## Facts

- Federal agents conducted an undercover operation aimed at maritime marijuana smuggling from Colombia to the United States.
- Levino Michelena-Orovio served as captain of a small shrimping vessel involved in the smuggling venture.
- After negotiations involving undercover agents and conspirators, the vessel sailed from Colombia carrying approximately 12 tons of marijuana.
- The Coast Guard intercepted the vessel at sea after being alerted and found the marijuana in the hold.
- The vessel had no fishing equipment and no other cargo besides marijuana.
- The hatch to the hold was not locked or secured, making the contraband’s presence apparent to those aboard.
- The load’s estimated street value was approximately $4–6 million.
- Michelena-Orovio did not dispute that the shipment’s ultimate destination was the United States.
- A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the conviction for conspiracy to import but declined to affirm the conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute; the court granted rehearing en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s knowing participation in importing and transporting an extremely large quantity of marijuana destined for the United States permits an inference that he also agreed to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in the United States.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed Michelena-Orovio’s convictions for both conspiracy to import marijuana and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to infer his knowledge of, and agreement to, the distribution objective from his role as captain in importing a massive load bound for the United States.
- The court rejected the claim that lack of direct proof of onshore sales activity barred a distribution-conspiracy conviction in a large-scale chain operation.
- The court rejected the contention that Michelena-Orovio could escape liability by claiming ignorance of United States narcotics laws.

## Legal Principles

- Large narcotics enterprises may constitute “chain” conspiracies in which a participant in one segment may be convicted of participating in the overall conspiracy when the segments are interdependent and directed to a common unlawful end.
- In a chain conspiracy, agreement to a distribution objective may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the size, value, and obvious character of the contraband and the defendant’s role in a necessary link of the operation (e.g., maritime importation to the United States).
- Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute does not require proof the defendant planned distribution to the ultimate consumer; participation consistent with wholesale movement for later distribution can suffice when the broader objective is reasonably foreseeable and shared.
- A jury may infer awareness that large-scale narcotics distribution in the United States is illegal from the circumstances of the smuggling venture.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fifth Circuit upheld both conspiracy convictions, ruling that in a large chain smuggling operation a captain’s knowing importation of an enormous marijuana load headed to the United States supports a jury inference that he agreed to the downstream conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, even without direct evidence of his involvement in onshore sales.


United States v. Michelena-Orovio, 719 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc)