2006 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 6-12-2006 

# U SA v . Hickson 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 . 05-2625

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Hick s on" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 919. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/919NOT 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. 05- 2625 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANDR E T . HI CK S ON,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- cr - 00024) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 7, 2006 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 12, 2006 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A n d re H ick so n (“ H ick so n ” ) w a s f o u n d g u iltyb ya ju ryo f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e more t han 50 gr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof coc ai neT he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e had s ubj ectm att er 1 j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. H i cks on fi l ed a t i m el yappea l and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . H i cks on appea l s , ar gui ng thatthe G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he “c ocai ne bas e” s ei zed f r om hi m w as “cr ack c ocai ne. ” Fort he r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we a f

f i r m. 1 I. A s w e w r i t e fort he part i es , onl ya br i ef s um m aryof pert i nentfac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t or yi s nece s s ary . A tt r i al , t he G overnm entputforw ar d s ever al w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed r egar di ng t he natur e of the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance thatH i cks on w as al l eged t o have p o ss e ss e d w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te. T h e G o v e rn m e n t f irst c a lled D e law a re S tate Pol i ce D et ect i ve D ani el M eadow s . D et ect i ve M eadow s t ol d t he j urythat , dur i ng the exec ut i on of a s ear ch w arr anton H i cks on’ s car , he found s ever al bags of a “ w hi t e, c h u n k y , ro c k -lik e su b sta n c e ” in th e c a r’s g lo v e c o m p a rtm e n t an d h e “ im m e d iate ly r ecogni zed . . . fr om pas tt r ai ni ng exper i ence thatthi s w as cr ack c ocai ne. ” J enni ferK i ng, a D rug E nfor cementA gencyfor ens i c che m i s tw ho had conduc t ed a l abor at or yanal y s i s on t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance r ecove r ed fr om H i cks on’ s aut om obi l e, al s o t ook t he s t and. K i ng had ana l y zed 340 drug exhi bi t s dur i ng hercar eerand had test ifi ed p rev iou slyin f ed era l cou rtas a n ex p ert i n fo ren sic ch em istry . Itw as h er e x p ert opi ni on t hatt he s ubs t ance ati s s ue w as 68. 7 gr ams of “c ocai ne bas e. ”3

D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce D et ect i ve D onal d Pope, a s event een- y earvet er an pol i ce offi ceras s i gned t o a drug uni t , al s o t es t i fi ed. D et ect i ve Pope w as admi t t ed bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt a s a n e x p e rt re g a rd in g , in tera lia , the di s t r i but i on, us e, packa gi ng and s t r eetval ue of cr ack c ocai ne. A tt r i al , he w as s how n t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance r ecove r ed fr om H i cks on’ s aut om obi l e and s t at ed that , bas ed on hi s tr ai ni ng and expe r i ence , the s ubs t ance w as cr ack c ocai ne. H e al s o expl ai ned thatcr ack c ocai ne i s a form of coc ai ne bas e. A s s tate d a b o v e , the ju ryf o u n d H ick so n g u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e more t han 50 gr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect i bl e amountof coc ai ne b a se . B ysta tu te, th e m in im u m ter m o f im p riso n m e n t f

o r th a t o f f e n se is 1 2 0 m o n th s w h ile the m ax im u m term o f im p ri so n m en t i s li fe . 2 1 U . S . C . § (b)(1 )(A ). A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe fa ct s as s ert ed i n t he pr es ent ence r epor t( “PSR ”) w er e cons i s t entw i t h the evi dence attr i al , i ncl udi ng the fa ctthatH i cks on h ad p o sses sed w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re tha n 5 0 g ram s o f c rac k co ca ine. T h e C o u rt nonethel es s r ej ect ed the 188 t o 235 Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange s etouti n t he PSR and s ent ence d H i cks on t o t he mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence pr es cr i bed bys t atut e: 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. H i ckson ’s sol e con t enti on on app eal i s that he i s ent i t l ed to r esent encing b ecause t he G overnm entdi d notes t abl i s h bypr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe contr ol l ed su b sta n c e h e p o ss e ss e d w a s “ c ra c k c o c a in e .” T h e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t a4

contr ol l ed s ubs t ance i s cr ack c ocai ne i s a fi ndi ng of fa ctgener al l yr evi ew ed forcl ear e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. R om an , 1 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B r igm an , 350 F. 3d 310, 313 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual f in d in g s d u rin g se n ten c in g c a n n o t b e d istu rb e d “ u n les s th is C o u rt is le f t w ith a d e f

