2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2009 

# U SA v . P rince P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4408

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . P rinc e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1346. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1346NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4408 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TYR ON E PRI NC E, A ppel l ant A P P E A L F R O M T H E D IS T R IC T C O U R T O F T H E V IR G IN IS L A N D S ,

DI VI S I ON OF S T . T HOMAS / S T . J OHN ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 05- cr - 00076- 10) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ur t i s V . G om ez Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , H A R D I M A N , and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay20, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge D e f e n d a n t T yro n e P rin c e w a s c h a rg e d in a su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t w ith tw o c o u n ts o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c ra c k c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . AW e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 1 -2- ju ryc o n v icte d h im o f

th e su b sta n tiv e o f

f e n se — p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te coca i ne bas e— butfound thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr ove the quant i t i es of coc ai ne b a s e a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t th a t w o u ld h a v e s u p p o rt e d a m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . P ri n c e w a s s e n te n c e d to a w ith in -g u id e lin e s te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

3 3 m o n th s . O n appea l , Pr i nce a s ks us t o vaca t e hi s convi ct i on, cont endi ng thatthe governm ent fai l ed t o pr ove an e s s ent i al el ementof the cha r ged off ens e— quant i ty . H e cl ai m s thathe s houl d have be en ac qui t t ed or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have s p e c i f i c a l l yi n s tru c t e d th e j u r yo n th e l e s s e ri n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f s i mp l e p o s s e s s i o n . He al s o ar gues that , i n t he abs ence of a j uryfi ndi ng of s peci fi c quant i ty , he s houl d have be en s ent ence d underthe gui del i ne addr es s ed t o offe ns es i nvol vi ng the mi ni m um amount of c o c a i n e b a s e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I . T h e sp e c if

ic s tatu to ryo f

f e n se c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t d o e s n o t sq u a re p re c ise ly w i th the off

ens e of c onvi ct i on. T he i ndi ctm entchar ges Pr i nce w i th pos s es s i on w i th i nt ent t o di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne i n t w o count s , w hi ch corr es pond t o vary i ng quant i t i es s ol d on di ffe r entdat es — 26 gr ams on N ovember16, 2004, and 27 gr ams on N ovember23, 2004— fora t ot al quant i tyof 53 gr ams. T he cr i m i nal s t atut e cha r ged i s 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . Subse ct i on ( a) ( 1) i s the s ubs t ant i ve conduc t el ement : pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . Subse ct i on-3-

(b)(1 )(A )(i ii ), w h ich is li sted u n d er the “P en alt ies” su b h ea d ing , ca ll s fo r a m an d atory m i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 10 y ear s fora vi ol at i on i nvol vi ng 50 gr ams orm or e of a m ix tu re c o n tain in g c o c a in e b a se , w h ile s u b se c tio n (b )(1 )(B )(iii) se ts th e m in im u m a t 5 y ear s for5 gr ams orm or e. G i ven the quant i t i es al l eged, Pr i nce c oul d have be en cha r ged u n d e r (A )(iii) o r (B )(iii), bu t th e in d ictm e n t d o e s n o t sp e c if yw h ich o n e a c tu a llya p p lied to hi m . W e w i l l us e the 5- gr am t hr es hol d— ( B ) ( i i i )

— as i tdoes notappea rthatthe g o v ern m en t sou g h t th e 1 0 -y ea r m an d atorym inim u m ca ll ed fo r un d er (A )(i ii ), an d ev ery refer ence in t he record t o a q uan t i tythreshol d is t o 5 gram s. A ttr i al , Pr i nce a dm i t t ed thathe had s ol d cr ack c ocai ne t o a conf i dent i al s our ce, but t es t i fi ed, w i thouts peci fi cs , thatthe quant i tyi nvol ved w as l es s than the amountthe governm entent er ed i nt o evi dence . T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi ce i ndi cat es thatPr i nce s ol d 1. 6 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne on N ov e mber16 , 20 04 a nd 2. 4 g r a ms o n Nove mber23 , 20 04 , fo ra t ot a l of 4. 0 g r a ms. ( PSR ¶ ¶ 1 4 -1 8 .) W h ile th e re a re se v e ra l p a ss in g re f e re n c e s to th o se a m o u n ts in th e re c o rd , itis notent i r el ycl earhow the Pr obat i on O ffi ce a rr i ved atthatt ot al . T he pr os ecut orr efe rr ed t o “the che m i s t s ’ t es t i m ony ” atthe cha r ge conf er ence ( A pp. 45) , butthatt es t i m onyi s not in th e re c o rd b e f

