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 3-15-2006 

# U SA v . W i lli ams 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 . 04-4215

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 . W i ll i am s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1425. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1425H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT 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. 04- 4215 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. M A RC U S W I LLI A M S,

a /k /a J AM AR M OFI ELD a /k /a M AR CU S RO L L E RS ON, M arcus W i l l i am s, a/k/ a M ar cus R ol l er s on, 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. 02- cr - 00172- 37) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

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

M ar ch 2, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge. *A ppel l antw as i dent i fi ed i n t he i ndi ctm entas M ar cus W i l l i ams, a/k/ a J amar 1 M o fii eld, a/k/a M arc u s R o ll erso n . A t tri al, d ef en se c o u n sel i n fo rm ed the D istri ct C o u rt t hatt he A ppel l ant ’ s r eal name i s M ar cus R ol l er s on and thati s how he w as i dent i fi ed th ro u g h o u t th e tr ia l. 2 ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 15, 2006 )

_______________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. M ar cus W i l l i ams, a/k/ a M ar cus R ol l er s on ( “R ol l er s on”) appea l s hi s convi ct i on 1 ar i s i ng fr om a mul t i - defe ndantnar cot i cs cons pi r acycas e. R ol l er s on ar gues thathe w as d ep ri v ed o f h is du e p roc ess righ t t o a f air tri al as a resu lto f th e G o v ern m en t’ s pr es ent at i on of fa l s e t es t i m onybyt w o al l eged c o- cons pi r at or s . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l aff

i r m R ol l er s on’ s convi ct i on.

I . Backg r ound A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, ou r r eci t at i on of the fact s w i l l be li m i t ed to tho se nece s s aryt o ourdet erm i nat i on. O n D ece m ber8, 2001, R ol l er s on w as arr es t ed on the se c o n d f lo o r o f a n a rc o tics sta sh h o u se lo c a ted a t 6 3 6 N o rth B ro o k lyn S tre e t in Phi l adel phi a. Pol i ce f

ound m or e than 145 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne, 20 gr ams of coc ai ne, nu m erous i t em s used t o m anu facture and pack age crack co cai ne, fi ve loaded fi rearm s, n u m e ro u s c e llu lar tele p h o n e s a n d tw o -w a yra d io s, a n d m o re th a n $ 4 ,0 0 0 in sm a ll denomi nat i ons of ca s h t hr oughoutt he hous e and on the per s ons of R ol l er s on and a s econd3

in d iv id u a l f

o u n d in th e h o u s e . O n O ct ober24, 2002, R ol l er s on, al ong w i t h 36 co- defe ndant s , w as i ndi ct ed for par t i ci pat i ng i n a mass i ve coc ai ne and c r ack c ons pi r acythatl as t ed fr om 1997 t o 2002 and s panned Phi l adel phi a, w es t ern Penns y l vani a, D el aw ar e, and otherl ocat i ons . R ol l er s on w as char ged w i t h: cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne and c r ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S . C. § 8 4 6 ; p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. §§ 841( a) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 860( a) ; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff

i cki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ; and fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . Pr i ort o t r i al , the G overnm entdi s m i s s ed t w o of the count s : pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s c h o o l, a n d f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm . A tt r i al , t he evi dence pr es ent ed bythe G overnm enti ncl uded the t es t i m onyof C o u rtn e yC a rte r a n d T ra c e yT e a g le, w h o tes tifie d to th e ir d ru g d e a lin g a c tiv iti e s in gener al and thei robs ervat i ons of R ol l er s on atornearthe nar cot i cs s t as h hous e l ocat ed at 6 3 6 N o rth B ro o k lyn S tre e t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t stip u late d a t trial th a t R o llers o n w a s in jail dur i ng 1999, 2000, and the fi r s tei ghtm ont hs of 2001. H ow ever , i n t he cour s e of t es t i fy i ng t hatR ol l er s on w as one of c o- defe ndantM al i k W i l l i ams’ s “boy s ” atorneart he N orth B rooklyn S t reetst ash ho use (C art er) and w as deal i ng narcot i cs near the st ash ho use ( T eagl e) , bot h C ar t erand Teagl e att i m es m ade s t at ement s i m pl y i ng thattheys aw4