in ite and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been made”) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks o mi t t e d ) . Be c a u s e Hi c k s o n d i d n o tr a i s e a n o b j e c t i o n i n th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , h o we v e r , we rev iew h is cl aim fo r plain e rror. Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 5 (1 9 9 7 ). I ti s undi s put ed thatt he G overnm entchar ged, and the j uryfound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t hatH i cks on “pos s es s ed w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e over50 gr ams of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof ‘ coca i ne bas e. ’ ” H i cks on does n o t argu e tha t th e G o v ern m en t fail ed to p u t fo rw ard su ff ici en t evid en ce at tri al t o su p p o rt t he jury ’s fi nd i ng t hat the sub st ance h e po sses sed w as “cocaine base. ” T hu s, regar dles s w h e th e r th e G o v e rn m e n t in tro d u c e d su f f icie n t p ro o f

to e sta b lish th a t th e su b sta n c e in ques t i on w as cr ack c ocai ne, anyr es ul t i ng err orhad no ef fec ton H i cks on’ s s ent ence and c e rt a in ly ca n n o t a m o u n t to p la in e rr o r. See U nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 271 F. 3d 438, 467 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat , forpurpos es of appl y i ng the mandat orym axi m um and m i ni m um s ent ence s under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) , the j uryneed onl yfi nd thatthe def endant p o sses sed w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re tha n 5 0 g ram s o f a su b stan ce co n tai n ing an yfo rm o f “ co ca ine b ase ”— n o t th e sp ec ifi c “ cra ck co ca ine” fo rm o f c o ca ine b ase ). M or eover , i tw as noterr orforthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o fi nd thatthe s ubs t ance H i cks on5

pos s es s ed w as cr ack c ocai ne. I ti s w el l s ett l ed thata s ent enci ng courtm aydet erm i ne the drug i dent i t yi nvol ved i n a vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841 byus i ng a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d “[s ] o l ong as t he r es ul t i ng, and pos s i bl yenhanc ed, s ent ence i s bel ow t he s t atut or ym axi m um author i zed bythe j ury ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs . ” Id . at457 ( ci t i ng Appr endiv. N

ew Jer s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) ) . B eca us e the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence a u th o ri z e d b yth e ju ry’s f in d in g s in th is c a s e w a s lif e im p ri s o n m e n t, 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d have l aw ful l yi m pos ed a s ent ence w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange s o l ong as i tfound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence

— notbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

— t hatt he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w as cr ack c ocai ne. H ere the f

ac ts i n tr o d u ce d at tri al w ere m o re tha n su ff ici en t t o m ee t th at ev iden ti ary th re sh o ld . A s e x p lain e d a b o v e , K in g , a D E A c h e m ist, tes tifie d th a t h e r e x p e rt a n a ly sis had conf i r m ed thatt he s ubs t ance ati s s ue w as coca i ne bas e. M or eover , D et ect i ve M eadow s , w ho had ext ens i ve expe r i ence i n cas es i nvol vi ng cr ack c ocai ne, t es t i fi ed that t he “w hi t e, chunkyr ock- l i ke s ubs t ance ” w as cr ack. Fi nal l y , D et ect i ve Pope, a vet er an of “hundr eds ” of i nves t i gat i ons i nvol vi ng cr ack, t es t i fi ed, bas ed on the vi s ual appea r ance of t he drug and hi s i nves t i gat or yexper i ence , thatthe s ubs t ance w as cr ack. T hi s cumul at i ve e v id e n c e su p p o rts a f

in d in g b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t th e d ru g s in q u e s tio n s w e re c ra c k c o c a in e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. B r igm an , 350 F. 3d 310, 314 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hatD i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatdrugs w er e cr ack noterr oneous w her e D E A chemi s tt es t i fi ed thatdrugs w er e coc ai ne bas e bas ed on thei rappea r ance and6

h is in v e stig a to rye x p e rie n c e ); U nited S tates v. W

aters , 313 F. 3d 151, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (s a m e w h e re e x p e ri e n c e o f f ic e r t e s tif

ie d , in tera lia , that“r ock form ” of s ubs t ance hel ped h im c o n c lu d e th a t su b sta n c e w a s in ten d e d to b e sm o k e d a n d w a s c ra c k ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 190 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( s ame w her e che m i s ti dent i fi ed s ubs t ance as c o c a in e b a se a n d v e ter a n o f f ice r sta ted th a t cr a c k w a s o f ten p a c k a g e d in th e m a n n e r in w hi ch the drugs w er e found) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n i t s concl us i on to th a t ef f e c t. * * * * * F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .