Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/237/71/564862/
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 06:41:47
Document Index: 58551328

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

United States, Appellee, v. Richard Houle, A/k/a Rocket Defendant, Appellant, 237 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2001) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 2001 › United States, Appellee, v. Richard Houle, A/k/a Rocket Defendant, Appellant
United States, Appellee, v. Richard Houle, A/k/a Rocket Defendant, Appellant, 237 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 237 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2001)
Heard July 31, 2000Decided January 23, 2001
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
After oral argument was held, a letter was transmitted to the court under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) calling our attention to the recent Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). We granted both Houle and the government time to submit supplementary memoranda addressing the possible relevance of Apprendi, and, assuming that Apprendi applies, addressing the issue of prejudice. Such memoranda having been filed, the matter is properly submitted for disposition.
Houle makes two arguments on appeal: first, that the district court imposed a sentence above the lowest statutory maximum provided by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B); and second, that the district court erroneously imposed a sentence in excess of the lowest statutory mandatory minimum.
Houle was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intention to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The amount of cocaine attributed to him was not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it was determined by the district court under a preponderance of evidence standard at the sentencing hearing. Under this standard, the district court determined that the transaction involved from 15 to 50 kilograms of cocaine. Based on its findings the court sentenced Houle to a term of 160 months of imprisonment under 841(b) (1) (A).
The statutory framework involved in this case begins with Section 846, which provides that the penalty for an attempt or conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense shall be the same as the penalty for the offense that was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. § 846. The underlying offense is set out in section 841(a) (1), which makes it unlawful to "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance." 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Section 841(b) (1) (A)-(D), in turn, establishes the penalties applicable to a violation of section 841(a) (1). Section 841(b) (1) (C), the statutory catchall authorizes a term of imprisonment for a schedule I or II narcotic, such as cocaine, without reference to drug quantity, of "not more than 20 years." 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C).
Houle first argues that the district court imposed a sentence above the lowest statutory maximum provided in Section 841. In support of his argument he relies on the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2000). In that case, the jury made no finding as to the specific amount of marijuana that the defendant possessed with the intent to distribute. Similarly, the judge determined the quantity of drugs using the preponderance of evidence standard. The error occurred when the district court's finding imposed a sentence that went beyond the five year maximum for an undetermined amount of marijuana. Nordby was sentenced to the ten years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A) (vii). However, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (D) states that "in the case of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, except in the case of 50 or more marijuana plants regardless of weight . . . [the defendant shall] be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years." Id. at 1056-57. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit found the ten year sentence exceeded the maximum allowed for a marijuana conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) (1) (D).
Based on the Ninth Circuit's holding, Houle argues that his sentence must be vacated because it exceeds the statutory maximum provided in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A). However, his reliance is misplaced. First, unlike Nordby, Houle was convicted of a cocaine offense and not a marijuana offense. Therefore, the five year statutory maximum provision of Section 841(b) (1) (D), that was exceeded in Nordby, is inapplicable to the case at bar. As such, the correct "statutory maximum" for a schedule II substance, like cocaine, is found in the catchall provision of Section 841(b) (1) (C). This section states that "in the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II . . . except as provided in subparagraphs (A),(B), and (D), such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years." 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C). Therefore, since the district court sentenced Houle to a term of 15 years, well below the maximum of twenty years, his reliance on Nordby is incorrect.
Our holding today is that no Apprendi violation occurs when the district court sentences the defendant within the statutory maximum, regardless that drug quantity was never determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This holding is consistent with our decision in United States v. Lafreniere, 99-1318 (1st Cir. filed Feb. 17, 1999)4 , and those of our sister circuits which have had the opportunity to address challenges similar to the ones presented by Houle. See, e.g., Meshack, 225 F.3d at 576-77; Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d at 926; United States v. Gerrow, 232 F.3d 831, 834-35(11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Angle, 230 F.3d 113, 123 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Chavez, 230 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2000).