* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 91-8583

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELLIS RAY THOMAS, A/K/A NUMBER 7, JERRY THOMAS

MAXWELL, STEVEN DARREL GREGG, MODESTO SERNA

SANCHEZ, JR., A/K/A NUMBER 6, and ROY LEE HODGKISS,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

__________________________________________________

(December 21, 1993)

Before WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE *

, District Judge.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

Defendants Ellis Ray Thomas ("Thomas"), Jerry Thomas Maxwell

("Maxwell"), Steven Darrel Gregg ("Gregg"), Modesto Serna Sanchez,

Jr. ("Sanche z"), and Roy Lee Hodgkiss ("Hodgkiss") were jointly

tried before a jury and convicted of various offenses stemming from

a conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Thomas, Maxwell, Gregg, and

Sanchez were convi cted of conspiring to possess a controlled

substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§1 John Rogala and his associates were "01"; Alan Gardner

and his associates were "03"; Sanchez was "06"; Thomas was "07";

Vance Zimme rman was "10"; Wesley Schneider was "13"; Clark was

"14"; Curtis was "17"; Keith and Angela Norman were "26"; and

Donald Copeland was "333". The government was unable to discover

-2- 841(a)(1) and 846 (1988). The jury also found Thomas and Sanchez

guilty of possessing a controlled substance with inten t to

distribute and aiding and abetting such possession, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Additionally, Sanchez was

found guilty of money laundering and aiding and abetting money

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i ) and 2.

Hodgkiss w as convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal

enterprise ("CCE"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a)(1), and of

using or carrying a machine gun in relation to a drug trafficking

offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). All five

defendants now appeal their convictions and sentences. We affirm

in part and reverse and remand in part.

I

From 1986 to 1989, Hodgkiss operated an extensive conspiracy

to distribute cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana

in central Texas. Hodgkiss employed many people, including

government witnesses Aaron Clark and Robbie Curtis, to store,

transport, and distribute controlled substances. To facilitate the

purchase and sale of narcotics, and to insulate the conspiracy from

detection by law enforcem ent personnel, Hodgkiss devised a code

system utilizing digital pagers. Hodgkiss assigned code numbers to

various people, 1 types of drugs, and locations where the sales werethe identities of "09", "10", and "69".

2 Hodgkiss also arranged purch ases of drugs from David LeBoeuf, Joe

Reed, Kanetha Childers, Diane Watson, Clyde McCullar, and Billy Basham.

3 On December 14, 1989, agents seized from Hodgkiss's home drug

ledgers, a list of code numbers and telephone numbers assigned to Hodgkiss's

distributors, a small amount of methamphetamine, over $20,000 in cash, a

telephone scrambling device, and firearms. Agents already had seized drug

ledgers, methamphetamine, marihuana, and other narcotics fro m Gregg's home.

Agents who searched Sanchez's residence in March 1990 seized a scale of the type

commo nly used to weigh drugs, a trunk containing marihuana residue, and a

telephone scrambling device. Agents searching Maxwell's house seized several

-3- to b e consummated. Customers would contact Hodgkiss to set up a

drug deal. Hodgkiss then would use the pagers to notify his

employee s that, for example, person "01" would be waiting at

location "01" to purch ase a specified amount of drug "01."

Hodgkiss kept record s detailing many of the drug transactions he

arranged.

Hodgkiss obtained the drugs distributed by his retailers from

various sources. John Rogala provided Hodgkiss with much of the

cocaine distributed by the conspiracy, while Alan Gardner sold

l arge quantities of methamphetamine to Hodgkiss. 2 Eventually,

Hodgkiss and Rogala began manufacturing methamphetamine themselves

at a laboratory they established near Smithville, Texas. Hodgkiss

and Rogala also attempted to import large quantities of marijuana

into the United States from Mexico, although they ultimately were

unsuccessful.

An investigation by local and federal authorities led to the

arrests of twenty-nine participants in t he Hodgkiss conspiracy,

including the defendants, all of whom were charged in an indictment

alleging a number of drug-related offenses. 3 A jury found the fivehand scales, firearms, and a cocaine grinder.

-4- defendants guilty of all charged offenses. The district court then

sentenced Thomas to a prison term of 240 months. Maxwell received

a term of 124 months. Gregg received a 324 month term of

imprisonment. The district court sentenced Sanchez to a prison

term of 240 months, and Hodgkiss to life imprisonment. The

defendants now appeal their convictions and sentences.

II

Joint Claims

A

All five defendants generally argue that the evidence proved

the existence not of the single conspiracy alleged in the

indictment, but of multiple conspiracie s

. Gregg specifically

argues that there was a "material variance" between the single

conspiracy alleged in the indictment and the multiple conspiracies

proved by the government at trial. A conspiracy is "an agreement

by two or more persons to commit one or more unlawful acts and an

overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the

conspiracy." U

nited States v. Romeros

, 600 F.2d 1104, 1106 (5th

Cir. 1979), cert. denied

, 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S. Ct. 1025, 62 L. Ed.

2d 759 (1980). A conspiracy conviction must be upheld if any

reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that

"a conspiracy existed, that each co-defendant knew of the

c onspiracy, and that each co-defendant voluntarily joine d it."

United States v. Simmons

, 918 F.2d 476, 483-84 (5th Cir. 1990)-5-

(internal quota tion omitted). "No evidence of overt conduct is

required. A conspiracy agreement may be tacit, and the trier of

fact may infer agreement f rom circumstantial evidence." U nited

States v. Hernandez-Palacios

, 838 F.2d 1346, 1348 (5th Cir. 1988).

"In general, once an indictment has been returned, its charges

may not be broadened through amendment except by the grand jury."

United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc.

, 934 F.2d 599, 606 (5th

Cir. 1991). A material variance occurs when a variation between

proof and indictment occurs, but does not mo dify an essential

element of the offense charged. Id. "With variance, our concern

is whether the indictment, assuming it has o therwise alleged the

elements of the offense, has so informed a defendant that he can

prepare his defense without surprise and has protected him against

a second prosecution for the same offenses." U nited States v.

Cochran

, 697 F.2d 600, 604 (5th Cir. 1983). If a material variance

occurs, we determine whether the defendant has been prejudiced by

it using the harmless error analysis. U nited States v. Lokey

, 945

F.2d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1991).

Whether the evidence, or the reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom, proved one or more conspiracies turns on the following

elements: (1) the time period involved, (2) the persons acting as

co-conspirators, (3) the statutory offenses charged in the

indictment, (4) the nature and scope of the criminal activity, and

(5) the places where the events alleged as the conspiracy took

place. L okey

, 945 F.2d at 831; U nited States v. Devine

, 934 F.2d-6-

1325, 1333 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 112 S. Ct.

954, 117 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992). Here, the jury was presented with

evidence from which it could reasonably infer that the defendants

were involved in a single conspiracy between 198 6 and 1989. For

example, Clark and Curtis both testified that they delivered drugs

at Hodgkiss's direction to Thomas and Sanchez during the relevant

time period. Curtis also testified that he obtained his "job" with

Hodgkiss through Alan Gardner, who often would collect the proceeds

of drug sales from Curtis for Hodgkiss. Moreover, Gardner would

inform Curtis of the pick-up loca tions for methamphetamine that

Hodgkiss purchased. Additionally, Clark testified that John Rogala

and Patrick Palmer set up the Smithville methamphetamine laboratory

at Hodgkiss's direction and that Rogala brought the methamphetamine

produced at the laborato ry to Clark for distribution pursuant to

Hodgkiss's directions. Palmer stated that Rogala introduced him to

Hodgkiss and that Hodgkiss and R ogala jointly reimbursed him for

expenses he incurred while leasing the Smithville property. Edward

Crawford , who oversaw the manufacture of methamphetamine for

Hodgkiss, testified that he was paid for his services by Hodgkiss

through Gard ner. Donald Copeland testified that Rogala and

Hodgkiss attempted t o smuggle a large quantity of marijuana into

the United States from Mexico. Gardner testified that he often

purchased narcotics from Hod gkiss and that Hodgkiss knew Gardner

would be distributing the drugs to others, including Maxwell.

Richard Townsen, one of Rogala's emp loyees, testified that Gregg-7-

delivered up to fifteen kilograms of cocaine to him, many of which

Rogala then delivered to Hod gkiss. Finally, Norman Allanson

testified that Gregg transported fifteen kilograms of cocaine that

Rogala had purchased from Florida to Texas.

