Source: https://openjurist.org/120/f3d/271/united-states-v-mcmillan
Timestamp: 2019-02-21 18:38:36
Document Index: 97767289

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 841', '§ 1', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 924']

120 F3d 271 United States v. McMillan | OpenJurist
120 F. 3d 271 - United States v. McMillan
120 F3d 271 United States v. McMillan
97 CJ C.A.R. 1266
Jeff McMILLAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Nos. 96-1054, 96-1076.
Mr. Jeffrey McMillan appeals his convictions for one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Mr. McMillan was tried jointly with six other defendants on various drug-trafficking and drug conspiracy charges. Mr. McMillan appeals several issues through counsel and one issue pro se, for which Mr. McMillan's trial counsel has filed an Anders brief.1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) ("[I]f counsel finds his [client's] case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal."). We consider all of these issues in this opinion. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm Mr. McMillan's conviction under § 841(a)(1) and vacate and remand the § 924(c)(1) conviction for a new trial.
Mr. McMillan raises several issues on appeal. First, he contends that he was entitled to discovery on his selective prosecution claims against the government. Second, he disputes the district court's admission of evidence from a warrantless search of the vehicle Mr. McMillan occupied. Third, he challenges his conviction under § 924(c)(1) because of a defective jury instruction. Fourth, he claims that § 841(a)(1) and the relevant Sentencing Guideline are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Fifth, Mr. McMillan asserts that he was prejudiced by a joint trial. Finally, in his Anders brief, Mr. McMillan alleges that the civil forfeiture of his property was punitive and thus his subsequent conviction and sentencing violated the Double Jeopardy clause. We shall discuss each contention in turn.
A. Selective Prosecution Claim
The necessary elements to establish a selective prosecution claim are demanding; the threshold showing necessary to obtain discovery is similarly high. See United States v. Armstrong, 16 S.Ct. 1480, 1486, 1488 (1996). When a prosecutor acts with probable cause, he has virtually unfettered discretion in his decision to prosecute. See id. Mr. McMillan must provide at least "some evidence" tending to show the existence of the elements of a selective prosecution claim. Id. "The claimant must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.' " Id. at 1487 (quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985)). Specifically, Mr. McMillan must show that " 'he has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated generally have not been proceeded against for the type of conduct forming the basis of the charge against him.' " Furman, 31 F.3d at 1037 (quoting United States v. Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir.1983)); see also Armstrong, 116 S.Ct. at 1487.
Mr. McMillan asserts that the federal prosecutor's decision to prosecute Mr. McMillan and other Trips associates in federal court rather than refer the case to state prosecutors, coupled with statistics of federally convicted crack cocaine traffickers' racial makeup, supply the necessary evidence. This is inadequate under the standard set forth in Armstrong. See 116 S.Ct. at 1488. As the Supreme Court stated in Armstrong, "it should not have been an insuperable task" to investigate whether "persons of other races were [being] prosecuted by the State of [Colorado and] were known to federal law enforcement officers, but were not prosecuted in federal court." Id. at 1489. Without some evidence tending to show racial disparity in the prosecution of similarly situated defendants in federal court, we cannot exercise judicial power over the "special province" of the executive branch and examine the basis of the prosecution in this case. See id. at 1486 (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985)).
Second, Mr. McMillan contends that the arresting officers searched his vehicle without probable cause. On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and we consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Alcaron-Gonzalez, 73 F.3d 289, 291 (10th Cir.1996). We review the ultimate reasonableness of the search de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996).
The agents kept Mr. McMillan's vehicle under surveillance for all but fifteen minutes that evening until it came to a stop within walking distance of the crack house that Mr. Thomas had identified as Mr. McMillan's distribution site. See Rec. vol. 11 at 53. Given the corroboration of Mr. Thomas's previously supplied information, these circumstances are sufficient to establish probable cause for the government's search of Mr. McMillan's vehicle. See United States v. Arzaga, 9 F.3d 91, 94 (10th Cir.1993) ("We have upheld the warrantless search of a vehicle where 'events preceding the search gave the officer probable cause to believe the [vehicle] contained illegal drugs.' ") (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Pando, 841 F.2d 1014, 1017 (10th Cir.1988)); United States v. Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 727 (10th Cir.1992) (informant testimony coupled with police corroboration and surveillance supported probable cause for issuance of search warrant).
It is well-established that where officers have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband, a warrantless search of that vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment.2 See Ornelas, 116 S.Ct. at 1660 ("[A] warrantless search of a car is valid if based on probable cause.") (citing California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 569-70 (1991)); Arzaga, 9 F.3d at 94. The warrantless search of an automobile based on probable cause is justified by the vehicle's inherent mobility and the diminished expectation of privacy that surrounds the vehicle. See Arzaga, 9 F.3d at 94 (citing United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977)). Accordingly, the district court was correct in denying Mr. McMillan's motion to suppress.
C. Conviction under § 924(c)(1)
Mr. McMillan next argues there was insufficient evidence that he used or carried a firearm to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) violation under the pre-Bailey instructions given to the jury. See Bailey v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 501, 505 (1995). We review for plain error because Mr. Simpson did not object to the instruction at trial. United States v. Spring, 80 F.3d 1450, 1465 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 385 (1996).
Id. at 22-23. At the time of Mr. McMillan's trial, the district court's instruction was an accurate statement of the law. See United States v. Conner, 972 F.2d 1172, 1173-74 (10th Cir.1992).
The Supreme Court, in Bailey v. United States, explained that in order to convict under § 924(c)(1) there must be more than simply evidence that the firearm was readily accessible under the "use" prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); the evidence must show there was an active employment of the firearm, "a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense." 116 S.Ct. at 505. Thus, the mere placement of a firearm for protection, or nearby concealment of a gun to be prepared for a confrontation is no longer within the scope of the use prong of § 924(c)(1). See id. at 508 (stating that "use" does not extend to situation "where an offender conceals a gun nearby to be at the ready for an imminent confrontation").
1. Plain Error Test
The Supreme Court has recently narrowed the plain error test. See Johnson v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 1544 (1997). Before we can correct an error that was not raised at trial there must be (1) an "error," (2) that is "plain," (3) that "affects substantial rights, and (4) that "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 1549 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985) (internal quotations omitted))).
There is no doubt that the submission of the proffered instruction to the jury today would be error under Bailey, and thus the first prong of the plain error test is satisfied. "We have held that Bailey applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal on the date it was decided." United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244, 1256 (10th Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 (10th Cir.1995)); see Johnson, 117 S.Ct. at 1549.
Similarly, there is little doubt that the error is clear under current law, although, as in Johnson, "it was by no means clear at the time of trial." 117 S.Ct. at 1549. "[I]t is enough that the error be 'plain' at the time of appellate consideration." Id.
We noted in Holland that Justice Scalia's concurrence in California v. Roy, 117 S.Ct. 337, 339-40 (1996) (per curiam), sheds light on the inquiry used to determine whether a plain error "affects substantial rights." 1997 WL 364290, at * 7 n. 3. Justice Scalia stated that "[t]he absence of a formal verdict on [each necessary element of the crime] can not be rendered harmless by the fact that, given the evidence, no reasonable jury would have found otherwise. To allow error to be cured in that fashion would dispense with trial by jury." Roy, 117 S.Ct. at 339 (Scalia, J., concurring). He continued: "The error ... can be harmless only if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces [this element] or if it is impossible, upon the evidence, to have found what the verdict did find without finding this point as well." Id. (emphasis supplied) (citing Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 271 (1989)).
In Holland, this court held that a trial court's § 924(c)(1) instruction, although incorrect under Bailey, does not require vacation of the conviction. See Holland, 1997 WL 364290, at * 6. We noted that the demands are several to affirm a "carrying" conviction when dealing with a defective § 924(c) instruction:
Id. at * 7 n. 4; see Roy, 117 S.Ct. at 340 (Scalia, J., concurring). Thus, the fact that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction on a legally valid ground does not eliminate the possibility that the defendant could have been convicted solely on a legally invalid ground or the resulting prejudice unless, in convicting the defendant, "the jury necessarily made the findings required to support a conviction on the valid ground." Holland, 1997 WL 364290, at * 5.
In Holland, the unusual overlap of jury instructions, jury findings, and supporting evidence enabled us to supply the elements of "carry" under § 924(c)(1). We are unable to do the same in this case, however, and thus cannot affirm on the same basis.