R ol l er s on i n 2000. N onethel es s , w hen pr es s ed bycouns el t o pi npoi ntpr eci s el yw hen they encount er ed R ol l er s on atorneart he s t as h hous e, C art erand Teagl e r epea t edl ys t at ed that t h e ywe r e u n s u r e o f

wh e n t h e yo b s e r v e d h i m. A tt he cl os e of the G overnm ent ’ s cas e, R ol l er s on m oved fora di r ect ed ver di ctof acqui t t al underR ul e 29 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, ar gui ng thatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on. R ol l er s on at t acke d t he t es t i m onyof C ar t erand Teagl e, butdi d notr ai s e a due pr oces s cl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m oti on . T he jurysubsequ entl ycon vict ed R oll ers on of the t hree r em ai ning cou nts against h im : co n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e a n d c ra c k c o c a in e , p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te c ra c k c o c a in e , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a rm in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d R o lle rs o n to a to ta l o f 3 0 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. H e re c e iv e d 2 4 0 m o n th s a s to b o th th e c o n sp ira c ya n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te count s , t o run concurr ent l y , and 60 mont hs as t o t he pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance o f d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c o u n t, to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly. I I . D i s cus s i on R o ll erso n ap p ea ls on lyh is co n v ict ion , arg u ing that tw o o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed fa l s el yt hatR ol l er s on w as atorneara nar cot i cs s t as h hous e and deal i ng nar cot i cs i n t he vi ci ni t yof thats t as h hous e dur i ng 2000, w hi ch i s w hen R ol l er s on w a s in c a rc e ra ted o n u n re late d c h a rg e s. R o llers o n th u s c laim s th a t h e w a s d e p riv e d o f h is du e process r i gh tt o a fa i r tri al as a r esul tof the G ov ernm ent’ s pres entat i on of f al se5

te s tim o n y . A tt he out s et , w e not e thatR ol l er s on di d notr ai s e hi s due pr oces s ar gum enti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . R ol l er s on’ s R ul e 29 mot i on foracqui t t al w as bas ed on hi s cl ai m thatt he G o v ern m en t fail ed to p rese n t suf ficien t evid en ce to su stai n a c o n v ict ion . In p arti cu lar, R ol l er s on’ s m ot i on di d notal l ege thatthe w i t nes s es per j ur ed themsel ves , orthatthe G overnm entknow i ngl yi nt r oduced f al s e t es t i m ony , w hi ch ar e the es s ent i al el ement s of t he d ue p rocess cl ai m he m akes on app eal . A ccordi ng l y , becau se R oll ers on did not r ai se the d u e p roc ess a rgu m en t belo w as a g rou n d s fo r ac q u ittal , the p lai n erro r st an d ard governs hi s r eques tforr el i ef. U nderpl ai n err orr evi ew , “bef or e an appel l at e courtcan c orr ectan err ornotr ai s ed at tri al, there m u st be (1) e rror, (2) tha t i s p lai n , an d (3) tha t aff ec ts sub stan ti al ri g h ts. If al l t hr ee c ondi t i ons ar e met , an appe l l at e courtm aythen exe r ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o not i ce a f o rf e ited e rro r, b u t o n lyif

(4 ) th e e rro r se rio u slya f f e c ts th e f a irn e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” J ohns on v. U ni t ed St at es , 520 U . S. 461, 466- 67 ( 1997) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. V azque z, 271 F. 3d 93, 99 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( en banc ) . T he “pl ai n- err orexce pt i on t o t he c o n tem p o ra n e o u s-o b

jec tio n ru le is to b e ‘u se d sp a rin g ly , so lelyin th o se c irc u m sta n c e s in w hi ch a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce w oul d otherw i s e r es ul t . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y oung, 470 U .S . 1 , 1 5 (1 9 8 5 ) (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . F ra d y , 4 5 6 U .S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 3 n .1 4 (1 9 8 2 )). It is R ol l er s on’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h pl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 734- 356

(19 9 3 ). R ol l er s on’ s due pr oces s cl ai m cannots ucce ed underpl ai n err orr evi ew . T he G overnm ents t i pul at ed t o t he fa ctof R ol l er s on’ s i ncar cer at i on, w hi ch contr adi ct ed any su g g e stio n b yC a rte r a n d T e a g le th a t R o llers o n w a s a t o r n e a r th e n a rc o tics sta sh h o u se in 2000, and def

ens e couns el ful l yexpl oi t ed thi s fac ton cr os s - exami nat i on of the G o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss e s. T h u s, th e w itn e ss e s’ s tate m e n ts c o n c e rn in g w h e n th e yc laim e d to have s een Rol l er s on w er e partof the di s put ed fa ct s thatw er e s ubm i t t ed t o t he j uryas t he fi nderof fa ct . T he j ur yw as ent i t l ed t o cons i derthe t es t i m onyof C art erand Teagl e, as w el l as t he otherevi dence pr es ent ed bythe G overnm ent , and det erm i ne fori t s el f the c re d ib ili tya n d w e ig h t o f th e ir tes tim o n yth a t th e yo b se rv e d R o llers o n e n g a g e d in act i vi t i es cons i s t entw i t h a nar cot i cs cons pi r acy . A ccor di ngl y , R ol l er s on has not es t abl i s hed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotfi ndi ng a due pr oces s vi ol at i on bas ed on t he t es t i m onyof C ar t erand Teagl e. I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e w i l l aff i r m R ol l er s on’ s convi ct i on.

. / s /J ul i o M . Fuent es C i r cui tJ udge