Nonetheless, the defendants assert that because they did not

know the identity of other members of the Hodgkiss conspiracy, they

could not be guilty of conspiring with them. However, a jury may

find a defendant guilty of conspiring with unknown persons where a

sufficient overlap of personnel occurs )) i.e., "if a pivotal figure,

such as [Hodgkiss], directs and organizes the illegal activity, and

has extensive dealings with each of the parties." L okey

, 945 F.2d

at 833. Thus, "[p]arties who knowingly participate with core

conspirators to achieve a common goal may be members of an overall

conspiracy ," even in the absence of contact with other

conspirators. U

nited States v. Richerson

, 833 F.2d 1147, 1154 (5th

Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). Therefore, as noted, the

jury's conclusion that Hodgk iss, Gregg, Sanchez, Thomas, and

Maxwell were co-conspirators was reasonable in l ight of the

evidence presented at trial.

Moreover, the jury reasonably could have inferred from the

evidence that the defendants had a common goal of distributing

illegal drugs for profit, that they knew they were part of a larger

venture, and that the activities of each conspirator were

advantageous to the success of the overall venture:

Where the activities of one aspect of the scheme are

necessary or advantageous to the success of another4 In fact, the district court specifically instructed the jury that

[i]f you find that the conspiracy charge d did not exist, then you

must return a not guilty verdict as to each Defendant . . . , even

though you find that some other conspiracy or conspiracies existed.

If you find that a defendant was not a member of the conspiracy

charged in the indictment, then you must find that Defendant not

guilty, even though the Defendant may have been a member of some

other conspiracy.

This instruction, which substantially tracks our Pattern Jury Instructions

, does

not permit the jur y to convict the defendants for crimes not charged in the

indictment. S ee Zafiro v. United States

,

___ U.S.

___, 113 S. Ct. 933, 939, 122

L. Ed. 2d 317 (1993) (noting that "`juries are pr esumed to follow their

instructions'") (quoting Richardson v. Marsh

, 481 U.S. 200, 209, 107 S. Ct. 1702,

1708, 95 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1987)).

-8- aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the

venture, where there are several parts inherent in a

larger common plan, or wher e the character of the

property involved or nature of the activity is such that

knowledg e on the part of one member concerning the

existence and function of other members of the same

scheme is nece ssarily implied due to the overlapping

nature of th e various roles of the participants, the

existence of a single conspiracy will be inferred.

United States v. Elam

, 678 F.2d 1234, 1246 (5th Cir. 1982). "[I]n

many narcotics distribution networks the ultimate retailers may not

know the identities of those who supply their wholesaler, and the

retailers' identities may be unknown to those suppliers; but all

are well aware that they are participating in a collective

venture ." Lokey , 945 F.2d at 831 (internal quotation omitted).

The jury reasonably could have found that the defendants were part

of a single conspira cy: Gregg as a supplier, Hodgkiss as a

wholesaler, and Thomas, Maxwell, and Sanchez as retailers. Thus,

we find that the jury convicted the defendants only of the single

conspiracy charged, not the multiple conspiracies defendants allege

existed. 45 Maxwell and Gregg moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of

the government's case, but not at the close of their cases.

-9- Finally, even if the evidence did pr ove the existence of

multiple conspiracies, the defendants, t o obtain reversal, still

must demonstrate that the variance affected their subs t antial

rights. Here, we find that the indictment sufficiently informed

the defendants of the offenses charged and that they were not

surprised at trial. S ee Cochran

, 697 F.2d at 604. Nor were the

convictions based upon a "se t of facts distinctly different from

that set forth in the indictment." U nited States v. Chandler

, 858

F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir. 1988) (in ternal quotation omitted).

Accordingly, if any material variance occurred, we find that it was

harmless error. S ee Lokey

, 945 F.2d at 834; see also United States

v. Jackson

, 978 F.2d 903, 911 (5th Cir. 1992) ("[W]hen the

indictment alleges the conspiracy count as a single conspiracy, but

the `government proves m ultiple conspiracies and a defendant's

involvement in at least one of the m, then clearly there is no

variance affecting that defendant's substantial rights.'")

(citation omitted), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 113 S. Ct. 2429,

124 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1993).

B

The defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to

support their respective convictions for various drug-related

offenses. However, they failed to move for a judgment of acquittal

at the close of their cases. 5 Accordingly, we restrict our review-10-

of their claims to whether their convictions resulted in a manifest

miscarriage of justice. U nited States v. Vaquero

, 997 F.2d 78, 82

(5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (1993); U nited States v.

Galvan , 949 F.2d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 1991). "Such a miscarriage

would exist only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to

guilt, or . . . [if] the evidence on a key element of the offense

was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking." Galvan , 949

F.2d at 782-83 (citations omitted). "In making this determination,

the evidence, as with the regular standard for review of

insufficiency of evidence claims, must be considered `in the light

most favorable to the government, giving the government the benefit

of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices.'" U nited

States v. Ruiz

, 860 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting

Hernandez-Palacios

, 838 F.2d at 1348). Moreover, "[o]nly slight

evidence is needed to connect an individual to an illegal

conspiracy once the [government] has p roduced evidence of that

conspiracy." Vaquero , 997 F.2d at 82.

1

Maxwell contends that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with

intent to distribute. However, Alan Gardner ) ) who at one time

supplied Hodgkiss with drugs but later began purchasing drugs at

wholesale prices from Hodgkiss ) ) testified that he began selling

cocaine to Maxwell in March 1988. Gardner stated that although

Maxwell usually purchased two ounces of uncut cocaine every other6 "The term `fronted' refers to a transfer of drugs in which one person

transfers the drugs to a second person in return for the second person's promise

to pay t he sales price within a few days." U nited States v. Alfaro

, 919 F.2d

962, 963 (5th Cir. 1990); s ee also United States v. Chase , 838 F.2d 743, 746

(5th Cir.) (defining "fronted" to mean "delivered on consignment"), cert. denied

, 486 U.S. 1035, 108 S. Ct. 2022, 100 L. Ed. 2d 609 (1988). Thus, the jury may

reasonably infer that if a person has been fronted drugs, that person likely is

a dealer who intends to sell all or a portion of the drugs in order to pay the

drug supplier.

-11- week, Maxwell on occasion would order up to four ounces. Moreover,

Gardner normally "fronted" 6 the cocaine to Maxwell. Gardner

employee Charles Barton corroborated Gardner's testimony. Ronald

McWilliams, who at one time supplied cocaine to Maxwell, testified

that he purchased cocaine from Maxwell on two occasions in 1989.

The jury could have concluded from this evidence that Maxwell

was a member of the Hodgkiss conspiracy. Maxwell received uncut

cocaine from Gardner, who purchased cocaine from Hodgkiss with

Hodgkiss's knowledge that the cocaine would be resold. Moreover,

Gardner also fronted the cocaine to Maxwell, allowing the jury to

infer that Maxwell was acting as a retailer of the cocaine. This

inference is supported by the testimony of McWilliams, who stated

that he purchased cocaine from Maxwell on two occasions.

Accordingly, Maxwell's c onviction did not result in a manifest

miscarriage of justice.

2

Gregg also argues that the evidence did not support his

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute.

However, Richard Townsen, who worked for Rogala, testified that on

several occasions Gregg delivered multiple kilograms of cocaine to7 Townsen testified that Grey Hayes and Gregg were "partners" and that

Rogala purchased cocaine from Hayes. Allanson stated that he had been selling

cocaine to Gregg and Hayes for approximately ten years before his arrest.

-12- him that had been purchased by Rogala. Pursuant to instructions

from Rogala, Townsen would park his truck at a specified location

and then "di sappear" for a couple of hours. Gregg, who obtained

the keys to Townsen's truck from Rogala, would place the cocaine in

the truck during Townsen's absence. Norman Allanson testified that

he sold cocaine to Rogala and Grey Hayes. 7 On one occasion, Gregg

transported eight kilograms of cocaine from Florida to Texas for

Rogala. On a second occasion, Gregg transported seven kilograms

from Florida to Texas for Rogala. On a third occasion, Gregg

transported a sizable quantity of marijuana to Florida, picked up

five kilograms of cocaine from Allanson, but sold some of the

cocaine in Florida when he was not able to sell the marijuana.

Consequently, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government, Gregg's conviction did not result in a manifest

miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Greenwood , 974 F.2d

1449, 1457 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that "common sense dictates that

someone ultimately would be responsible for distributing the

various . . . loads of marijuana which [the defendant] had helped

smuggle into the United States"), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 113

S. Ct. 2354, 124 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1993); U nited S tates v. PinedaOrtuno

, 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir.) (noting that intent to

distribute may be inferred from the fact that the defendant

possessed "a larger quantity of cocaine than an ordinary user would8 Thomas further argues that the government did not establish the

identity of "07" because the government's "entire case was based on

circumstantial evidence." However, the government may use circumstantial

evidence to establish the identity of a conspirator. S ee Hernandez-Palacios

, 838

F.2d at 1348 (allowing the jury to infer that a defendant voluntarily joined a

conspiracy from circumstantial evidence). Moreover, Clark testified that Thomas

was "07" and Curtis testified that he delivered cocaine to Thomas on a regular

basis. Thus, the evidence supports the jury's finding that Thomas was "07."