o re u s . A t th e c o n clus ion o f tri al, the D istri ct C o u rtsu b m itted to the ju rya v erd ictfo rm w ith tw o q u e stio n s o n e a c h c o u n t p e rta in in g to P rin c e . A sk e d w h e th e r P rin c e “ k n o w in g ly and i nt ent i onal l ydi s tr i but [ed] . . . a det ect abl e amountof a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . . . as-4-

c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t,” th e ju ry a n s w e re d “ G u ilty” o n b o th c o u n ts . (I d. 1 2 -1 3 .) N e x t, w hen as ked w hetherthe governm entpr oved that5 gr ams orm or e of c r ack w as i nvol ved, the j urym arked the s pace i ndi cat i ng “N o. ” (I d. ) T hus , the j uryfound Pr i nce gui l tyof the s ubs t ant i ve conduc tel ementof the off ens e— the know i ng and i nt ent i onal di s tr i but i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance — butnoti n an amounttr i gger i ng a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence u n d e r § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) . A ft erthe j uryr eturned i t s ver di ct , Pr i nce moved forj udgm entof ac qui t t al pur s uant t o Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 29( c) , ar gui ng thatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr ove w h a t h e c o n sid e re d “ a n e lem e n t o f th e o f f e n se ” : th e q u a n tityo f

d ru g s re q u ire d to m e e t § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. A ts ent enci ng, Pr i nce r el i ed on s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame ar gum ent , al bei tcouche d as an obj ect i on t o the ca l cul at i on of the bas e off ens e l evel i n t he PSR . H e ar gued that , beca us e the j urydi d notr eturn a ver di ct w ith a sp e c if

ic q u a n tityf

in d in g , h is a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e sh o u ld b e c a lcu late d in ac co rda n ce w ith the m inim u m q u an ti tyg u ideline, U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(14 ). T h e C o u rt d e n ie d P ri n c e ’s o b

je c tio n s a n d a d o p te d th e re c o m m e n d e d s e n te n c e in th e P S R . Th e j u d g me n to f

c o n v i c t i o n s t a t e s th a tP r i n c e wa s a d j u d i c a t e d g u i l tyo f

2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) . Sect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) s et s for th the pos s i bl e pena l t i es fora vi ol at i on of § 8 4 1 (a)(1) inv o lving an am o u n t of cra ck co ca ine th at do es n o t exc ee d the th resh o ld f o r a m andat orym i ni m um — i n otherw or ds , a cr ack di s tr i but i on offe ns e i nvol vi ng l es s than 5 gr ams. T hus , w hi l e § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) pr ovi des fora maxi m um tw enty - y ears ent ence , i tdoesA n offe ns e “ne ces s ar i l yi ncl uded i n the off ens e cha r ged” unde rFeder al R ul e of 2 C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 31( c) “i s one thatdoes notr equi r e pr oof of a nyaddi t i onal el ement bey ond thos e r equi r ed bythe gr eat eroffe ns e. ” G ov’ tof the V. I . v. Jos eph , 765 F. 2d 394, 3 9 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (em p h asis o m itted). -5- n o t r e q u ir e im p o s itio n o f a m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e .

II. P rin c e a rg u e s th a t, be c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to p ro v e th e “ re q u isite e lem e n t” o f 5 g ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e b a se c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld eith er h av e g ran ted h is R u le 29 m o ti o n fo r ac q u ittal o r i n stru cted the ju ryto co n side r a les se r in c lu d e d m isd e m e a n o r— sim p le p o ss e ss io n p u rsu a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (a ). H e is in c o rr e c t. T he evi dence adduce d attr i al di d nots uppor ta quant i tyfi ndi ng above the 5- gr am m andat orym i ni m um thr es hol d char ged bythe governm ent . T he j urydet erm i ned, how ever , thatPr i nce e ngaged i n t he s ubs t ant i ve conduc tchar ged under§ 841( a) ( 1) , and thatthi s conducti nvol ved an uns peci fi ed quant i tyof cr ack c ocai ne cons i s t entw i th § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) . I n eff

