Full Opinion

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. October 23, 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 the record. Our review leads us to reject the challenges Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán bring to their convictions based on the statements that each contends were improperly admitted into evidence. That review also leads us to reject Millán's challenge to his convictions based on cumulative error. We therefore affirm these three defendants' convictions. I. The convictions stem from a federal criminal investigation into the activities of La Asociación Ñeta ("La Ñeta"), an organization originally founded by prisoners to advocate for their rights throughout Puerto Rico's prisons. Based on that investigation, the U.S. government brought criminal charges against fifty defendants in the District of Puerto Rico. Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán were among them, and each of these defendants was charged with two criminal counts. The first count was for RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) for conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which - 4 - makes it "unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity." "[R]acketeering activity" includes, as relevant here, "dealing in a controlled substance," id. § 1961(1), and a "pattern of racketeering activity" is defined as "at least two acts of racketeering," id. § 1961(5), that are "related, occur within ten years of one another, and pose a threat of continued criminal activity," United States v. Millán-Machuca, 991 F.3d 7, 18 (1st Cir. 2021). The indictment alleged that the RICO enterprise was La Ñeta. It alleged that entity had "evolved . . . [into] a criminal organization" "whose members and associates engaged in drug distribution and acts of violence, including murder." It further alleged that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán conspired to participate directly or indirectly to facilitate La Ñeta's pattern of racketeering activity involving drug trafficking in cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. The other count was for conspiracy to violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which makes it "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally" "to manufacture, distribute, or dispense . . . a controlled substance." Id.; see id. § 846 (criminalizing conspiracy to violate § 841). The indictment alleged that - 5 - Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán each had conspired to "knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute" more than one "kilogram of a mixture or substance" containing heroin, more than five "kilograms of a mixture or substance containing" cocaine, and more than one hundred "kilograms of a mixture or substance containing" marijuana. After being jointly tried before a jury, Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán were each convicted on both counts. They then appealed, and we consolidated their appeals with the appeals that three of their codefendants -- Luis Daniel Ramos-Baez, Juan J. Claudio-Morales, and José Rafael Sanchez-Laureano -- had brought to their convictions for the same two offenses. See United States v. Ramos-Baez, 86 F.4th 28, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2023). In our earlier opinion addressing these consolidated appeals, we rejected the challenges brought by Ramos, Claudio, and Sanchez to their convictions. We concluded, however, that we could not resolve the challenges that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán brought based on certain statements that the government contended were admissible at their trial pursuant to United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1977), but for which key findings had not been made. That case holds that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), a statement that would otherwise be inadmissible as hearsay is admissible if the district court finds - 6 - that the party seeking its admission has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a coconspirator made the statement "during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." Petrozziello, 548 F.2d at 22 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). Proof of the declarant's membership in the conspiracy must be corroborated by "extrinsic evidence beyond the statement itself." Ramos-Baez, 86 F.4th at 72. "The rationale" underlying this exception is that, because "conspirators are partners in crime," they are "deem[ed] . . . agents of one another." Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 218 n.6 (1974). "And just as the declarations of an agent bind the principal only when the agent acts within the scope of his authority, so the declaration of a conspirator must be made in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in order to be admissible against his partner." Id. We explained that the District Court had not made findings as to whether the alleged hearsay statements were in fact made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. We further concluded that we could not deem that failure harmless because it was "not apparent" on the record before us "whether the preponderance standard ha[d] been met" as to the statements that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán challenged under Petrozziello. (Quoting United States v. Machor, 879 F.2d 945, 951 (1st Cir. 1989).) - 7 - Accordingly, we remanded the three defendants' cases for the District Court to make Petrozziello findings, while retaining jurisdiction over their consolidated appeals. We also dismissed without prejudice Millán's appeal insofar as it challenged his convictions on the ground that the aggregate effect of errors at his trial required vacating his conviction.2 We did so because we concluded that a finding of Petrozziello error might support Millán's cumulative error claim. On remand, the District Court ordered Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán to identify the statements for which Petrozziello findings needed to be made. They collectively identified dozens of such statements. The government, due to what it described as "a calendar oversight," did not file a response. The District Court then held a hearing and "f[ound] by a preponderance of the evidence that with respect to the three defendants, the declarants and the three defendants were members of the same conspiracy at the time the statements were made," "the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy," and "there was ample extrinsic evidence beyond the statement[s themselves] of the defendants' involvement in the conspiracy." 2 Quiñones also brought a cumulative error challenge, which we rejected on the ground that "no error" had been found in the "various [other] rulings" Quiñones challenged, leaving us with "no cumulative effect to consider." (Quoting United States v. Pérez-Montañez, 202 F.3d 434, 440-41 (1st Cir. 2000).) - 8 - After the District Court's ruling on remand, we sought supplemental briefing from the parties. The bulk of the statements that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán identify in their supplemental briefing as having been admitted into evidence in violation of Petrozziello were recounted in testimony at their trial by three La Ñeta members, each of whom had pleaded guilty to the charged RICO conspiracy. Those individuals are José González-Gerena, Alex Miguel Cruz-Santos, and Orlando Ruiz-Acevedo. Some of the other challenged statements were recounted in the testimony that another La Ñeta member, Miguel Álvarez-Medina, gave. He was not charged, however, in the conspiracy, and he denied having ever participated in La Ñeta's illicit activities, such as drug trafficking. The remaining statements that we must address were entered into evidence through transcripts and recordings of intercepted phone calls. II. The government contends that, in our prior opinion, we "circumscribed" our review under Petrozziello to encompass only those statements to which Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán contemporaneously objected on Petrozziello grounds at their trial. The government therefore argues that we must reject the vast majority of the challenges under Petrozziello that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán advance in their supplemental briefing on the - 9 - ground that none of these three defendants lodged any such objection to the statements that underlie those challenges. The government also argues that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán have waived their challenges to their convictions that rest on any statements that were not specifically advanced in their opening briefs in these appeals. So, the government contends, for that reason, too, we must reject many of the challenges that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán now advance in their supplemental briefs because, in their opening briefs to us, these three defendants did not identify many of the statements that they now contend were wrongly admitted under Petrozziello. We need not address these threshold grounds for rejecting the Petrozziello challenges before us, however, if those challenges otherwise have no merit. Thus, we bypass the parties' dispute about those threshold grounds because, for the reasons we will explain, we conclude that their challenges to their convictions under Petrozziello are unavailing once we account for the deference that we owe the District Court's Petrozziello findings and the substantial amount of unchallenged inculpatory evidence that the record contains. See United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2012) (noting that clear error review applies to preserved Petrozziello challenges). We emphasize upfront that the District Court did not offer a statement-by-statement assessment under Petrozziello in - 10 - rejecting the challenges that Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán bring to their convictions under that precedent. Instead, the District Court made a determination -- quoted above -- that none of the challenges under Petrozziello had merit, given what the record showed about the statements in question. Quiñones, Rosario, and Millán make no argument to us that the District Court, in so concluding, failed to make Petrozziello findings as to any statements that they identified on remand as being in need of such findings. They thus treat the District Court as having made findings as to each of those statements and simply challenge those findings on the ground that the record does not suffice to support them. And, in pressing their contentions that those findings do not hold up on this record, they proceed by advancing statement-specific arguments in their supplemental briefs. In the analysis that follows, we directly address each of those statement-specific challenges. In doing so, we do not understand Quiñones, Rosario, or Millán to dispute that, if a review of the record provides support for the District Court's finding that each statement was made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, then the District Court did not err in admitting that statement under Petrozziello. Moreover, we note that we may affirm the district court on any ground manifest in the record. Segrain v. Duffy, 118 F.4th - 11 - 45, 58 (1st Cir. 2024). Thus, to the extent the record makes clear that any error under Petrozziello with respect to a specific challenged statement would be harmless, we may reject the Petrozziello-based challenge to that statement on that ground alone. See United States v. Piper, 298 F.3d 47, 56-58 (1st Cir. 2002). And further, whenever there is some other basis manifest in the record for rejecting a challenge to a statement that is independent of the District Court's ground for doing so, we may reject the challenge to that statement on that independent ground as well. See, e.g., United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284, 1296 (1st Cir. 1997) ("[W]e may affirm the district court's evidentiary rulings on any ground apparent from the record on appeal."). III. We begin with Quiñones's Petrozziello challenges. They concern statements that three distinct declarants made and that were recounted in testimony that Ruiz and Cruz gave. A. Quiñones first takes aim at statements Ruiz recounted that had been made by a La Ñeta member known as "Jowy" about "differences and problems" between Jowy and Quiñones due to the latter's failure to pass along certain drug "incentives" to La Ñeta. The "incentives" were payments owed to La Ñeta in exchange for that organization giving individual La Ñeta members permission to sell drugs on their own behalf. - 12 - Quiñones contends that these statements are not admissible under Petrozziello because they merely described drug dealing that advanced Quiñones's personal interests. As a result, he contends they were not statements that a coconspirator made in furtherance of a conspiracy involving him and Jowy.3 The record supportably shows, however, that González (one of the cooperating witnesses for the government who pleaded guilty to the charged conspiracy) separately testified that he had personally "work[ed] . . . drugs with Jowy" on behalf of La Ñeta. And the challenged statement by Jowy, on its face, conveyed information regarding "differences and problems" between him and Quiñones due to Quiñones's supposed failure to comply with La Ñeta's requirements for paying drug "incentives" to that organization. Thus, the District Court did not clearly err in admitting this statement into evidence as a statement that a coconspirator made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy to facilitate La Ñeta's racketeering activities. See United States v. Pérez-Vásquez, 6 F.4th 180, 195 (1st Cir. 2021) (concluding statements were in furtherance of the conspiracy when made by one conspirator to keep another "abreast of current developments and 3 Quiñones does not challenge the timing of the statements by arguing that they were not made "during" the charged conspiracy. In any event, the record shows that the statements were made within the timeframe charged in the indictment. - 13 - problems facing the group" (quoting United States v. Flemmi, 402 F.3d 79, 95 (1st Cir. 2005))). B. Quiñones also challenges statements, recounted in Cruz's testimony, that older La Ñeta members made to new inmates to teach them about the structure and history of the organization. Quiñones refers to the individuals who made these statements as the "Elders." This challenge also fails. Quiñones argues that Petrozziello bars these statements because the Elders were not members of the charged conspiracy and that, in any event, the statements were not made during and in furtherance of that conspiracy. That is so, he contends, in part because the statements were made outside the timeframe of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment in which Quiñones was alleged to have been a participant. The government responds that the record supportably shows that the Elders "were La Ñeta members" and thus, for that reason alone, participants in the charged conspiracy. It goes on to contend that the statements were made in furtherance of that conspiracy because they provided new La Ñeta members with information necessary to "continu[ing] on in the operation of the association," although the government does not address when the statements were made. - 14 - Even if the District Court erred under Petrozziello in admitting these statements, the error was harmless. In arguing