-13- possess for personal consumption"), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 112

S. Ct. 1990, 118 L. Ed. 2d 587 (1992).

3

Thomas contends that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conspiracy conviction. Curtis, however, testified that while

he worked for Hodgkiss, he delivered one to two ounce quantities of

controlled substances to Thomas twice a week. Clark testified

that, pursuant to instructions given to him by Hodgkiss, he gave

both drugs and recor ds of drug sales to Thomas for delivery to

Hodgkiss. Moreover, Clark stated that he delivered controlled

substances to Thomas on several occasions, and Hodgkiss assigned a

code number to Thomas to facilitate the distribution of narcotics. 8

As with Gregg, we find that this evidence is sufficient to support

Thomas's conviction for conspiring to possess a controlled

substance with intent to distribute.

4

Sanchez contends that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction for money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956. To establish a violation of this section, the government

must prove t hat Sanchez (1) knowingly conducted a financial9 A "financial transaction" is defined as "the mo vement of funds by

wire or other means or

. . . one or more monetary instruments" that "in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(4).

-14- transaction 9 (2) that involved the proceeds of an unlawful activity

(3) with the intent to promote or further that unlawful activity.

United States v. Salazar

, 958 F.2d 1285, 1293 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied , ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 185, 121 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1992).

Sanchez argues that the evidence supporting his conviction is

insufficient because it consists only of "government agents piecing

togeth er some written materials seized during drug raids which

materials purportedly referenced [Sanchez] selling marijuana to

someone unknown in the Hodgkiss organization." We disagree.

Clark testif ied that Sanchez, whose code number was "06,"

deliver ed ten to fifteen pound quantities of marijuana to Clark

"more than once." Clark stated that these transactions would be

reflected in the drug ledgers seized from his residence. Officer

Philip Steen testified that Clark's drug ledgers showed that Clark

received fifteen pounds of marijuana from and paid $8,800 to

Sanchez in M arch 1988. Steen also stated that a similar sale

occurred in April 1988 and that Sanchez was paid with money derived

from drug sales. As Clark was a member of the Hodgkiss conspiracy

and the drug ledgers reflected the movement of drug proceeds from

Clark to Sanchez, the evidence supports the jury's conclusion that

Sanchez was guilty of money laundering.10 Section 848(c) provides that a person engages in a CCE if:

(1) he violates any provision of [title 21] the punishment for which

is a felony, and

(2) such violation is part of a continuing series of violations of

[title 21] ))

(A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with

five or more other persons with respect to whom such

person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory

position, or any other position of management, and

(B) from which such person obtains substantial income or

resources.

11 Hodgkiss conceded at oral argument that he "probably" supervised a

fourth person )) Edward Crawford.

-15- 5

a

Hodgkiss first argues that the evidenc e is insufficient to

support his conviction for engaging in a CCE, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 848, because he did not organize, supervise, or otherwise

manage five participants in his drug-trafficking conspiracy. 10

Hodgkiss, however, admits in his brief that he s upervised three

persons ) ) Aaron Clark, Robbie Curtis, and Gina Raven, Hodgkiss's

girlfriend. 11 Thus, the question before us is whether the evidence

supports a finding that Hodgkiss supervised two additional

participants in the conspiracy.

Edward Crawford, who has a doctorate in chemistry, testified

that, for the sum of $25,000, he manufactured methamphetamine for

Ho dgkiss and, at Hodgkiss's direction, instructed two other

persons ) ) "Jake" and Patrick Palmer )) "in the art and science of

manufacturing methamphetamine." Crawford, Jake, and Palmer used

chemicals obtained from Wesley Schneider to produce approximately12 M oreover, Palmer tes tified that Hodgkiss directed him to find a

suitable location for a methamphetamine lab. Palmer then found the Smithville

site, leased it in his own name with his own funds, and subsequently was

reimbursed by John Rogala and Hodgkiss. After Crawford and Palmer manufactured

one batch of methamphetamine, Hodgkiss instructed Palmer to place the remaining

chemicals and lab equipment in storage.

13 Because we find that Hodgkiss organized, supervised, or managed

Crawford and Palmer, we need not discuss whether Hodgkiss managed anyone else.

However, we note that substantial evidence indicates that Hodgkiss likely managed

several other persons at various times during the conspiracy's existence. See

United States v. Phillips

, 664 F.2d 971, 1034 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (noting that

"the requisite five persons need not have acted in concert at the same time"),

cert. denied , 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 2965, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982).

14 This section provides that

[w]hoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug

trafficking crime

. . . for which he may be prosecuted in a court of

the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to

the punishment provided fo r such crime of violence or drug

trafficking crime, be sentenc e d

. . . if the firearm is a machine

gun . . . to imprisonment for thirty years.

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). "The term `machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is

designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than

one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26

U.S.C. § 5845(b).

-16- twenty-four pounds of methamphetamine at a "meth lab" near

Smithville, Texas. Thus, the jury reasonably could infer from

Crawford's testimony that Hodgkiss directed Crawford, Jake, and

Palmer. 12 Consequently, examining the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government and giving the government the benefit

of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices, we find that

Hodgkiss managed at least five persons within the meaning of the

statute. 13

b

Hodgkiss also appeals his conviction for using or carrying a

machine gun in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). 14 Hodgkiss argues that the firearm1 5 Interestingly, Hodgkiss's attorney conceded during closing argument

that the weapon was a machine gun: "I started out trying to downplay the fact

that it was a machine gun. But after [Descheemaeker] got on, I just ) ) he just

backed me down. I )) it's a machine gun, I give up."

-17- alleged by the government to be a machine gun actually was not such

a weapon, that he did not "use or carry" the machine gun within the

meaning of t he statute, and that the district court erred in not

granting a judgm ent of acquittal on the machine gun count. We

disagree with all three contentions.

(i)

Hodgkiss i nitially argues that the AR-15 rifle found in his

house by government agents was not a machine gun within the meaning

of § 924(c)(1). However, two expert witnesses ) ) Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms agents Davy Aguilera and Geoffrey

Descheemaeker )) testified that the weapon had been altered to fire

as a machine gun. Thus, the evidence sufficiently supported the

jury's conclusion that the weapon at issue was a machine gun. 15 S ee

Greenwood

, 974 F.2d at 1458 ("Assess ing the credibility of

witnesses . . . is the exclusive province of the jury.").

(ii)

Hodgkiss next contends that he did not "use or carry" the

firearm within the meaning of the statute because the machine gun

was unloaded and stored in a zippered gun bag in a second-floor

closet. The presence of firearms at the home of a defendant where

drugs, money, and ammunition are also found, however, is sufficient

to establish the "use" of a firearm as an integral part of a drugtrafficking crime in violation of § 924(c). See United States v.16 Hodgkiss previously told Howell that "his business" involved

supplying money to people for drug deals.

-18- Robi nson , 857 F.2d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1988). "The fact that a

weapon is `unloaded' or `inoperable' does not insulate the

defendant from the reach of section 924(c)(1)." United States v.

Contreras

, 950 F.2d 232, 241 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied

,

___

U.S.

___, 112 S. Ct. 2276, 119 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1992); s ee also Reed

v. Butler

, 866 F.2d 128 (5th Cir.) (discussing the dangerousness of

unloaded or inoperable firearms), cert. denied

, 490 U.S. 1050, 109

S. Ct. 1963, 104 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1989). "Moreover, this Court has

held that the Government is only obliged to show that the firearm

was available to provide protection to the defendant in connection

with his engagement in drug trafficking; a showing that the weapon

was used, handled or brandished in an affirmative manner is not

required." United States v. Molinar-Apodaca , 889 F.2d 1417, 1424

(5th Cir. 1989); s ee al so United States v. Blake , 941 F.2d 334,

342 (5th Cir. 1991), c ert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 113 S. Ct. 596,

121 L. Ed. 2d 533 (1992).

Agents seized from H odgkiss's house the machine gun,

ammunition for it, other firearms, coded drug ledgers, a small

amount of methamphetamine, and over $20,000 in cash. Don Howell,

the stepfather of Hodgkiss's girlfriend, Gina Raven, testified that

Hodgkiss on one occasion stated that he needed the weapon for

protection because of "his line of business." 16 See United States

v. Martinez , 808 F.2d 1050, 1057 (5th Cir.) ("Firearms are `tools1 7 Although the jury found Hodgkiss guilty of the conspiracy alleged in

count two, the dis trict court entered a judgment of acquittal on that count

because the jury also found Hodgkiss guilty of engaging in a continuing criminal

enterprise, of which conspiracy is a lesser-included offense. See Devine , 934

F.2d at 1342 (noting that "a § 846 conspiracy is a lesser-included offense of a § 848 continuing criminal enterprise").

