aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm due to insufficient evidence.
- Rejected requests for a new trial based on alleged procedural errors because any errors were not prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- A federal carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 may be treated as a continuing offense while offenders maintain control over the victim and vehicle; liability may extend to participants who join after the initial taking if the offense is ongoing.
- Aiding and abetting requires more than presence: the defendant must associate with the criminal venture and act to make it succeed; acts that help maintain control, prevent interference, or otherwise advance the offense can satisfy this standard.
- A defendant may join a conspiracy after it begins; if the unlawful objective is still being pursued, later knowing and voluntary participation can support conspiracy liability.
- For aiding and abetting liability under § 924(c), the government must prove the defendant’s knowledge of the firearm and some facilitative conduct tied to its use or carriage; association with armed confederates, without proof of knowledge or facilitation, is insufficient.
- Trial errors warrant reversal only if they prejudicially affect the verdict under harmless-error principles.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the carjacking continued while the victim remained under control in the stolen vehicle, making Neliza’s later assistance sufficient for aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy convictions, but it reversed her § 924(c) conviction because the record lacked proof she knew of or facilitated any firearm use or carriage.


United States v. Figueroa-Cartagena, 612 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010)