otherwise, Quiñones contends only that the government failed to offer any independent "proof of the 'structure' of the [RICO] 'enterprise,'" thereby rendering the statements in question especially damaging to his case. (Citing Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 945 (2009).) But the record shows that these statements were "cumulative of" a wealth of other evidence, United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33, 46 (1st Cir. 2012), as various witnesses testified from personal experience regarding meetings related to La Ñeta's illicit activities, the organization's hierarchical structure, and its practice of punishing members who did not follow the organization's "norms and rules." Thus, we reject this challenge on harmless error grounds. See United States v. Rodríguez-Torres, 939 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir. 2019) (concluding that the evidence "far surpasse[d] what Boyle requires for a RICO enterprise" where an organization had "meetings[] and rules," "a loose hierarchical structure," and a "business-like" practice of "reward[ing] good performance and loyalty"). C. Quiñones's remaining Petrozziello-based challenge concerns testimony that Cruz gave about an alleged drug transaction between Quiñones and Millán. Quiñones argues that this testimony must have been based on statements of an unnamed third-party - 15 - declarant, given that Cruz was in a different prison than Quiñones at the time that the alleged transaction took place. Quiñones then contends that there is no basis for finding that these statements were admissible under Petrozziello as coconspirator statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy. (In making this challenge, Quiñones does not raise any timing-based concern about the statements.) Quiñones did not challenge these statements in his opening brief to our Court. He also did not identify them in his motion responding to the District Court's order on remand to "identify those statements requiring . . . consideration under [Petrozziello]." As a result, insofar as the challenge is not waived by virtue of having been first raised only in his supplemental briefing, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 715 (1st Cir. 1992). But because Quiñones's opening and supplemental briefs on appeal "fail[ed] to even mention plain error" with respect to the statements he now challenges, "let alone argue for its application here," he has waived on appeal any argument for meeting that demanding standard.4 United States v. Benjamin-Hernandez, 49 F.4th 580, 585 (1st Cir. 2022). 4 Because we assume error with respect to only one of the statements that Quiñones challenges, we are again left with "no cumulative effect to consider." United States v. Ramos-Baez, 86 F.4th 28, 75 n.9 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Pérez-Montañez, 202 F.3d - 16 - IV. We now take up Rosario's Petrozziello challenges, which concern the District Court's decision to allow statements that Ruiz and Álvarez recounted in their testimony to be admitted into evidence. The declarants are "Boringo," Dianis Negrón, and "Quintana." Rosario argues that there is no evidence that establishes that any of these declarants were participants in "any conspiracy" with him. He further argues that the record provides no basis for finding that the statements were made during and in furtherance of any conspiracy because it is "unknown" under what circumstances or "for what purposes" the statements were made. Accordingly, he contends that the District Court clearly erred in admitting this testimony under Petrozziello. We are not persuaded that the District Court committed reversible error. A. We start with the challenge to Boringo's statement about Rosario's alleged involvement in drug trafficking. Ruiz recounted that statement while testifying that Boringo gave Ruiz drugs to sell on behalf of La Ñeta and that Boringo would sometimes tell at 441). Accordingly, we reject Quiñones's revived cumulative error challenge. - 17 - him, "[L]ook, these drugs are good. I gave some to [Rosario]. I gave some to Tito, I gave some to different jails." Rosario argues that there is "no evidence" that Boringo was a member of "any conspiracy" in which Rosario participated. Ruiz testified, however, that he personally sold drugs for Boringo after the date on which the charged conspiracy began, and that Boringo paid La Ñeta in connection with those drug sales. That testimony constitutes evidence extrinsic to the challenged statement by Boringo about his involvement in the conspiracy with which Rosario was charged with being a participant -- namely, the conspiracy to facilitate La Ñeta's racketeering activities. Moreover, the record shows that Ruiz testified that Boringo made that statement to him while they were engaged in their drug trafficking activities. The record thus supportably shows that the statement was made for the purpose of Boringo "vouching" -- to use the government's description -- for the quality of the drugs. Accordingly, the District Court did not clearly err in finding that a coconspirator made the statement in furtherance of the conspiracy in question. Cf. United States v. Colón-Díaz, 521 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir. 2008) (statements that a particular individual's drugs "were 'the best' sought directly to promote the conspiracy's goal" of selling drugs by "engender[ing] confidence" in the buyer regarding their quality). - 18 - B. We also reject Rosario's challenge to Ruiz's testimony that, even before Ruiz personally met Rosario, he "knew of" him from "talk[ing] . . . about" him with Dianis Negrón. Rosario argues that this testimony was attributable to statements that Negrón made to Ruiz and that it was clear error to find that, despite having been based on statements made by a third-party declarant, the testimony was admissible under Petrozziello. The government responds that this testimony "is neither hearsay nor based on hearsay," as "Ruiz simply stated he talked about Rosario with Negrón." Even assuming that this testimony is hearsay or based on hearsay, we conclude that any error in admitting it into evidence was harmless. Rosario argues otherwise on the ground that Ruiz's testimony regarding Rosario "would have been eliminated entirely" if the challenged portions of it had to be excluded as hearsay. As we have already explained, however, the District Court did not clearly err in permitting Ruiz to testify regarding the statement made to him by Boringo concerning Rosario's involvement in drug trafficking. Moreover, the record shows that when Ruiz was asked at trial whether he "kn[e]w of" Rosario prior to meeting him, Ruiz responded that he "knew of him . . . [t]hrough different people," including not only by talking about him with Negrón but also through Boringo and another La Ñeta member known - 19 - as "Tito Grande." So, any error in admitting the challenged statements in the Ruiz testimony that Rosario attributes to Negrón fails on harmless error grounds because Rosario does not challenge the materially similar statements by Boringo and Tito Grande introduced in that testimony. See Valdivia, 680 F.3d at 46. C. Rosario's third and final Petrozziello-based challenge concerns a statement about his alleged participation in drug trafficking. Álvarez recounted the statement in question while testifying that Quintana told him that Rosario supplied him (Quintana) with drugs. The government argues that the District Court properly admitted this statement under Petrozziello. It also points out in doing so that Álvarez testified that both Quintana and another La Ñeta member known as "Chuito Carolina" told him about Rosario's involvement in drug trafficking.5 That last point is significant. Rosario does not dispute that the statement by Chuito was admissible, even though it is 5 Specifically, when Álvarez was asked whether Rosario "was . . . involved in drug trafficking" in his role "as the number two leader" of a particular prison, Álvarez responded, "Yes." When asked how he knew that, Álvarez responded, "He was the supplier of two friends of mine, Omar Quintana Moss, a/k/a Omar El Gordo. Jesus Delgado Ortiz, a/k/a Chuito Carolina. Both are [La Ñeta] members. . . . [H]e would supply substances for them to sell . . . ." - 20 - "cumulative of" the challenged statement by Quintana. Valdivia, 680 F.3d at 46. He also does not challenge González's testimony that Rosario told him on more than one occasion that he (Rosario) had "fund" drugs -- that is, drugs that are sold by La Ñeta members on La Ñeta's behalf. In addition, as we have just explained, the District Court did not clearly err in admitting into evidence Boringo's statement that he and Rosario were involved in trafficking drugs together. Thus, any error in admitting the Quintana statement was harmless. See id. (deeming harmless admission of "purported hearsay testimony . . . cumulative of other evidence in the record"); see also United States v. Veloz, 948 F.3d 418, 434 (1st Cir. 2020) (deeming admission of purported hearsay harmless where another coconspirator "had already appeared at trial and testified to the same effect"). V. We come, then, to Millán's Petrozziello challenges. In all, they concern more than a dozen statements. Some were recounted in testimony by González, Cruz, and Álvarez. The rest were recounted in recordings of intercepted phone calls that the government introduced into evidence. We see no basis for overturning Millán's convictions based on these challenges. A. Notably, the government argued at trial that Millán was La Ñeta's "maximum leader" -- its highest-ranking individual -- for - 21 - years. Also of note, Millán does not dispute that he served in La Ñeta leadership. He argues only that the challenged statements were improperly admitted under Petrozziello and highly prejudicial. That is so, he contends, because the other evidence at most "showed . . . Millán's efforts to maintain [La] Ñeta's original prisoner advocacy mission" and to further its "legitimate aims." That other evidence, as he sees it, did not show his agreement to participate in a pattern of drug trafficking on behalf of the organization or to facilitate its racketeering activities. He also contends that these statements painted a false picture of the control that he exercised over La Ñeta's membership or drug proceeds. It