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 6-24-2009 

# U SA v . H ogel and 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 . 07-4280

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 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 . H o g e l and " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1146. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1146NOT 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- 4280

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM E S HOGE L AND, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00162) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 12, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J une 24, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

A j ur yconvi ct ed J ames H ogel and of pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841, and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a d ru g t r a f

f i c k i n g c r i me , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

I. B ec au se w e w ri te ex clus ivelyfo r th e p arti es, w e re co u n t on lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary t o ourdeci s i on. I n M a y2 0 0 4 , t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a P o l i c e Na r c o t i c s Un i tr e c e i v e d i n f o r ma t i o n f

r o m a confi dent i al s our ce thatm ethamphet ami ne w as bei ng s hi pped vi a U ni t ed Par cel Ser vi ce ( U PS) t o 6532 T or r es dal e A venue i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a, w her e H ogel and r es i ded. W hen the pac kage a r r i ved atthe U PS faci l i t y , the pol i ce s ubj ect ed i tt o a dog s ni ff, t hen l at eropened i tpur s uantt o a w arr ant . I ns i de theyfound fourpacka ges of m etha m p h etam ine. T h e p ac k ag e w as th en rese aled an d p rep are d fo r a c o n tr o ll ed d eli v ery t o t he Torr es dal e addr es s as s oon as a w arr antcoul d be obt ai ned. A n offi cerpos i ng as a U PS del i veryper s on m ade the del i veryt o H ogel and att he T or r es dal e addr es s , w ho s i gned forthe pac kage. M i nut es l at er , the pol i ce a r r es t ed H ogel and out s i de hi s gar age a nd s ear ched hi s hom e, both pur s uantt o t he w arr ant . I ns i de, pol i ce f ound num er ous i t ems, i ncl udi ng kni ves , guns , bom b- m aki ng component s , an i m pr ovi s ed expl os i ve devi ce, s cal es , a s m al l erquant i t yof m ethamphet ami ne, and p o w d e re d e p h e d ri n e .M ethamphet ami ne ( actual ) r efe r s t o the w ei ghtof the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance i t s el f, 1 ra th e r t h a n th e w e ig h t o f th e m ix tu re c o n ta in in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e a s a w h o le . See U SSG § 2D 1. 1. 3 A tt r i al , t he G overnm entcal l ed thr ee e xper tw i t nes s es t o t es t i fy , i ncl udi ng one fr om t he B ur eau of

A l cohol , T obacc o, Fi r earm s and Expl os i ves , and one f r om the P h ilad e lp h ia B o m b S q u a d . T h e ju rya lso h e a rd tes tim o n yf ro m a f o re n sic c h e m ist w ith t he D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on on t he pur i t yand netw ei ghtof the m et ham ph et am i ne (actual) fou nd atH og el and ’s add res s. 1 A ft era thr ee- dayt r i al , t he j uryfound H ogel and gui l t yon al l ei ghtcount s , and the D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 6 0 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. II. W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on overH ogel and’ s cl ai m s of tr i al err orunder28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rtu n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). A. H o g elan d firstarg u es th at th e e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s ver di ctconvi ct i ng hi m of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of m e th a m p h e tam in e (a c tu a l) p u rsu a n t to 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . W e a p p ly“ a p a rticu lar ly defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew . . . and w i l l s us t ai n t he ver di cti f ‘ anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ct coul d have f

ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ).4

H ogel and cont ends t hat , al t hough the pr os ecut i on i ntr oduced e vi dence thathe pos s es s ed a mi xtur e cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne, i tfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hathe pos s es s ed w i t h int ent t o d i stri bu t e m ore than 50 gram s of m et ham ph et am i ne (actual) . H e al so ar gues t hatevi dence r ecove r ed fr om H ogel and’ s hom e s how s thathe i nt ended t o cutt he m ethamphet ami ne mi xtur e w i t h ephedr i ne bef or e di s t r i but i on r atherthan r efi ne the m i xtur e i nt o pur e met hamphet ami ne. Ho g e l a n d ’ s a r g u me n tr e p r e s e n t s a f u n d a me n t a l mi s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 841. T he s t atut e pr os cr i bes a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of t en y ear s i m pr i s onm ent forpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e “50 gr ams orm or e of met hamphet ami ne . . . or500 gr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof m e th a m p h e tam in e .” 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A )(v iii ). A lth o u g h H o g e lan d w o u ld h a v e th is C o u rt re a d th e a ltern a tiv e s s e t o u t in th e sta tu te a s m u tu a llye x c lu siv e , b o th th e p lain m e a n in g o f

th e sta tu te a n d c a se law re f u te h is a rg u m e n t. M ethamphet ami ne maybe meas ur ed ei t herbygr os s w ei ght— i ncl udi ng the w e ig h t o f

