Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-06072/USCOURTS-ca10-94-06072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac D. Milton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ISAAC D. MILTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

, TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appe&!s Tenth Circuit 

AUG 16 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

Nos. 94-6002 

94-6072 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-93-133-W) 

Submitted on the Briefs* 

Rozia McKinney-Foster, United States Attorney, Leslie M. Maye and 

Kim Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Richard D. Laquer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for DefendantAppellant. 

Before KELLY, McWILLIAMS and GODBOLD,t Circuit Judges. 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

Defendant Isaac Milton appeals his conviction for the use of 

a telephone to facilitate distribution of cocaine base, in 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

t The Honorable John C. Godbold, Senior United States Circuit 

Judge-Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 1 
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 

Background 

Mr. Milton was arrested and charged with conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine and/or cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846, and the use of a telephone to facilitate distribution of 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). He was 

subsequently tried by a jury and acquitted on the conspiracy 

charge, but convicted on the telephone charge. 

Mr. Milton appeals, arguing that the indictment was 

deficient, thus depriving him of both his Sixth Amendment right to 

be apprised of the charges against him and his Fifth Amendment 

right to establish a record to defend against the possibility of 

double jeopardy. Mr. Milton further argues that one of the jury 

instructions contained a deficient statement of the elements 

required for conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). During the 

trial, however, Mr. Milton failed to object to either the 

indictment or the challenged jury instruction. 

I. Sufficiency of the Indictment 

In the absence of an objection to the indictment at trial, we 

review for plain error. United States v. Patterson, 20 F.3d 809, 

814 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 128 (1994). In a plain 

error analysis, we consider the trial record as a whole to 

determine whether the alleged error seriously affected the 

fairness of the trial. United States v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 2 
1515 {lOth Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 

15 {1985)), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1289 {1993). 

Mr. Milton argues that the telephone count against him was 

deficient. The challenged count reads: 

On or about April 8, 1993, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

within the Western Judicial District of Oklahoma,--RAYMOND 

LADELL SLOAN, a/k/a R-Loc; and ISAAC MILTON, a/k/a/ Tek-9, 

a/k/a/ T.C.,--the defendants herein, knowingly and 

intentionally did use a communication facility, that is, 

a telephone, in facilitating the knowing and intentional 

distribution of cocaine base, a Schedule II controlled 

substance, a felony under Title 21, United States Code, 

Section 84l(a) (1), in that RAYMOND LADELL SLOAN, a/k/a R-Loc, 

and ISAAC MILTON, a/k/a Tek-9, a/k/a T.C., used said 

telephone to discuss the acquisition and distribution of 

cocaine base. 

Specifically, Mr. Milton claims that the government's failure to 

allege the facilitation of a specific distribution of cocaine base 

violates his constitutional rights. We disagree. 

The Supreme Court has held that a facilitation conviction may 

stand even where the defendant is acquitted on the underlying 

felony. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67-69 (1984). 

Moreover, in United States v. Reed, 1 F.3d 1105, 1108-09 (lOth 

Cir. 1993), we held that to sustain a facilitation conviction 

under§ 843(b), it was not necessary to prove an actual 

distribution, at least where the defendant was also convicted of 

conspiracy. See also United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1343 

(lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 (1979). The Reed 

indictment, however, merely recited that defendant used a 

telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug felony in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Reed, 1 F.3d at 1108. In Mr. 

Milton's case the indictment went considerably further in 

detailing the alleged conduct. It is unnecessary for an actual, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 3 
consummated distribution to be alleged in the indictment. See id. 

The challenged count sets out t"he date the communication 

occurred, the type of communication facility used, the context of 

the discussion that ensued, the controlled substance involved, and 

the type of felony facilitated. The count adequately informed Mr. 

Milton of the charge against him so that he could prepare a 

defense and guard against the possibility of future prosecutions 

for the same offense. See United States v. Keck, 773 F.2d 759, 

763-64 (7th Cir. 1985). 

II. Sufficiency of the Jury Instructions 

Mr. Milton argues that Instruction 35 is deficient because it 

does not require the government to prove the underlying felony 

facilitated by the use of the telephone. Since Mr. Milton failed 

to object to the challenged instruction at trial, we review the 

instruction for plain error affecting Mr. Milton's right to a fair 

and impartial trial. United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 1421, 1424 

(lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 209 (1994). In order to 

constitute plain error, the error of the district court must be 

"obvious and substantial." Cartier v. Jackson, No. 94-1167, 1995 

WL 404218, at *4 (lOth Cir. July 10, 1995). The substantiality 

prong requires that the Defendant prove prejudice attributable to 

the error. United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1521 (lOth 

Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1778 

(1993}}, petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. July 12, 

1995) (No. 

In United States v. Watson, we held that proof of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 4 
facilitation of the underlying offense was sufficient to sustain 

an 843(b) conviction. Watson, 594 F.2d at 1342-43. Proof of 

actual distribution is unnecessary to uphold such a conviction. 

Reed, 1 F.3d at 1108. In Reed, we adopted the Third Circuit's 

holding that proof of an underlying inchoate felony such as 

attempt or conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction under 843(b). Id. at 1108 

(citing United States v. Pierorazio, 578 F.2d 48, 51 (3d Cir.), 

cert. denied, 439 U.S. 981 (1978)). Moreover, as noted earlier, 

the Supreme Court has held that even if a defendant is acquitted 

on the underlying felony, a facilitation conviction may still 

stand. Powell, 469 U.S. at 69. 

The challenged instruction required the government to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt 11 (1) that the defendant used a 

communication facility to facilitate a knowing and intentional 

distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance as charged in 

the count under consideration; and (2) that the defendant did so 

knowingly and intentionally ... Aplt. Brief at 11-12. To obtain a 

conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), 11 the government must prove 

(1) knowing or intentional (2) use of a communications facility 

(3) to commit, cause or facilitate the commission of a drug 

felony ... United States v. Willis, 890 F.2d 1099, 1103 (lOth Cir. 

1989). These requirements are adequately set forth in the 

challenged instruction. 

Furthermore, Defendant has failed to make an adequate showing 

of how he was prejudiced by the jury instruction. In light of the 

holdings previously noted, the text of the instruction, and the 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 5 
failure of the Defendant to show prejudice, we hold that it was 

not an obvious and substantial error for the district court to 

submit the challenged instruction to the jury. Accordingly, we do 

not find plain error. 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-6072 Document: 01019279496 Date Filed: 08/16/1995 Page: 6