FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 14, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15816 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 2 1 - CR- 4 - RH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G A N G S T A ' K O - L O F B I S H O P G O S P I D O N , a .k .a . D e rr ic kJ o h n s o n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 14, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G a ngs t a ’ K o- L of

B i s hop G os pi don appe a l s hi s j ury c onvi c t i ons f or2

c o n s p i r a c y t o d i s tr i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n f i v e g r a ms of c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841 a nd 846, di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne base , i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1) and (b)( 1)(C ), di stri bu t i on of m ore tha n f i ve gr a m s of

c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) , know i ng pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm i n f

urthe r a nc e of

adrug tr a f

f i c ki ng offe nse, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 , and p osse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed f e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . G ospi do n argues on app ea l thatthe i nd i ctm entw as defe ct i ve on i t s f ac e because i tfa i l ed t o speci fi ca l l y nam e hi s c o-conspi ra t ors. H e a ckno w l edges that w e h av e h el d th atth e i n d i ctm en tn eed n o tp ro v i d e th e n am es o f co -co n sp i rat o rs, buthe a s s e rt s tha tA ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L .E d .2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , r e q u ir e s ad if f e r e n t r e s u lt, a s it s tr e n g th e n e d S ix th A m endm entand d ue process prot ec t i on s. H ow ever , w e have re af fi rm ed ou r po si t i on thatthe i nd i ctm entneed no tprov i de the nam es of co-c on spi ra t ors a ft er A pp re nd i . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A rbane, 44 6 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 28 , n. 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). H e f urthe ra r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o l i s tthe na m e s of the c oco n sp irato rs in th e in d ictm en t w as u n co n stitu ti o n al b ec au se th e g o v ern m en t’ s p r a c tic e w a s af

u n d a m e n ta lly u n f

a ira m b u s h o n h im . G o s p id o n a ls o ap p e a r s to a r gue tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o i de nt i f

y the c o- c ons pi r a t or s i n the i ndi c tm e nt3

am o u n t ed t o a v i o l at i o n o f h i s co n fro n t at i o n an d cro ss-ex am i n at i o n ri g h t s. T h ese a r g u m e n ts w e r e f

ir s t m a d e o n ap p e a l. W he r e ade f

e nda ntf a i l s t o r a i s e a n obj e c t i on t o the i ndi c tm e ntunt i l the appeal , w e “ m ustfi nd the i nd i ctm entsuff i ci entun l es s i ti s s o d ef ec t i ve thati tdo es n o t, b y a n y r e a s o n ab le c o n s tru c tio n , c h a r g e a n o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t is c o n v ic te d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . C h ilc o te , 7 2 4 F .2 d 1 4 9 8 , 1 5 0 4 - 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . T ha ti s c l e a r l y notthe c a s e he r e a nd w e c onc l ude tha tthe i ndi c tm e ntw a s not f unda m e nt a l l y de f

e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o s pe c i f

i c a l l y na m e G os pi don’ s c oc ons pi r a t or s . G os pi don’ s othe rc ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s a r e w a i ve d, a s he di d not p r o v id e a n y a n a ly s is , c ita tio n s to th e r e c o r d , o rc ita tio n s to a n y le g a l au th o r ityin hi s bri ef . G o s p id o n a ls o a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al , as se rt i ng thatthe go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rta c on vi ct i on of conspi ra cy . H e argues thatal tho ug h o ther pe opl e s ol d drugs f

r om hi s apa rtm e nt , thi s e vi de nc e i s c i r c um s t a nt i a l a nd i ns uf f i c i e ntpr oof

of ac ons pi r a c y . W e r e vi e w s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e de novo t o d et erm i ne w hether are as on abl e j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatthe evi dence e s t abl i s he d the de f

e nda nt ’ s gui l tbe y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i l vestri , 40 9 F . 3d 13 11 , 13 27 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In so do i ng , w e vi ew the evi dence4

i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand m ake a l l re as on abl e i nfer ence s and credi bi l i ty c ho i ce s i n the go vernm ent ’ s f avor. Id. In thi s c as e, the evi dence p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l in d ic a te d th a t G o s p id o n b e g a n u s in g h is g ir lf r ie n d ’s ap a rtm e n t to s e l l drugs , a nd s oon the r e a f t e ri nvi t e d othe rs e l l e r s t o us e the apa rtm e nta s adrug sa l es ce nt er . T he evi dence i n thi s r ec ord cl earl y s up po rt ed the j ury’ s f i nd i ng that G o s p id o n c o n s p ir e d w ith o th e r s to s e ll c r a c k . F in a lly , G o s p id o n a r g u e s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to r e que s tas pe c i f

i c buy e r - s e l l e rj ury i ns truc t i on, w hi c h w oul d i ns truc tthe j ury on the d i f f e r e n c e b e twe e n ac o n s p i r a c y a n d as e r i e s o f b u y e r - s e l l e rd ru g tr a n s a c t i o n s . He w as en t i t l ed t o h av e j u ry i n stru ct i o n s p resen t ed fo r an y th eo ry o f d efen se th ath as a f ounda t i on i n the e vi de nc e . H e f urthe rc ont e nds tha tthe f a i l ur e c oul d notha ve b een a j u d g m en tcal l b ecau se th e i n stru ct i o n w o u l d h av e d i rect l y ai d ed th e d efen se and w ou l d n othave any negat i ve consequences. G ospi do n al so ar gu es thathi s tri al c ouns e l w a s i ne f

f e c t i ve be c aus e the a tt orne y f a i l e d t o obt a i n the na m e s of G o s p id o n ’s c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . H e a r g u e s th a t if s u c h ar e q u e s t h a d b e e n m a d e , it w oul d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d, a nd tha tknow l e dge of the i de nt i t i e s of

the c oc o n s p ir a to r s w a s e s s e n tia l to am e a n in g f u l d e f e n s e . W e g e n e r a lly w ill n o t c o n s id e ra n in e f f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c la im r a is e d o n d ir e c t ap p e a l “b e c au s e th e r e u s u a llyh a s b e e n in s u f f ic ie n t o p p o rtu n ityto5

de ve l op the r e c or d r e ga r di ng the m e r i t s ” of the c l a i m . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a y e s , 158 F . 3d 1215, 1219 n. 6 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T ha ti s the c a s e he r e a nd w e , th u s , d e c lin e to r e a c h th e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im s b e c au s e th e r e c o r d is in a d e q u a te . AF F I RME D.