th e c u ttin g a g e n ts — o r b yth e n e t w e ig h t o f th e p u re m e th a m p h e ta m in e . A l t hough w e have neverdi r ect l yaddr es s ed thi s i s s ue, tw o of ours i s t erci r cui t s have found ar gum ent s s i m i l art o H ogel and’ s unavai l i ng. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. St oner , 927 F. 2d 45 ( 1s tC i r . 1991) , t he Fi r s tC i r cui tfound thatthe def endant ’ s r eadi ng of § 841 as a p p ly in g o n lyto sa les o f p u re m e th a m p h e tam in e w a s n o t o n lyin c o n sis ten t w ith th e p lain m eani ng of the s t atut e butal s o underm i ned i t s cl earpurpos e bec aus e a c l everdrug5

t r aff i ckerneed onl yadd a pi nch of ba ki ng s oda t o an otherw i s e pur e bag of m e th a m p h e ta m in e to a v o id th e s ta tu te ’s m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . I d. at46. A l s o, becau se al m ostal l drug sam ples con t ai n tr ace am ou nt of i m pu ri t i es, the en t i re fi rs t c a te g o ry in § 8 4 1 o f

5 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e w o u ld b e re n d e re d m o o t. I d. at47. T hi s s ame ar gum entw as r ai s ed and r ej ect ed i n U ni t ed Stat es v. R us her , 966 F. 2d 8 6 8 , 8 7 9 -80 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e cons i s t entw i t h Stoner and R us her . N o te ( B ) to § 2D 1. 1 expl ai ns t hat“[t ] he t erm [] . . . ‘ M ethamphet ami ne ( actual ) ’ r efe r [s ] t o t he w ei ght of the con t rol l ed sub st ance, i t sel f, con t ai ned i n the m i xtur e or subst ance . . . . In the case of a mi xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng . . . m ethamphet ami ne, us e the off ens e l evel det erm i ned byt he ent i r e w ei ghtof the mi xtur e ors ubs t ance , orthe off ens e l evel det erm i ned byt he w ei ghtof the . . . m ethamphet ami ne ( actual ) , w hi cheve ri s gr eat er . ” I n t hi s cas e, w hen pr es ent ed w i t h evi dence both t hatH ogel and pos s es s ed a packa ge cont ai ni ng 471 gr ams of a met hamphet ami ne mi xtur e and thatthe mi xtur e w as 73% pur e, “‘ anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound . . . bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , ’ ” D ent , 149 F. 3d at187 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , thatH ogel and pos s es s ed the r equi s i t e amount of 50 gr ams m ethamphet ami ne ( actual ) . T hus , w e w i l l aff i r m H ogel and’ s convi ct i on under21 U . S. C . § 841 forpos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. B.6

H o g elan d n ex t argu es th at th e e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s ver di ctconvi ct i ng hi m of pos s es s i on of a de s t ruct i ve devi ce i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e. T her e ar e tw o component s t o t hi s cont ent i on. Fi r s t , H ogel and ar gues t hatt her e exi s t s no r el i abl e evi dence thathe pos s es s ed a de s t ruct i ve devi ce. Second, he argues t hat there i s no n exu s bet w een the dev i ce and the d rug t raffi cking cri m e. B ecause H o g e lan d d id n o t ra ise th e iss u e o f su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e b e lo w , w e re v iew f o r p lain e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 5 4 , 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). H ogel and ar gues t hatt he devi ce w as nota bomb and t her efor e he c oul d notbe c o n v icte d o f

p o ss e ss in g a d e stru c tiv e d e v ice . T h e e v id e n c e th a t H o g e lan d w a s in pos s es s i on of a de s t ruct i ve devi ce, how ever , i s compel l i ng. T w o expert s t es t i fi ed i n gr eat d e tail a s to th e m e th o d o f c o n stru c tio n , co m p o sitio n , typ ica l u se s, a n d lik e lye f f e c ts if det onat ed of the devi ce f ound i n H ogel and’ s hom e. I n par t i cul ar , expert s t es t i fi ed thatt he devi ce c ont ai ned a f

us e, m at ch hea ds , an M - 80- t ype expl os i ve, expl os i ve pow der , and amm uni t i on i ns i de a PV C s heathi ng. A ddi t i onal l y , expert s t es t i fi ed thatthe devi ce w as r eadyt o us e ata mom ent ’ s not i ce; i tneede d onl yt o be l i tand hur l ed ata t ar get . Fr om t hi s , a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have c oncl uded thatH ogel and w as i n pos s es s i on of a des t ruct i ve devi ce. H ogel and’ s cont ent i on t hatt he l i nk betw een the devi ce a nd the drug tr aff i cki ng c rim e is to o a tten u a ted is a lso u n c o n v in c in g . T h e U n ited S tate s C o d e m a n d a tes sp e c if ic puni s hm entfor“anyper s on w ho, . . . i n fur t her ance of anys uch [drug tr aff i cki ng] cr i m e,A d e s tru c tiv e d e v ic e q u a lif ie s a s a “ f