ect , Pr i nce a voi ded a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence bydr oppi ng one l evel on the pena l tys cal e es t abl i s hed byC ongr es s forthe puni s hm entof drug di s tr i but i on o f f e n s e s u n d e r § 8 4 1 . I n ar gui ng thathe s houl d have be en s ent ence d under21 U . S. C . § 844( a) , Pr i nce m i s r eads ourhol di ng i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Lacy , 446 F. 3d 448 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , t o pr ovi de thatthe onl y“l es s eri ncl uded off ens e” fora vi ol at i on of § 841( a) ( 1) i s s i m pl e pos s es s i on

2P rin c e se e k s a se n ten c e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith § 8 4 4 (a ) b e c a u se h e w o u ld b e su b jec t to 3 a m a x im u m o n e -ye a r p ri s o n te rm . See 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (a ) (“ A n yp e rso n w h o v io late s th is s u b s e c tio n m a yb e s e n te n c e d to a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

n o t m o re th a n 1 y e a r . . . .” ). T he Supr eme C our thel d i n Appr endithat a d ef en d an t’ s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts are 4 vi ol at ed w hen hi s pr es cr i bed s t atut orym axi m um penal t i es ar e i ncr eas ed byanyfac t , ot her than a pr i orconvi ct i on, thata j urydoes notfi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . 530 U . S. at 49 0. S uch fact s ar e t he “f un ct i on al equ i valent [s] ” of “ el em ents ” of a n ag gravat ed o ffen se w ith a h ig h e r s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . I d. at494 n. 19. -6- p u rsua n t t o § 8 4 4 (a). W hi l e, i n Lacy , w e held that § 844 (a) i s a l esseri ncluded off ense 3 of § 841( a) ( 1) , 446 F. 3d at454- 55, w e di d nothol d thati ti s the o n ly one. Sect i on 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(C )— th e p e n a ltysu b se c tio n c ited in th e C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t— w h e n c o u p led w ith § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), p u n ish e s (1 ) k n o w in g o r in ten tio n a l (2 ) p o ss e ss io n (3 ) w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e ( 4) a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . A s evi dence d byi t s compl et ed ver di cts heet , the ju ry f o u n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d e a c h o f th e s e e le m e n ts b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. T he j ury ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe quant i typr oved attr i al di d notexce ed the 5- gr am thr es hol d i s of no s i gni fi canc e, beca us e § 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) does notr equi r e pr oof of a s p e c if ie d d ru g q u a n tity. P ri n ce d o es n o t exp lai n w h ythe D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld h av e loo k ed p ast th e jury ’s fi ndi ng thathe metthe “i nt entt o di s tr i but e” e l ementof § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) s uch thata s ent ence i n acc or dance w i th § 844( a) w as the onl yappr opr i at e opt i on. N orcan he cont end thathi s s ent ence i n exce s s of the one- y earcei l i ng i m pos ed fora convi ct i on of § 844( a) w as i n vi ol at i on of Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ), beca us e the 4 fi ndi ng of i nt entthatdi s t i ngui s hes a § 841 off ens e fr om a § 844( a) offe ns e w as m ade by the ju ry . A cc o rdin g ly , P ri n ce w as p rop erlyco n v ict ed u n d er § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(C ).-7-

Pr i nce’ s s econd a r gum ent

— thathe s houl d have be en s ent ence d pur s uantt o the m i ni m um quant i tygui del i ne, U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 14) , w hi ch ca rr i es a bas e off ens e l evel of 12— i s al s o i ncorr ect . Fors ent enci ng purpos es , drug quant i tyi s cons i der ed r el evant c o n d u c t d e te rm in a b le b yth e s e n te n c in g c o u rt , s ee U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, cmt . n. 12, and Pr i nce doe s notdi s put e thathi s cr i m i nal conducti nvol ved a t ot al of 4 gr ams of cr ack coca i ne. A ccor di ngl y , w e s ee no r eas on t o ups etthe s ent ence . III . Forthe r eas ons s etfor th above, w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on.