Here, the district court instructed jury that Mr. McMillan "used or carried" a firearm, without distinguishing between the two prongs. Rec. vol. 9, doc 20 at 22. Thus under the issued instruction, the jury could have concluded that "use" and "carry" were synonymous. See United States v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 1373, 1379 (10th Cir.) (where instruction did not separately define "use" and "carry" prong, "the jury could have erroneously decided that the terms ... were redundant"), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 411 (1996).
Thus, unlike the instructions in Holland, here we have an improper "use" instruction, no valid "carry" instruction, and few jury findings from which we can garner "necessary" and "inherent" conclusions. See Holland, 1997 WL 364290, at * 7 n. 4. The instruction here alludes to the element of possession, but suggests it need not be found, stating "[t]he defendant need not have actual possession of either the firearm or drugs." Rec. vol. 9, doc. 120 at 22. The instruction makes no mention of the element of transportation. Finally, here, unlike the defendant in Holland, Mr. McMillan disputes whether the firearm was carried on his person or within his reach available for immediate use. See Aplt's Supp. Br. at 34, Rec. vol. 27 at 10-12; see Holland, 1997 WL 364290, at * 7 n. 4.
That the facts make the presence of the elements of transportation and possession appear obvious does not translate into the functional equivalent of a finding by the jury that Mr. McMillan carried the weapon. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. McMillan placed the firearm in the vehicle. Mr. McMillan disputes the evidence of "carry" in the record on appeal. We conclude that it was not " 'impossible'... for the jury to have returned a 'use' conviction" under the defective "use" instruction "without finding all the elements of a 'carrying' violation as well." Holland, 1997 WL 364290 at * 7 n. 4; Roy, 117 S.Ct. at 339-40 (this type of error "can be harmless only if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces [this element] or if it is impossible.. to have found what the verdict did find without finding this point as well") (Scalia, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied).
In Johnson, the Court noted that if the evidence supporting the forfeited error, was "overwhelming" and "essentially uncontroverted" at trial, 117 S.Ct. at 1550, the error would not satisfy the final prong of Olano, that is, one that "seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." 507 U.S. at 736. As established in our evaluation of the prejudice prong above, the jury findings and the evidence in the record do not necessarily include the elements of "carry." Mr. McMillan's arguments before the district court and on appeal further highlight the lack of "overwhelming" evidence that he "carried" the weapon. Thus, the lack of an actual jury verdict on "carry" is an error that "seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings." Olano, 507 U.S. at 736. See also Roy, 117 S.Ct. at 339 ("The absence of a formal verdict on this point can not be rendered harmless by the fact that, given the evidence, no reasonable jury would have found otherwise.") (Scalia, J., concurring). Accordingly, Mr McMillan has satisfied the four prongs of the plain error test.
This conclusion does not suggest that there is not sufficient evidence on which to retry Mr. McMillan, however. We turn now to the question of whether we must order a new trial. "[W]e will remand for a new trial only if the jury could have returned a guilty verdict if properly instructed." Miller, 84 F.3d at 1258. We must determine if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Mr. McMillan used or carried a firearm under a proper jury instruction.
We conclude that there is insufficient evidence in the record before us that Mr. McMillan "used" a firearm under Bailey. Although there is evidence that Mr. McMillan regularly had the firearm in his possession during drug transactions, "[t]hat [Mr. McMillan] generally carried guns does not satisfy the active employment requirement of Bailey." United States v. Richardson, 86 F.3d 1537, 1548 (10th Cir.1996). The government has presented little credible evidence that Mr. McMillan brandished, displayed, bartered, referred to, or in any other way actively employed the firearm with respect to the drug offense for which he was indicted. The testimony that Mr. McMillan displayed his gun to government informant Fidel Garner during a separate drug transaction similarly does not qualify as active employment use during the July 8, 1994 drug transaction. This evidence in the record is legally insufficient to support a finding that Mr. McMillan "used" the weapon under § 924(c)(1) in furtherance of the drug transaction for which Mr. McMillan was charged and convicted.