-19- of the trade' of those engaged in illegal drug activities."), cert.

denied

, 481 U.S. 1032, 107 S. Ct. 1962, 95 L. Ed. 2d 533 (1987).

Based upon the record evidence, the jury was entitled to conclude

based that Hodgkiss used the machine gun in relation to a drugtrafficking offense. See, e.g.

, U nited States v. Capote-Capote

,

946 F.2d 1100, 1104 (5th Cir. 1991) (machine gun found with a

loaded clip beside it in a closed drawer of a chest on the second

floor of an apartment facili tated a drug transaction), c ert.

denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 112 S. Ct. 227 8, 119 L. Ed. 2d 204 (1992);

United States v. Coburn

, 876 F.2d 372, 375 (5th Cir. 1989)

(unloaded shotgun in gun rack of vehicle containing marijuana

violated § 924(c) even though no shells were found in the vehicle).

(iii)

Hodgkiss finally contends that the district erred in denying

his post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal on the machine

gun count, which defined the predicate drug trafficking crime

required by § 924(c) to be the conspiracy alleged in count two of

the indictment. Hodgkiss argues that because he was acquitted of

the conspiracy upon which the § 924(c) violation was predicated, he

could not have been guilty of a § 924(c) violation. 17

Hodgkiss misinterprets the requirements of § 924(c). "[T]here

is no statutory requirement that the government secure an-20-

underlying drug-trafficking conviction as a predicate for invoking

section 924(c)(1)." United States v. Munoz-Fabela , 896 F.2d 908,

909 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 824, 111 S. Ct. 76, 112 L.

Ed. 2d 49 (1990). Instead, "it is only the fact of the offense,

and not a conviction, that is needed to establish the required

predicate." I d. at 911; s ee also United States v. Ruiz

, 986 F.2d

905, 911 (5th Cir.) (acquittal on the predicate count does not

preclude a conviction under § 924(c) if a reasonable jury could

have fou nd the defendant guilty of the predicate act), c ert.

denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 114 S. Ct. 145, 126 L. Ed. 2d 107 (1993).

Thus, the jury's finding that Hodgkiss engaged in a conspiracy to

distribute illeg al drugs qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense

under § 924(c), and is more than sufficient to support Hodgkiss's

conviction. Accordingly, the district court did not err in

refusing to enter a judgment of acquittal.

C

Sanchez and Hodgkiss contend that the district court erred in

denying their motions for severance under Fed. R. Crim. P. 14.

Sanchez contends that he was entitled to a severance because he had

only a minimal involvement in the conspiracy, the jury was "simply

overwhelmed" by the volume of evidence, and evidence admissible

against other defendants was inadmissible as to him. Hodgkiss

argues that he was entitled to severance because evidence was

admissible against other defendants but inadmissible against him1 8 Sanchez and Hodgkiss further allege that the indictment incorrectly

charged a single conspiracy, thus demo n strating that joinder was initially

incorrect under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). In such cases, the defendants, to obtain

a reversal of their convictions, need only establish that the misjoinder resulted

in "actual prejudice." U nited States v. Lane

, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S. Ct. 725,

732, 88 L. Ed. 2d 814 (1986). However, we already have found that the evidence

supported the jury's verdict that a single conspiracy existed. See part II.A.

supra . Consequently, the Lane test is inapplicable. See also United States v.

Piaget

, 915 F.2d 138, 142 (5th Cir. 1990) (stating that Rule 8(b) "is to be

broadly construed in favor of initial joinder").

-21- and his defense strategy conflicted with that of at least one of

his co-defendants. 18

Denial of a motion for severance is reviewable only for an

abuse of discretion. Z afiro v. United States

,

___ U.S.

___, 113 S.

Ct. 933, 939, 122 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1993); United States v. ArzolaAmaya

, 867 F.2d 1504, 1516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 493 U.S. 933,

110 S. Ct. 322, 107 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1989). "Reversal is warranted

only when the [defendant] can demonstrate co mpelling prejudice

against which the trial court was unable to afford protection."

Arzola-Amaya

, 867 F.2d at 1516. "The rule, rather than the

exception, is that persons i ndicted together should be tried

together , especially in conspiracy cases." U nited States v.

Pofahl

, 990 F.2d 1456, 1483 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___,

114 S. Ct. 266, 126 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1993). Accordingly, a

quantitative disparity in the evidence "is clearly insufficient in

itself to justify severance." U nited States v. Harrelson

, 754 F.2d

1153, 1175 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S. Ct. 599,

88 L. Ed. 2d 578 (1985). Moreover, "the mere presence of a

spillover ef fect does not ordinarily warrant severance." U nited

States v. Sparks

, 2 F.3d 574 , 583 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally,1 9 In addition to the multiple conspiracy instruction, see note 4 supra

,

the district court gave the following instruction:

In determining whether a Defendant was a member of the alleged

conspiracy,

. . . you should consider only the evidence, if any,

pertaining to his own acts and statements. He is not responsible

for the acts or declarations of other alleged participants until it

is established beyond a reasonable doubt first that a conspiracy

existed, and second, that the Defendant was one of the members.

The district court also instructed the jury that the defendant s were not "on

trial for any act, conduct or offense or offenses not alleged in the superseding

indictment."

-22- severance is not required merely because co-defendants present

mutually antagonistic defenses: "Rule 14 leaves the determination

of risk of p rejudice and any remedy that may be necessary to the

sound discretion of the district court." Z afiro

, 113 S. Ct. at

938-39.

In this case, the government off e red sufficient evidence

demonstrating that Sanchez and Hodgkiss were guilty of the crimes

charged. S ee parts II.B.4 and .5 supra

. Moreover, even if some

risk of prejudice existed, the district court properly instructed

the jury to limit evidence to the appropriate defendant, 1 9 and

"`juries are presumed to follow their instructions.'" Z afiro

, 113

S. Ct. at 939 (quoting Richardson v. Marsh

, 481 U.S. 200, 209, 107

S. Ct. 1702, 1708, 95 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1987)). Sanchez and Hodgkiss

provide no sound reason for departing from this principle. Because

Sanchez and Hodgkiss did not suffer compelling prejudice against

which the di strict court was unable to afford protection, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever

their cases.20 This section provides in relevant part:

(b) After a witness called by the United States has testified

on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant,

order the United States to produce any statement ( as hereinafter

defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which

relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.

If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject

matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to

be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.

21 In Brady

, the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the

prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process

where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the

good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-

97.

-23- D

Sanchez and Hodgkiss next contend that th e district court's

denial o f their requests for production of notes prepared by

federal agents who debriefed several plea-bargaining defendants

vio lated both the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, 2 0 and the Supreme

Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland

, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 8 3 S. Ct.

1194, 1196-97, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). 21 The government contends

that the debrief ing notes are neither Jencks Act nor B rady

material.

Under the Jencks Act, a "statement" is (1) a written statement

signed or otherwise adopted or approved by t he witness, or (2) a

"substantially verbatim recital" of an oral statement made by the

witness. 18 U.S.C. § 3500; U nited States v. Pierce

, 893 F.2d 669,

675 (5th Cir. 1990). An agent's interview notes thus are not

"statements" of the witnesses interviewed unless the witnesses

"signed, read, or heard the entire document read." P ierce

, 893

F.2d at 675. Although the defendants thoroughly cross-examined22 Al though the district court addressed the issue whether the notes

constituted Jencks Act statements of the plea-bargaining defendants, the court

did not discuss whether the notes co n stituted Jencks Act statements of the

testifying agents. See note 25 infra

.

-24- each of the government witnesses, they were unable to produce any

evidence that one of these three conditions was met. See id.

Similarly, there is no evidence that any portion of the notes was

a substantially verbatim transcription of the witness's statements.

Thus, the notes are not discoverable under the Jencks Act as

statements of the plea-bargaining defendants. 22 U nited States v.

