Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01018/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jameel-Ismail Hassan Saahir
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 1 

U 'ted States Court ~f Appea s n1 c· t Tenth 1ra.u. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS M~R -11990 

TENTH CIRCUIT :ROBERT L. HOECKER ----------- Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMEEL-ISMAIL HASSAN SAAHIR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-1018 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-237) 

(D. Col.) 

Before TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SEAY, District Judge.** 

Defendant appeals his convictions on one count of conspiracy 

to import marijuana into the United States (Count I) and two 

counts of importing and aiding the importation of marijuana 

(Counts III and V) in violation of 21 u.s.c. §§ 952, 963 and 18 

U.S.C. § 2. We affirm. 

This case arose out of a drug smuggling conspiracy where the 

defendant, based in Denver, Colorado, solicited female drug 

couriers to travel at his expense to Jamaica using luggage 

provided to them by the defendant. The defendant provided to the 

couriers in Denver a set of luggage consisting of a garment bag 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Frank H. Seay, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1018 Document: 01019965740 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 1 
and -a small hard-sided. sui~case. Once in Jamaica, the defendant 

would meet the couriers and provide them with a similar, but 

noticeably heavier, set of luggage for the return trip to the 

United States. The defendant expressly told the drug couriers on 

several trips that the luggage contained marijuana. The couriers 

were to receive $500 each for successfully smuggling the marijuana 

into the United States. 

On August 26, 1988, an indictment was returned against the 

defendant in the District of Colorado charging him with one count 

of conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States from 

Jamaica from on or about mid-March, 1987, through September 30 , 

1987 (Count I). The defendant also was charged with four counts 

of importing and aiding the importation of marijuana on April 6, 

1987 (Count II), on June 15, 1987 (Count III), on July 14, 1987 

(Count IV), and on August 25, 1987 (Count V). 

Prior to trial the district court dismissed Counts II and IV 

for lack of venue. These counts dealt with two unsuccessful drug 

smuggling trips where the luggage provided by the defendant to his 

drug couriers in Jamaica and containing marijuana was seized by 

- Customs. oficials at the airport ~ n -Miami, Florda, and thus never 

was imported into the District of Colorado. Counts III and V 

concerned two other smuggling trips where all or part of the drug 

courier's luggage provided by the defendant in Jamaica reached 

Colorado. 

Defendant first alleges that the district court erred by 

denying his motion to dismiss Counts III and V for lack of venue, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1018 Document: 01019965740 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 2 
. arguing that the. pLosecution failed to .p~sent .any direct evidence 

that the luggage reaching Colorado actually contained marijuana. 

Venue in federal criminal cases is a question of fact that 

the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. 

See United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The government may use either direct or circumstantial evidence to 

prove that the crimes charged occurred within the district. 

United States~ Rinke, 778 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir. 1985). 

We find that the district court had compelling circumstantial 

evidence from which it could find by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the luggage reaching Colorado on the June 15, 1987 

(Count III) and August 15, 1987 (Count V) return trips from 

Jamaica contained marijuana. For example, the defendant told the 

couriers that the luggage contained marijuana and paid them the 

promised $500 for a successful smuggling venture upon their return 

to Colorado. The courier on the August 25 trip testified that 

when the defendant returned the hard-sided suitcase containing her 

personal belongings, the lining had been torn out and it smelled 

like marijuana. The testimony reveals that the purpose of the 

--- conspLracy was to bring the- drugs to Denver and ~he couriers' 

ticket showed Denver as their destination. Finally, the two 

unsuccessful trips where the luggage seized in Miami contained 

marijuana provided strong circumstantial evidence from which the 

trier of fact could reasonably infer that the luggage reaching 

Colorado on the June 15 and August 25 trips actually contained 

marijuana. There is no contrary evidence to show any plan to 

terminate the importation at Miami. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1018 Document: 01019965740 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 3 
. . 

. The defendant also .alleges -that the district court erred in 

admitting and considering evidence relating to the unsuccessful 

April 6 and July 14 trips that were the subject of dismissed 

Counts II and IV because t he parties had agreed that this evidence 

could not be used for F.R.E. 404(b) purposes. We find no error in 

admitting and considering this evidence. First, the evidence was 

admissible as circumstantial proof of venue. Second, the evidence 

was admissible to prove conspiracy. The district court did not 

need to rely on the Rule 404(b) exceptions to admit this evidence 

as proof of conspiracy because the two unsuccessful trips were not 

circumstantial evidence of "other acts" to which Rule 404(b) 

applies. Rather, the unsuccessful April 6 and July 14 trips were 

direct evidence of the Count I offense for which the defendant was 

charged: conspiracy to import marijuana. See United States v. 

Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 39 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 

945 (1982); 22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and 

Procedure, § 5239 at pp. 450-51. 

Finally, the defendant alleges that the evidence at trial was 

insufficient to support the defendant's convictions on Counts I, 

IL[ .. , - and--- V. We hold . that .. viewed in the light most .favorable to .... 

the government, the evidence presented at trial would satisfy a 

reasonable jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1018 Document: 01019965740 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 4