However, we believe there is evidence to support a finding that Mr. McMillan "carried" a firearm under § 924(c)(1). Both before and after Bailey, to support a finding that Mr. McMillan carried the firearm, the government must prove "that [Mr. McMillan] transported a firearm in a vehicle and that he had actual or constructive possession of the firearm while doing do." Simpson, 94 F.3d at 1379 (quoting Miller, 84 F.3d at 1259). In addition, the government must also prove that Mr. McMillan "possessed and transported the firearm, [and availed himself of it] during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense." Id. (citing Richardson, 86 F.3d at 1548).
From this evidence of proximity of the firearm and drugs, a jury reasonably could have concluded that Mr. McMillan carried the weapon with an intent that the weapon be available for use during the drug trafficking offense with which he was charged. See Simpson, 94 F.3d at 1380. Therefore, there is considerable evidence that Mr. McMillan possessed and transported the firearm: it was readily accessible, Mr. McMillan availed himself of it, and it played an integral role during the drug transaction. See id. (remanding "[b]ecause there was some evidence of carrying"). Therefore, we must remand for a new trial on the issue of whether Mr. McMillan carried the firearm for purposes of § 924(c)(1).
Mr. McMillan also challenges his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), claiming that the sentence for the crack cocaine offense is unconstitutional. He asserts that the statutory distinction drawn between the penalties for possession and distribution of crack and powder cocaine violates Fifth Amendment due process guarantees because the two substances are chemically identical. Mr. McMillan relies on the 1994 Annual Report of the United States Sentencing Commission. "In May 1995, the Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines that would eliminate the penalty differential between crack and powder cocaine." See United States v. Fonts, 95 F.3d 372, 374 (5th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citing United States Sentencing Commission, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, 60 Fed.Reg. 25074, 25075-76 (1995)). The amendments would have become effective on November 1, 1995, absent action by Congress. Congress responded, however, and rejected the amendments' attempt to erase the disparity in sentencing. See id. at 374; Pub.L. 104-38, 109 Stat. 334, § 1 (1995).
We cannot ignore Congressional action on this issue. Furthermore, this circuit and every circuit that has addressed the issue has upheld the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) and United States Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 against race-based equal protection challenges. See United States v. Thurmond, 7 F.3d 947, 951 (10th Cir.1993) (citing cases). Mr. McMillan's argument certainly fails, and borders on frivolity.
Mr. McMillan's fifth contention is that the district court erred in refusing to sever his trial from the trial of his codefendants. We normally review such a contention under the abuse of discretion standard, but Mr. McMillan did not even file a motion for severance before or during his trial. He therefore "has waived the issue unless he can show that actual prejudice resulted from the joint trial." United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542, 1547 (10th Cir.1987). In this case "[j]oinder [wa]s clearly proper under Fed.R.Crim. P. 8(b), because the [g]overnment alleged that Mr. [McMillan] had 'participated in the same ... series of acts or transactions' as the other defendants." Id. (quoting Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b)). Mr McMillan alleges he was prejudiced because the weight of the evidence against his codefendants was much greater than that against him. He contends that a spillover effect essentially tainted his rights to due process and a fair trial.
F. Double Jeopardy Claim
Finally, Mr. McMillan appeals the district court's rejection of his claim that the forfeiture of his property to the government, as proceeds of illegal drug transactions, before his sentencing in the criminal proceeding, violated the Double Jeopardy clause. Mr. McMillan's counsel has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw as to this issue, stating that in his opinion no meritorious issue exists on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Under Anders, counsel must file a brief "referring to all matters in the record that might reasonably support an appeal." United States v. Mihaly, 67 F.3d 894, 895 (10th Cir.1995) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
Under the Supreme Court's recent holding in United States v. Ursery, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2148-49 (1996), civil actions seeking forfeiture of items used in or derived from drug transactions that are the basis of the prosecution are not punitive, but rather remedial in nature. Such forfeitures therefore do not implicate the Double Jeopardy clause. We grant Mr. McMillan's counsel's motion to withdraw from the presentation of this claim. The district court's denial of Mr. McMillan's motion was correct.
For the reasons stated, Mr. McMillan's conviction for using or carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is reversed, his sentence for that offense is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial on that offense. His conviction and sentence are affirmed in other respects.
Mr. McMillan was indicted for "using and carrying" a firearm. However, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) defines the crime in the disjunctive, as did the jury instruction. "[A] crime denounced in the statute disjunctively may be alleged in an indictment in the conjunctive, and thereafter proven in the disjunctive." United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)