Mora , 994 F.2d 1129, 1138 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___,

___ S. Ct. ___ (1993); U nited States v. Ramirez

, 954 F.2d 1035,

1038 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 3010, 120

L. Ed. 2d 884 (1992).

The defendants also contend that the notes constitute B r ady

material because they contain either exculpatory evidence or

evidence useful for impeachment purposes. Prior to trial, the

defendants requested from the government any Brady evidence. The

district court denied their motions as moot in light of the

government's assurances that all Jencks and Brady material would be

prod uced. During trial, however, the defendants discovered that

the government failed to produce the notes made by agents during

debrief i ng sessions with the plea-bargaining defendants. The

government contends that the debriefing notes did not have to be

produced because they contained no exculpatory or otherwise useful

information. The record is unclear as to whether the district2 3 The government contends that the district court reviewed

all debriefing notes prepared by government agents. The record,

however, indicates that the governmen t produced only two sets of

notes )) one for the debriefing sessions of Alan Gardner and one for

witness Don Howell. Moreover, only the notes related to Gardner

are included in the record on appeal.

24 The district court reviewed in camera the notes from

Gardner's debriefing sessions. The court then denied Maxwell's

motion for production of the notes, thereby implying that the notes

contained no Brady material. However, in denying Maxwell's motion,

the court remarked that "to say there i s no exculpatory or B rady

material in that would be to engage in sever e o verstatement ."

(Emphasis added). While the district court may have merely

misstated his conclusion, the exact import of its ruling is unclear

in these circumstances.

-25- court reviewed in camera all or just a portion of the notes sought

by the defendants. 23 Moreover, the record is unclear as to the

exact findings of the d istrict court regarding the material

reviewed in camera by the court. 24

Accordingly, rather than determine ourselves whether the

government should have produced the notes pursuant to the B rady

doctrine )) i.e., whether the notes contain evidence material either

t o guilt or punishment )) we remand this matter to pe rmit the

district court to make such a determination in the first instance.

United S tates v. Gaston , 608 F.2d 607, 614 (5th Cir. 1979); s ee

also United States v. Welch

, 810 F .2d 485, 491 (5th Cir. 1987)

(similar remedy with respect to Jencks Act); U nited States v.

Hogan , 763 F.2d 697, 704 (5th Cir. 1985) (same). If the district

court concludes that the notes need not have been produced, it

should supplement the record with the notes and with sufficiently

detailed findings to enable us to review the decision. W elch

, 8102 5 Because we remand this matter the district court, we need not address

the defendants' additional contention that the notes constitute Jencks Act

stat ements of the testifying agents. Notes taken by an agent during witness

interviews can constitute statements of the agent under the Jencks Act, even if

the notes do not constitute statements of the witnesses. See United States v.

Sink , 586 F.2d 1041, 1051 (5th Cir. 1978) (finding an agent's report, prepared

from his notes and recollections from witness interviews, to be a statement of

the agent), cert. denied

, 443 U.S. 912, 99 S. Ct. 3102, 61 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1979).

The government did not brief, and the district court did not address, this claim.

On remand, the district court also should evaluate this claim.

-26- F.2d at 491; Gaston , 608 F.2d at 614. If the defendants contest

the district court's findings, they need not file a new appeal.

"They may, instead, lodge with this court certified copies of the

trial court's fi ndings and, if needed, supplementary briefs or

other materials. This matter will be referred to this panel."

Welch , 810 F.2d at 491. If the district court concludes that any

portion of the notes should have been produced, it then should

determine whether the government's failure to furnish the notes

amounts to a due process violation )) i.e., wh ether "there is a

reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the

defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

United States v. Bagley

, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383,

87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985). Unless the district court is persuaded

that the result of the proceeding would not have been different, it

should vacate the judgment o f conviction and grant a new trial. 2 5

Welch , 810 F.2d at 491; Gaston , 608 F.2d at 614.

III

Jerry Thomas Maxwell

Maxwell contends that the trial judge should have given to the

jury the "buyer-seller" inst ruction that he requested. This-27-

instruction, apparently based on United States v. Hughes

, 817 F.2d

268, 273 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 484 U.S. 858, 108 S. Ct. 170, 98

L. Ed. 2d 124 (1987), directed the jury to acquit Maxwell if they

believed that he received cocaine "for his own personal use and not

to facilitate the conspiracy or because he was a membe r of the

conspiracy." The government argues that the essence of Maxwell's

proposed instruction was substantially covered b y the charge

actually given to the jury. We agree.

The district court's refusal to give a requested instruction

is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Sellers

,

926 F.2d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 1991). Under this standard of review,

the district court has "substantial latit ude in tailoring

instructions so long as they fairly and adequately cover the issues

presented," United States v. Pool

, 660 F.2d 547, 558 (5th Cir. Unit

B Nov. 1981), and is "under no obl igation to give a requested

instruction that misstates the law, is argumentative, or has been

adequately covered by other instructions." U nited States v.

L'Hoste

, 609 F.2d 796, 805 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 449 U.S. 833,

101 S. Ct. 104, 66 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1980).

"While it is true that a buyer-seller relationship, without

more, will not prove a conspiracy, evidence of such activity goes

to whether the defendant intended to join in the conspiracy or

whether his or her participation was more limited in nature."

United States v. Maserati

, 1 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordin gly, the drug conspiracy laws focus exclusively on the2 6 Hodgkiss argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct

t he jury that they had to unanimously agree on the identity of th e five

individuals whom Hodgkiss managed as part of the CCE. However, as Hodgkiss noted

at oral argument, the jury need not unanimously agree on the identities of the

five individuals. United States v. Linn , 889 F.2d 1369, 1374 (5th Cir. 1989),

cert. denied

, 498 U.S. 809, 111 S. Ct. 43, 112 L. Ed. 2d 19 (1990). The district

court thus did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the proposed instruction.

-28- question "whether the participants knowingly joined an agreement to

distribute drugs in violation of the law." I d. Therefore, if the

evidence dem onstrates only that someone purchased drugs from the

conspiracy and did not agree to join it, "the elements necessary to

prove a conspiracy would be lacking, and a not guilty verdict would

result." I d. In this case, the district court, using our P attern

Jury Charge , accurately instructed the jury on the law of

conspiracy, and the jury found Maxwell guilty of conspiring to

distribute drugs. Thus, the jury, by rendering a guilty verdict,

specifically found that Maxwell agreed to join the conspiracy. We

therefore find that Maxwell's theory was adequately covered by the

instructions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion

in refusing to give the requested instruction. S ee id. ; L 'Hoste

,

609 F.2d at 805. 26

IV

Steven Darrel Gregg

A

Gregg argues that the district court incorrectly denied his

motion to supp ress evidence seized during the search of an

automobile he was driving. Gregg contends that the police officer

who searched the vehicle lacked probable cause to do so, thus-29-

making the seiz ed evidence the fruit of an illegal search. The

government argues that the officer had probable cause to search the

vehicle and that Gregg abandoned the bag in which the officer found

the contraband, thereby barring Gregg from challenging the legality

of the search.

"In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to

suppress evidence based on testimony at a suppression hearing, we

must accept the district court's factual findings unless they are

clearly erroneous or are influenced by an incorrect view of the

law." U

nited States v. Garcia

, 849 F.2d 917, 917 n.1 (5th Cir.

1988). "Further, we must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the party that prevailed below. " Id. However, we

review de novo the ultimate conclusion drawn from the district

court's factual finding. U nited States v. Diaz

, 977 F.2d 163, 164

(5th Cir. 1992).

The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to

be secure in their persons, houses, pape rs, and effect, against

unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

Evidence obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's

Fourth Amendment rights may not be used to prove the defendant's

guilt at trial. Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.

Ct. 341, 346, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914). In T erry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 1,

88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the Supreme Court stated

that where there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a

person has committed a crime, a limited search and seizure is not27 While running routine computer checks during the traffic stop,

Collins asked Gregg whether he had ever been arrested, and Gregg replied that he

had not. S ee Shabazz

, 993 F.2d at 437 (finding that an officer may lawfully ask

questions of traffic-s top detainees while waiting for the results of computer

checks). However, Collins discovered via the computer checks that Gregg

previously had been arrested in Florida for a drug-related offense.

-30- unreasonable. Thus, if the detaining officer can "point to

specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational

inferences from those fact s, reasonably warrant [the search and

seizure]," the intrusion is lawful. I d. at 21, 88 S. Ct. at 1880.

Mississippi Deputy Sheriff Billy Collins initially stopped the

vehicle Gregg was driving because the automobile was weaving

between lanes. Thus, the initial detention was proper under T erry

because Collins had reasonable and articulable facts that warranted

the intrusion )) Gregg had violated traffic laws. U nited States v.

