Source: http://openjurist.org/600/f2d/407
Timestamp: 2014-09-16 05:03:21
Document Index: 106605010

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

600 F2d 407 Bifulco v. United States | OpenJurist
600 F. 2d 407 - Bifulco v. United States	Home600 f2d 407 bifulco v. united states
600 F2d 407 Bifulco v. United States 600 F.2d 407
Alphonse BIFULCO, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 954, Docket 79-2024.
Submitted April 30, 1979.Decided May 30, 1979.
Alphonse Bifulco, pro se.
Robert E. Winkle, Danbury, Conn., on brief, for petitioner, appellant.
Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, Harvey M. Stone, Rodney G. Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for respondent, appellee.
Before GURFEIN and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, District Judge.*
This is an appeal Pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mark A. Costantino, Judge, denying appellant Alphonse Bifulco's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We regard appellant's two claims on appeal as meritless and we affirm the order entered below.
Appellant was indicted on three drug-related counts, one count charging him under 21 U.S.C. § 846 with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute substantial quantities of phencyclidine, a Schedule III controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the other two counts charging him with substantive violations of § 841(a)(1). After a jury trial, appellant was convicted on the conspiracy charge and acquitted on the substantive charges. On June 3, 1977, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, a special parole term of five years and a $1,000 fine. This Court affirmed his conviction without opinion on December 15, 1977. Subsequently appellant, Pro se, moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied by the district court and this appeal followed.
Appellant presents two claims for our consideration. The gist of the first argument is that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his trial and conviction on the conspiracy count, in the absence of evidence proving a substantive offense as the object of the conspiracy, on the theory that no offense against the United States had been proven. As this argument attacks the jurisdiction of the trial court, we will overlook appellant's failure to raise this objection in the § 2255 motion presented to the district court. Reaching the merits, we must reject appellant's argument as utterly without foundation. Congress explicitly defined conspiracy under § 846, standing alone, as a federal crime. A defendant need not be charged with any other violation in order to be tried and convicted under