is important to emphasize at the outset that there is significant inculpatory evidence against Millán that he does not challenge under Petrozziello. Indeed, as we will explain, the government introduced unchallenged evidence that, in his role as maximum leader, he required that monthly reports be made regarding the status of each prison's drug trafficking and incentive-related finances, and he called meetings, requested reports, and issued directives regarding La Ñeta's membership and disciplinary issues. Other witness testimony that Millán does not challenge under Petrozziello establishes that Millán worked directly with several - 22 - La Ñeta members, including Cruz and Ruiz, to traffic drugs and manage drug-related finances.6 There is a case to be made, based on this unchallenged inculpatory evidence, that each of Millán's Petrozziello challenges fails on harmless error grounds alone. Nonetheless, Millán also brings a cumulative error challenge. We therefore think it prudent to address each of the statements that he challenges under Petrozziello so that we may properly address that challenge. After all, even though we reject many of Millán's individual Petrozziello challenges on harmless error grounds, he premises his claim of cumulative error on the asserted aggregate effect of errors that he contends is greater than the effect of any one of the asserted errors on its own. See United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1195-96 (1st Cir. 1993) (explaining that multiple errors may "in the aggregate have a more debilitating effect" on the fairness of trial proceedings than the errors considered in isolation). Thus, to properly evaluate that contention, it is important to ensure that we have a firm grasp on the universe of challenged statements, if any, that may have been 6 As we explain below, we previously rejected Millán's challenges to Cruz and Ruiz's testimony under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). - 23 - admitted into evidence in violation of Petrozziello. Hence, the need for the statement-by-statement analysis that follows. B. We start with Millán's challenge to Jowy's statement that Millán sent drugs to him to sell on behalf of La Ñeta. González recounted the statement while testifying that, when he was "working the drug tables" with Jowy, Jowy told him, "[W]e have to tally up this for [Millán], 200. There can't be any credit on this. This has to be a ticket over another ticket." Millán argues that the District Court clearly erred in finding this statement admissible under Petrozziello because "the record lacks extrinsic evidence establishing that Jowy and [Millán] were [coconspirators]" and does not "demonstrate" that the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.7 As we explained above, however, González's firsthand testimony about "working the drug tables" with Jowy is record evidence, extrinsic to the challenged statement, of Jowy's membership in the conspiracy in which Millán was charged with being a participant. In addition, given the context that González's testimony provides, the statement Millán challenges about what Jowy said about him to González is fairly understood to have been intended to communicate 7 Millán makes no argument disputing that the statement in question was made during the charged conspiracy. - 24 - information to González regarding La Ñeta's priorities for processing the drugs in question. Thus, there was no clear error under Petrozziello in admitting this statement into evidence as a statement of a coconspirator made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d 105, 117 (1st Cir. 2002) (concluding that statements were made in furtherance where they "conveyed to other [coconspirators] information about the operations of the drug conspiracy"). C. We next consider Millán's challenge to the statement that Millán appointed Claudio, one of Millán's codefendants, to collect phone "incentives" -- that is, payments that members of La Ñeta made to the organization for the privilege of using certain contraband cell phones. González recounted this statement when he testified that an individual known as "Sandwich" told him that Millán assigned Claudio "to deal with the cell phone incentives" because he was "upset" with him.8 Millán argues that the record lacks extrinsic evidence either that the declarant -- whom Millán does not identify -- conspired with Millán or that the declarant made the 8 Millán does not argue that this particular statement was hearsay-within-hearsay. - 25 - statements in furtherance of a conspiracy.9 The District Court did not clearly err in finding that this statement satisfied Petrozziello. Contrary to Millán's assertion, the record provides extrinsic evidence of Sandwich's membership in the conspiracy in which Millán was charged with being a participant. Specifically, one witness testified that Sandwich threatened to kill another La Ñeta member for being a "snitch." See United States v. Rodríguez, 162 F.3d 135, 143 (1st Cir. 1998) (concluding that a defendant's "violence against a suspected informant [wa]s relevant to prove his membership in the conspiracy"). In addition, the statement may supportably be found