Shabazz , 993 F.2d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Kye

Soo Lee

, 898 F.2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 1990). After Gregg was

initially detain ed, however, Collins was presented with a second

set of circumstances that, in our opinion, justi fied Gregg's

continued detention. This second set of facts included the smell

of marij uana emanating both from Gregg's person and from the

vehicle, Gregg's deception regarding whether he had ever been

arrested, 27 an d that Gregg was not the registered owner of the

vehicle. These factors gave Collins probable cause to believe that

the vehicle contained contraband, thus giving him the right to

search the vehicle. S ee United States v. Ryles

, 988 F.2d 13, 14

n.2 (5th Cir.) (noting that an officer's "smelling marijuana

afford[s] probable cause to engage in a warrantless search" of a28 Gregg appears to challenge the district court's decision to credit

the testimony of officer Collins over that of Gregg. However, we must give due

deference to the credibility determinations of the district court, who has the

opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses. S ee Amadeo v. Zant

, 486 U.S.

214, 108 S. Ct. 1771, 100 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1988).

-31- vehicle), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 114 S. Ct. 168, 126 L. Ed. 2d

128 (1993); United States v. Piaget , 915 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir.

1990) ("A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible where

officers have probable cause to believe the vehi cle contains

contraband.").

Gregg nevertheless contends that because Collins did not have

probable cause to search the camera bag in which Collins found

marijuana and cocaine, the evidence should be suppressed. However,

Gregg ignores the fa ct that he abandoned the camera bag. When

Collins asked Gregg who owned the bag, Gregg shrugged his shoulders

and stated that he did not know. 28 Gregg thus abandoned the bag,

allowing Collins to examine its contents. P iaget

, 915 F.2d at 140;

Garcia

, 849 F.2d at 919; U nited States v. Canady

, 6 15 F.2d 694,

697 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 449 U.S. 862, 101 S. Ct. 165, 66 L.

Ed. 2d 78 (1980). "Once a bag has been abandoned, and the

abandonment is not a product of improper police conduct, the

defendant cannot challenge the subsequent search of the bag."

Piaget

, 915 F.2d at 140. As Collins had probable cause both to

stop Gregg's vehicle and to search it, Gregg could not have

abandoned the bag as re sult of improper police conduct.

Consequently, we find no error in the district court's denial of

Gregg's motion to suppress.29 Fed. R. Crim. P

. 52(b) provides that "[p]lain errors or defects

affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the

attention of the court."

-32- B

Gregg further argues that the prosecutor en gaged in

prosecutorial misconduct by improperly bolstering the credibility

of government witnesses and expressing his personal opinion about

the credibility of one government witness during closing arguments.

The government contends that the prosecutor simpl y responded,

albeit in a "rhetorically excessive" fashion, to defense counsel's

attack on the credibility of the witnesses.

Thomas did not object to the prosecutor's statements that he

now contends requires reversal of his conviction. Consequently, we

must consider whether the statements were improper and, if so,

whether they amounted to plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). 29

United States v. Hernandez

, 891 F.2d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 1989),

cert. denied

, 495 U.S. 9 09, 110 S. Ct. 1935, 109 L. Ed. 2d 298

(1990). We must review the allegedly improper argument "in light

of the argument to which it responded." U nited States v. Canales

,

744 F.2d 413, 424 (5th Cir. 1984). Thus, the government "may even

present what amounts to be a bolstering argument if it is

specifically done in rebuttal to assertions made by defense counsel

in order to remove any st igma cast upon [the prosecutor] or his

witnesses." U

nited States v. Dorr

, 636 F.2d 117, 120 (5th Cir

.

1981).3 0 Defense counsel also argued that the government first determined what

it believed to be the truth and then "put[] the thumbscrew on th e witness" to

agree with the government's version.

-33- During closing arguments, defense counsel contended that the

plea bargain agreements between many of the government witnesses

and the prosecution invited the witnesses to perjure themselves so

as to procure le sser sentences. Specifically, defense counsel

argued that Clark, who testified that he was afraid of the

prosecutor, lied because of the "Draconian thumb " that the

govern ment placed on his neck. 3 0 The prosecutor, in rebuttal,

responded in kind:

Perhaps I should turn to Aaron Clark and why he is afraid

of me. And you know, Ladies and Gentlemen, they're

right, Aaron Clark was afraid of me, and I hope he was

afraid of me. I hope he remains afraid of me, because he

did something that is unforgivable, he lied under oath to

you; that isn't tolerable.

As Clark admitted under oath that he lied to the jury with regard

to whether he was an employee of Hodgkiss or an "independent

contractor," the prosecutor was entitled to comment before the jury

on Clark's testimony. Moreover, the prosecutor's statements

directly respond ed to defense counsel's attacks on both the

prosecutor and government witnesses who testified pursuant to plea

agreements. Accordingly, the comments were not improper and do not

constitute plain error under Rule 52(b).-34- V

Ellis Ray Thomas3 1 Although Thomas in his brief cited two instances where he raised his

claim before the district court, we have reviewed the record without finding any

indication that the district court was made aware of Thomas's allegation that his

trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

-35- Thomas contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right

to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed

to make various objections at trial and also failed to move for a

judgment of acquittal following the close of the evidence. Thomas,

however, failed to present this issue to the district court. 31

"The general rule in this circuit is that a claim of

ineffe ctive assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct

appeal when the claim has not been before the district court since

no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the

allegation." U

nited States v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied

, 484 U.S. 1075, 108 S. Ct. 1051, 98 L. Ed.

2d 1013 (1988). If the defendant fails to raise the claim before

the district court, we will reach the merits of the claim only if

the record is well-developed. I d. This is not such a case. As in

United States v. Freeze , 707 F.2d 132, 139 (5th Cir. 1983),

[w]hile we might be able to determine, on the basis of

the trial record, whether the defendant had been deprived

of effective assista nce of counsel with regard to the

failure to make a motion for judgment of acquittal, we

can only s peculate about why defense counsel made no

objections to the evidence. Accordingly, we decline to

reach the merits of the defendant's ineffective

assistance claim.

Thomas, of course, may raise this is sue in an appropriate

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. I d. ; s ee also United States v.32 The presentence investigative report ("PSR") found that

the Hodgkiss conspiracy distributed over 150 kilograms of cocaine

or its equivalent. The PSRs additionally found that Hodgkiss,

Thomas, Gregg, and Sanchez each should be held responsible for that

amount. The defendants objected to these findings during

sentencing. The district court, however, overruled the objections

and adopted the PSRs's findings. Hodgkiss, Gregg, and Sanchez now

argue that the district court did not comply with Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(c)(3)(D) because it failed to specifically find that they knew

or reasonably should have foreseen that the conspiracy would

involve over 150 kilograms of cocaine. However, an oral rejection

of a defendant's objec tion to a PSR satisfies the rule. U nited

States v. Sparks , 2 F.3d 574, 588 (5th Cir. 1993); United States

v. Stouffer , 986 F.2d 916, 927 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S.

___, 114 S. Ct. 115, 126 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1993); United States v.

Lghodaro , 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992).

-36- Casel

, 995 F.2d 1299, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___,

___ S. Ct. ___ (1993).

VI

Sentencing

The defendants appeal the sentences imposed by the district

court under the Sentencing Guidelines. We will affirm any sentence

imposed by the district court "so long as it results from a correct

application of the gui delines to factual findings which are not

clearly erroneous." U nited States v. Sarasti

, 869 F.2d 805, 806

(5th Cir . 1989). "A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as

long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole." U nited

States v. Sanders , 942 F.2d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 1991).

A

The defendants initially argue that the district court erred

by calculating their sentences on the basis of drug purchases and

sales not only by themselves, but also by other co-conspirators. 3233 A defendant's base offense level is determined on the basis of

all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the

defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise

accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of

conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of

attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense, or

that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). "Conduct `for which the defendant would otherwise be

accountable'

. . . includes conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of

the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the

defendant." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (n.1).

-37- They contend that because they could not have reasonably foreseen

that the Hodgkiss conspiracy would involve such a large quantity of

drugs, the district court should not have taken into account the

entire amount of drugs attributed to the conspiracy when

determining their respective base offense levels. 33

"A district court's findings about the quantity of drugs

implicated by the crime are factual findings rev iewed under the

`clearly erroneous' standard." United States v. Rivera , 898 F.2d

442, 445 (5th Cir, 1990). Applying this standard, we uphold the

district court's determinations that the defendants could

reasonably foresee the amount of cocaine for which they were held

responsible.

1

Hodgkiss contends that the evidence does not support the

district court's finding that he knew or should have reasonably

foreseen that the conspiracy he founded distribu ted over 150

kilograms of cocaine or its equivalent. However, drug ledgers

seized from Hodgkiss's residence indicate that the conspiracy was

responsible for distributing approximately 56 kilograms of cocaine34 We note that government agents repeatedly classified this as

"conservative" estimate of the entire amount of illegal substances distributed

during the life of the conspiracy.