ir e a rm ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

§ 9 2 4 (c ). See 18 2 U . S . C . § 9 2 1 (a)(3)-(4). 7 pos s es s es a fi r earm . ” 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. C ebal l os - Torr es , 2 218 F. 3d 409, 415 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) , t he Fi fth C i r cui thel d t hat“fi r earm pos s es s i on that fur t her s , advanc es , orhel ps forw ar d the drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e vi ol at es the s t atut e. ” I d. H ow ever , “[u] nder§ 924( c) , t he ‘ m er e pr es ence ’ of a gun i s notenough. ‘ W hati s i ns t ead r equi r ed i s evi dence m or e s peci fi c t o t he part i cul ardefe ndant , s how i ng thathi s orher pos s es s i on actual l yfur t her ed the drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e. ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d 851, 853 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . R el evantfac t or s i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he pos s es s i on fur t her ed the drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e i ncl ude the “a cce s s i bi l i t yof t h e f i r e a r m, t h e t yp e o f

t h e we a p o n , . . . p r o x i mi t yt o d ru g s o rd ru g p r o f i t s , a n d th e t i me and ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch the gun i s found. ” Id . I n Spar r ow , thi s C our tfound that t he w eapon w as “s t r at egi cal l yl ocat ed” s o as t o be “i m m edi at el yavai l abl e” t o t he d e f e n d a n t d u ri n g d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s . I d. at854. Si m i l ar l y , i n t hi s cas e the des t ruct i ve devi ce w as l ocat ed on a s hel f i n H ogel and’ s hom e, nearot herw eapons and cl os e t o drug p a ra p h e rn a lia a n d th e to o ls w ith w h ich H o g e lan d w o u ld c u t th e m e th a m p h e tam in e to r es el l . W e fi nd t hes e r el evantfac t or s m or e than s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe fi ndi ng thatt he devi ce w as t o be us ed t o fur t herdrug t r aff i cki ng.8

Fort he af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m H ogel and’ s convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 924( c) forpos s es s i on of a de s t ruct i ve devi ce i n fur t her ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. C. H o g elan d also arg u es th at w e sh o u ld v ac ate h is sen tenc e b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to su b tra c t th e m e th a m p h e tam in e in ten d e d f o r p e rso n a l u se , as in d ica ted in the p rese n tenc e re p o rt , fro m the m etha m p h etam ine in tend ed fo r distr ibu ti o n b ef o re es t abl i s hi ng t he mandat or ym i ni m um penal t y . A gai n, beca us e thi s obj ect i on w as not ra is e d b e lo w , w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ouch , 291 F. 3d 251, 252- 53 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H ogel and mai nt ai ns t hatourdeci s i on i n Jans en v. U ni t ed Stat es , 369 F. 3d 237 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , r equi r ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o det erm i ne and s ubtr actthe amountof m ethamphet ami ne he i nt ended t o cons um e bef or e ca l cul at i ng the amounti nt ended f or d istrib u tio n a n d a p p ly in g th e m in im u m p e n a lty . T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I n Jans en , w e not ed thatt he j urydi d not— norw as i tr equi r ed t o — m ake a s peci al fi ndi ng as t o w hethert he drugs i n t hatcas e had be en pos s es s ed bythe def endant w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e, and ther efor e the off ens e l evel w as cal cul at ed byi ncl udi ng bot h t he amountof coc ai ne he i nt ended t o di s t r i but e and the amounti nt ended f orper s onal u s e . I d. C ont r aryt o Jans en , i n t he pr es entcas e the j uryexpr es s l yfound thatH ogel and h a d p o ss e ss e d a t lea st 5 0 g ra m s o f m e th a m p h e tam in e (a c tu a l) w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te9

th a t a m o u n t. E v e n a s s u m in g , ar guendo , thatH ogel and’ s r epor t ed per s onal us e of one gr am perw eek w er e t aken i nt o acc ountbys ett i ng as i de y ear s ’ w or t h of m ethamphet ami ne, H ogel and s t i l l pos s es s ed more than enough of the drug t o s at i s fyt he 50- gr am re qui r ementof § 841. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no err or , and w i l l aff i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. D. Fi nal l y , H ogel and ar gues t hathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve forar gui ng thathe w as gui l t yi n di r ectoppos i t i on t o hi s pl ea of notgui l t y . T hi s C our tor di nar i l ydoes notr evi ew in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im s o n d ire c t ap p e a l. S u c h c laim s a re m o re p ro p e rly re s e rv e d f

o r c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , exce ptw her e the r ecor d es t abl i s hes actual in e f f e c tiv e n e s s , s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. Headl ey , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). T h is condi t i on i s notm eti n H ogel and’ s cas e. B eca us e H ogel and’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m r equi r es an evi dent i aryfi ndi ng of an a bs ence of author i t y , a col l at er al p r o c e e d i n g i n Di s t r i c tCo u r tp u r s u a n tt o § 2 2 5 5 wo u l d b e p r o p e ri n th i s c a s e . T h u s , we w ill d e n yH o g e lan d ’s c laim o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l w ith o u t p re

ju d ice to h is r i ghtt o r ai s e thi s cl ai m on a col l at er al at t ack br oughtpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. Foral l of the af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.