2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-31-2014 

# U S A v . Kr i shn a M ot e
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 13-1087

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Kr i shn a M ot e " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 132. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/132NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 13

- 1087

__________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KRISHNA MOTE a/k/a Chris a/k/a Kris KRISHNA MOTE, Appellant

__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 3

- 11

- cr - 00194

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley Submitted Under Third Circuit L AR 34.1(a) November 13, 2013
BEFORE: HARDIMAN , SCIRICA , and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges
( Opinion Filed : January 3 1 , 2014 )

__________ OPINION OF THE COURT

__________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

.2 A jury convicted Krishna Mote for his role in a conspiracy to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base an d 500 grams or more of cocaine ( 21 U.S.C. § 846 ), and for aiding and abetting the possession a nd distribution of cocaine base ( 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ). T he Dis trict Court sentenced Mote to life imprison m ent for the conspiracy and 360 months’ imprisonment for aiding and abettin g
. He appeals the judgment of c onviction and sentence , focusing his argument upon the indictment

. We will affirm. This opinion lacks p recedential value and w e write only for the benefit of the parties , who are familiar with the facts of this case. Mote did not preserve any challe nge s to his indictment and so we review for plain error. United States v. Duka, 671 F.3d 329, 354 (3d Cir. 2011).
Mote claim s that t he facts at trial indicate the existence of two conspiracies : a variance from the single conspiracy charged in the indi ctment. He alternatively argues that the indictment was duplicitous. His assertion s lack merit because the government presented a case that was consistent with the indictment . Numerous witnesses testified to Mote’s inv olvement in a continuous scheme to possess and distribute controlled substances in the area of Lehighton, Pennsylvania between early 2006 and January 2007. Moreover, a great deal of evidence at trial showed that Mote engaged in this enterprise with the sam e individuals during most of the period in question , and worked with a number of people who had an overlapping involveme nt over the entire time span referenced in the indictment. There was a continuous agreement among the participants to carry out the scheme. The evidence does not suppo rt Mote’s claim of two separate3 conspiracies. Therefore, his contention of a variance from or duplicity in the indictment is meritless

. However, even if there was error because of a variance , none of Mote’s substantial right s were prejudiced by either the verdict o r the District Cour t’s sentence. Overwhelming evidence at trial supports t he conclusion t hat Mote was personally responsible for the distribution of 280 grams or more of cocaine base. Mote was the only defendant and does not contest adequate notice of the charge s. Additionally, the specificity of the indictment ensures that he is under no danger of a second prosecution for the same offense. Finally, with three prior felony drug convictions, the District Court properly sentenced him to a man dated life imprisonment. For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court ’s judgment of conviction and
sentence.