-38- from January 27, 1988 to July 7, 1989. As this period constitutes

approximately one-third of the conspiracy's life-span, the district

court, in light of the record evidence, reasonably cou ld have

inferred that the conspiracy was responsible for distributing in

excess of 150 kilograms of cocaine during its existence. Moreover,

testimony presented by the government and evidence contained in the

PSR, including information obtained from other d efendants, also

established that the conspir acy distributed in excess of 150

kilograms of cocaine. 34 Consequently, the district court's finding

that Hodgkiss, who organized and retained control over every aspect

of the conspiracy, knew or should have reasonably foreseen the

amount of contro lled substances distributed by the conspiracy is

not clearly erroneous.

2

Gregg also contends that the district court improperly held

him accounta ble for an excessive quantity of drugs. However,

Gregg, pursuant to a carefully devised p lan, delivered multiple

kilograms of cocaine to Richard Townsen for John Rogala that Rogala

later sold to Hodgkiss. Moreover, Norman Allanson testified that

Gregg transported, or attempted to transport, twenty-one kilograms

of cocaine from Florida to Texas for Rogala, who also joined forces

with Hodgkiss to manufacture a large quantity of methamphetamine.

Furthermore, the PSR indicates that Gregg was involved in35 In this regard, we note that Gregg apparently was not a novice in

matters related to the distribution of controlled substances. Ledgers seized

from Gregg's residence indicated that, separate from the Hodgkiss conspiracy, he

was responsible for drug sales of over $245,000 between 1987 and 1990.

36 Gregg argues that recent amendments to the commentaries

and application notes for U.S.S.G . § 1B1.3 indicate that the

district court erroneously held him accountable for a quantity of

drugs not rea sonably foreseeable to him. Illustration (c)(7) to

application note 2 provides:

Defendant R recruits Defendant S to distribute 500 grams

of cocaine. Defendant S knows that Defendant R is the

prime figure in a conspiracy involved in importing much

larger quantities of cocaine. As long as Defendant S's

agreement and conduct is limited to the distribution of

the 500 grams, Defendant S is accountable only for that

500 gram amount

. . ., rather than the much larger

quantity imported by Defendant R.

In United States v. Maseratti

, 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993), we cited this illustration when vacating the sentences of defendants

convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs "who may [have been]

involved in less than the entire conspiracy." M aseratti

, however,

is distinguishable from the present case because the evidence

indicates that Gregg, like the other defendants, did not enter into

an agreement involving limited conduct like that described in the

illustration. Instead, Gregg agreed to enter into an ongoing

relationship with o ther co-conspirators involving not only the

acquisi tion and distribution of drugs, but also protecting the

conspiracy from detection using the relatively sophisticated code

and delivery systems. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Gregg

knew both that he was part of a l arger conspiracy and that his

a ctions helped to ensure )) indeed, were necessary for )) the succe s s

-39- transporting massive quantities of cocaine for Allanson and Rogala.

See also part II.B.2 supra

. "[A]n individual dealing in a sizable

amount of controlled substances ordinari ly will be presumed to

recognize that the drug organization with which he deals extends

beyond his universe of involvement." 35 U nited States v. Thomas

, 963

F .2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, the district court's finding

that Gregg was responsible for the distribution of over 150

kilograms of cocaine is not clearly erroneous. 36of the conspiracy.

-40- 3

Thomas arg ues that the district court improperly held him

accountable for the entire amount of controlled substances

distributed by the Hodgkiss conspiracy. Hodgkiss's drug ledgers

indicated that between January 1988 a nd July 1989, Thomas ) ) whom

Hodgkiss assigned code number "07" )) received in excess of two

kilograms of cocaine and amphetamine from Hodgkiss. Moreover, both

Curtis and Clark identified Thomas as someone to whom they

delivered narcotics on a regular basis for several years. Thomas

also served as a conduit for the delivery of drug ledgers and drugs

from Clark to Hodgkiss. S ee also part II.B.3 supra

. Accordingly,

the dist rict court's finding that Thomas knew or should have

reasonably foreseen that the conspiracy of which he was a member

would distribute in excess of 150 kilograms of cocaine is not

clearly erroneous.

4

Sanchez contends that he could not reasonably foresee that the

Hodgkiss conspiracy would distribute the amount of drugs for which

the district court held him responsible. However, Sanchez ) ) whom

Hodgkiss assigned code numbe r "06" ) ) sold large quantities of

marijuana to Hodgkiss on three separate occasions. On two

occasions, Sanchez received $8,800 in drug-related proce eds from

Clark as payment for the marijuana. Clark also identified Sanchez

as one of Hodgkiss's distributors to whom Clark delivered cocaine-41-

and amphetamine on numerous occasions. Ledgers seized from

Hodgkiss's residence indicated that from January 27, 1988 to July

7, 1989, Sanchez received twenty-two ounces of cocaine and five

ounce s of amphetamine from Hodgkiss. Moreover, a telephone

scrambling device seized from Sanchez's residence matched a similar

device found in possession of Hodgkiss. S ee also part II.B.4

supra

. Consequently, the district court's finding that Sanchez knew

or should have reasonably foreseen that his co-conspirators would

be responsible for distributing in excess of 150 kilograms of

cocaine is not clearly erroneous.

5

The district court ultimately held Max well responsible only

for the distribution of between fifteen and fifty kilograms of

cocaine or its equivalent. This amount roughly corresponds to the

amount of cocaine sold by Alan Gardner during the time that Gardner

supplied both Hodgkiss and Maxwell with cocaine. In 1988, Maxwell

began purchasing on a regular basis multi-ounce quantities of uncut

cocaine from Gardner. Gardner's employee Charles Barton usually

delivered the cocaine to Maxwell, and Gardner often "fronted"

Maxwell the uncut cocaine. C f. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.8)

(noting "the fact that a defendant is in possession of unusually

pure narcotics may indicate a prominent role in the criminal

enterprise and proximity to the source of the drugs. . . . [T]his

factor i s particularly relevant where smaller quantities are

involved."). Maxwell also sold cocaine to Ronald McWilliams, who-42-

at o ne time had been a supplier of cocaine to Maxwell. S ee also

part II.B.1. supra

. The district court found from this evidence

that Maxwell reasonably sh ould have foreseen from this evidence

both that the conspiracy with which he was involved extended beyond

himself and that the conspiracy was distributing at least fifteen

kilograms of cocaine. Because this finding is not clearly

erroneous, we will uphold Maxwell's sentence.

B

Thomas and Hodgkiss argue that the district court erred in

sentencing them under the amendments to the sentencing guidelines

effective November 1, 1989, because the Hodgkiss conspiracy ended

before that date. They contend that because the 1989 amendments to

the guidelines increased the penalties to which they were subject,

the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the

Constitution by sentencing them under the amendments.

"[A]n in crease in sentence based on an amendment to the

guidelines effective after the offense was committed `would be an

obvious . . . violation' of the ex post facto clause in article 1

of the United States Constitution." United States v. Suarez , 911

F.2d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Woolford

,

896 F.2d 99, 102 n.4 (5th Cir. 1990)). A conspiracy, however, "is

a continuing offense. So long as there is evidence that the

conspiracy continued after the effective date of the [amendments to

the] guidelines, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated." U nited-43-

States v. Buckhalter , 986 F.2d 875, 880 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 203, 126 L. Ed. 2d 160 (1993).

Thomas and Hodgkiss argue that no evidence exists

demonstrating that any acts related to the consp iracy took place

after November 1, 1989. They do not, however, argue that they

withdrew from the conspiracy by taking "affirmative acts

inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy and communicated in

a manner reasonably calculat ed to reach other conspirators."

United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 438 U.S. 422, 464-65, 98 S. Ct.

2864, 2887-88, 57 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1978); s ee also United States v.

Puma

, 937 F.2d 151, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 112 S. Ct. 1165, 117 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1992). If a conspirator

fails to effectively withdraw from the conspiracy, he "will be

sentenced under the [amendments to the] guidelines even if he

himself did not commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy

after [November 1, 1989], or did not k now of acts committed by

other co-conspirators after [November 1, 1989], if it was

foreseeable that the conspiracy would continue past the effective

date of the [amendments]." Devine , 934 F.2d at 1332.

The district court determined that the defendants should be

sentenced under the 1989 amendments because the evidence adduced

both at trial and during sentencing indicated that the conspiracy

did not cease until, at the earliest, the search of Hodgkiss's home

in December 1989. We regard this determination as a factual

finding protected by the clearly erroneous standard of review. I d.37 For example, we note that Hodgkiss's drug ledgers indicate that at

least one drug transaction occurred during December 1989. Moreover, Clark ) ) whom

Hodgkiss concedes was his employee )) testified that his relationship with Hodgkiss

did not end until December 1989.

