Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/663/1034/147025/
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 22:01:36
Document Index: 140020202

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 371', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 846']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Bruce Rowan, Defendant-appellant, 663 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eleventh Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Bruce Rowan, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jimmy Bruce Rowan, Defendant-appellant, 663 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir. 1981)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 663 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir. 1981) Dec. 14, 1981
Appellant was convicted of conspiring to distribute heroin in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841 and of nine violations of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841 for possessing and aiding and abetting in the possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The conviction was affirmed in United States v. Bobo, 586 F.2d 355, (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 976, 99 S. Ct. 1546, 59 L. Ed. 2d 795, reh. denied, 99 S. Ct. 2187, 99 S. Ct. 2188, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1062. Appellant's motion to vacate the conviction and sentence pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the district court.
A conviction will be set aside if it can be shown that the prosecution knowingly introduced perjured testimony in order to obtain the conviction. United States v. Jones, 614 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 945, 100 S. Ct. 2174, 64 L. Ed. 2d 801 (1980). After conducting a full evidentiary hearing on the issue the United States Magistrate in this case concluded that no prosecuting official or investigating agent of the United States was aware of the giving of any false testimony against appellant. The magistrate further concluded that if the alleged perjurer did testify falsely as alleged, the testimony was not prejudicial in any way to the appellant. These findings of the magistrate were adopted by the district court.
Appellant's second contention is that the district court erroneously sentenced him under the specific narcotics conspiracy statute, although the indictment charged a violation of the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 Rule 7(c) (3), Fed. R. Crim. P. expressly provides that an error in the citation of a statute does not invalidate an indictment unless the error misleads the defendant to his prejudice. Appellant does not argue that he was prejudiced, but rather that he was improperly sentenced for an offense for which he was never charged or convicted.
This Court in Enzor v. United States, 262 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 953, 79 S. Ct. 740, 3 L. Ed. 2d 761 (1959) held:
The district court in the present case found that the allegations contained in the indictment demonstrated beyond dispute that the conspiracy charge was in fact based upon 21 U.S.C. § 846. The indictment expressly charged appellant with conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), and such a conspiracy is the specific proscription of 21 U.S.C. § 846.