38 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 provides:

Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense

level as follows:

(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal

activity, decrease by 4 levels.

(b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal

activity, decrease by 2 levels.

In cases falling in between (a) and (b), decrease by three levels.

-44- Afte r reviewing the record as a whole, we find that the district

court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. 37 Moreover, the jury,

as alleg ed in the indictment, found the defendants guilty of

conspiring to distribute drugs from "on or about June 1, 1986 and

continuing until Dec ember 15, 1989." Consequently, the district

court's use during sentencing of the amendments in effect at the

time the conspiracy concluded did not violate the Ex Post Facto

Clause.

C

Gregg contends that he was entitled to a downward adjustment

under the sentencing guidelines for minimal or minor participation

in the conspiracy. 38 He argues that he was only slightly involved

with the conspiracy and therefore is less culpable than the other

conspirators. Section 3B1.2, however, is designed to reduce a

sentence only when a defendant is substantially less culpable than

the average participant in the offense. United States v.

Buenrostro

, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied

, 495

U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 1957, 109 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1990). The district39 We have not definitively determined what standard applies when

reviewing a district court's refusal to credit a defendant's acceptance of

responsibility. C ompare Hardeman

, 933 F.2d at 283 (applying the clearly

erroneous standard) wi t h United States v. Thomas

, 870 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.

1989) (applying the "without foundation" standard) and United States v. Brigman

, 953 F.2d 906, 909 (5th Cir.) (applying the "great deference" standard), c ert.

-45- court denied Gregg's reque st for a downward adjustment because

Gregg was not substantially less culpable than the average coconspirator. We agree that the record belies Gregg's argument that

he was a minimal or minor participant in the Hodgkiss conspiracy.

See parts II.B.2 and VI.A.2 supra

. Consequently, we will not

disturb the district court's finding that Gregg was not a minimal

or minor participant.

D

Gregg argues he was entitled to a downward adjustment in his

offense level because he accepted responsibility for his crimes.

Under § 3E1.1(a) of the guidelines, "[i]f the defendant clearly

demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal

responsibility for his criminal conduct," a dist rict court may

reduce the defendant's offense level by two points. However, the

adjustment "is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the

government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential

factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt

and expresses remorse." U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. comment. (n.2). The

district court found that Gregg did not fully accept responsibility

for his crimes and refused to reduce the offense level. We review

this finding using the clearly erroneous standard. United States

v. Hardeman , 933 F.2d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1991). 39denied , ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 49, 121 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1992). For the purpose

of this appeal, however, "there appears to be no practical difference between the

three standards." U nited States v. Cartwright

,

___ F.3d

___, slip op. at 893

(Oct. 25, 1993).

4 0 The guidelines direct the district court to "[a]dd 2 points [to the

defendant's offense level] if the defendant committed the instant offense while

under any criminal justice s entence, including probation, parole, supervised

release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

-46- While Gregg accepted responsibility for some acts, he did not

demonstrate "sincere contrition" regarding the full extent of his

criminal conduct. United States v. Beard , 913 F.2d 193, 199 (5th

Cir. 1990). Instead, Gregg both minimized his participation in the

conspiracy even after he was found guilty and refused to discuss

information contained in the drug ledgers seized from his home.

See United States v. Windham

, 991 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.) (noting

that a defendant is required under the pre-1992 guidelines to

accept responsibility for all relevant criminal conduct to be

eligible for a downward departure under § 3E1.1), cert. denied

,

___

U.S.

___,

___ S. Ct.

___ (1993); U nited States v. Alfaro

, 919 F.2d

962, 968 (5th Cir. 1990) (same). Accordingly, the district court's

finding that Gregg did not accept responsibility is not erroneous.

E

Gregg further contends that the district court miscalculated

his criminal history category for sentencing purposes. 4 0 Gregg

contends that the district court improperly considered hearsay

evidence, supplied by a government agent, indicating that Gregg was

involved in narcotics activity while on probation from a previous

conviction. However, a district court "may properly consider any4 1 In cases where death or serious injury does not result from the use

of an illegal substance, first-time offenders "shall be sentenced to a term of

imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life" while repeat

offenders must be sentenced to not "less than 20 years [or] more than life." 21

-47- rele vant evidence `without regard to its admissibility under the

rules of evidence applic able at trial, provided that the

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its

probable accuracy'" during sentencing. A lfaro

, 919 F.2d at 964

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a)).

Sworn testimony given by a g overnment agent at a sentencing

hearing generally bears sufficient indicia of re liability to be

considered by the trial judge during sentencing. S ee id. at 966

(noting that a PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of

reliability); U

nited States v. C uellar-Flores , 891 F.2d 92, 93

(5th Cir. 1989) (finding uncorroborated hearsay testimony provided

by a probation agent to be sufficiently reliable). Merely because

the agent's testimony was based on information obtained from one of

Gregg's co-conspirators is not sufficient to bar the district court

from considering it. Consequently, the district court did not err

by consideri n g the agent's testimony when determining Gregg's

criminal history category.

F

The jury found Gregg guilty of conspiring to possess a

controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Section 841(b)(1)(A), which is the

applicable sentencing provision, establishes one sentencing range

for first-time offenders and another for repeat offenders. 41 GreggU.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

-48-

contends that the district court erred in sentencing him under the

repeat-offender provision of the statute because the government

failed to give timely notice pursuant to § 851(a)(1) of its intent

to seek such enhancement. The government responds that the notice

provision of § 851(a)(1) does not apply to enhancement under the

recidivist provisions of § 841(b).

Section 851(a)(1) requires the government to file an

information identifying the prior drug-related convictions upon

which a defendant co nvicted of an offense under § 841 is to be

given an enhanced sentence:

No person who stands convicted of an offense under this

part shall be sentenced to increased punishment by reason

of one or more prior convictions, unless before trial, or

before entry of a p lea of guilty, the United States

attorney files an information with the court (and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for

the person) stating in writing the previous conviction to

be relied upon. . . .

Thus, the § 851(a)(1) notice requirement applies "to situations in

which a convicted defendant's statutory minimum or maximum penalty

is enhanced under [21 U.S.C § 841]." U nited States v. Wallace

, 895

F.2d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 1990); s ee also United States v. Marshall

,

910 F.2d 1241, 1244-45 (5th Cir. 1990) ("the notice requirement

applies to persons convicted of an offense under Title 21 when the

Government seeks to enhance the maximum pena lties under the

recidi vist provision of that statute"), c ert. denied

, 498 U.S.

1092, 111 S. Ct. 976, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1061 (1991); H ansen v. United-49-

States

, 904 F.2d 306, 309 (5th Cir. 1990) (same), cert. denied

, 498

U.S. 1052, 111 S. Ct. 765, 112 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1991). As a result,

the government failed to comply with § 851(a) by filing the

enhancement notice after trial.

Because the government did not timely comply with § 851(a)(1),

the distric t court did not have jurisdiction to enhance Gregg's

sentence under the recidivi st provisions of § 841(b). U nited

States v. Noland , 495 F.2d 529, 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 419

U.S. 966, 95 S. Ct. 228, 42 L. Ed. 2d 181 (1974); s ee also Suveges

v. United States , ___ F.3d ___, 1993 WL 403091 (1st Cir. Oct. 14,

1993) ("The filing of such an informational notice is

jurisdictional." ); U nited States v. Belanger

, 970 F.2d 416, 417

(7th Cir. 1992) ("Failure to file the notice prior to trial

deprives the district court of jurisdiction to impose an enhanced

sentence."); U

nited States v. Novey

, 922 F.2d 624, 627 (10th Cir.)

(same), cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 111 S. Ct. 2861, 115 L. Ed. 2d

1028 (1991). Moreover,

[e]ven when the defendant is not surprised by the

enhanced se ntence, was aware from the outset that his

previous conviction could lead to an enhanced sentence,

never ch allenged the validity of the prior conviction,

and admitted it at the sentencing hearing, the statute

prohibits an enhanced sentence unless the government

first seeks it by properly filing an information prior to

trial.

United States v. Weaver

, 905 F.2d 1466, 1481 (11th Cir. 1990),

cert. denied

, 498 U.S. 1091, 111 S. Ct. 972, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1058

(1991); s ee also Noland

, 495 F.2d at 533 (same). Accordingly, we-50-

vacate Gregg's sentence and remand this matter to the district

court for resentencing.

VII

For t he foregoing reasons, we REMAND to permit the district

court to determine in the first instance whether the notes

described herein constitute either Jencks Act or Brady m aterial.

We REVERSE as to Gregg's sentence and REMAND for resentencing. We

AFFIRM the district court's decision in all other respects.