Source: http://openjurist.org/260/f3d/133/leonardo-santana-madera-v-united-states-of-america
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 19:27:12
Document Index: 517246036

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 841']

260 F3d 133 Leonardo Santana-Madera v. United States of America | OpenJurist
260 F. 3d 133 - Leonardo Santana-Madera v. United States of America	Home260 f3d 133 leonardo santana-madera v. united states of america
260 F3d 133 Leonardo Santana-Madera v. United States of America 260 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2001)
LEONARDO R. SANTANA-MADERA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
Docket No. 99-2125
Although we would ordinarily be inclined to believe that the district court followed the Sentencing Guidelines, those closest to this case--the Petitioner and the government--agree that the district court did not impose concurrent sentences of 324 months on counts 4 and 10. The government states that all eight of Santana-Madera's cocaine distribution offenses fell under the rubric of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), and each carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. Therefore, the district court could have imposed only a sentence of 240 months on counts 4 and 10, just as it did with the six other cocaine distribution counts.
I. Retroactivity of Richardson
II. Applicability of Harmless Error Review
An erroneous instruction that omits an element of an offense is generally subject to harmless error analysis. Id. at 9. In Neder, the Supreme Court held that omitting an essential element from a jury charge "differs markedly from the constitutional violations we have found to defy harmless-error review." Id. at 8. Such omissions "do[] not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence." Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, our sister circuits have, thus far, unanimously held that harmless error review applies to Richardson errors. Lanier, 220 F.3d at 838-39; United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 699 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d 148, 161-62 (1st Cir. 1999). We agree that Richardson errors are not structural and are subject to harmless error review. But there is also a disagreement between the parties over the appropriate standard of harmlessness.
IV. Apprendi Issues
The concurrent sentences of 240 months on each of the six remaining drug distribution counts are similarly unassailable because those sentences did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years provided by § 841(b)(1)(C) for cases involving the distribution of an unspecified amount of cocaine.5 21 U.S.C § 841(b)(1)(C). Thus, we find no error in Petitioner's sentence.
The Supreme Court recently held in Tyler v. Cain, 121 S.Ct. 2478 (2001), that, in the context of second or successive habeas petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) mandates that only the Supreme Court, through a specific holding that a new rule is retroactive, can give a new rule retroactive applicability. Tyler does not alter the analysis of this case because this is Petitioner's first habeas petition and § 2244(b) governs only successive habeas petitions.
Because Petitioner's eight cocaine distribution convictions all fell under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), his reply brief argument that the failure to allege drug quantity in the indictment is error under Tran, 234 F.3d 798, also fails. Section 841(b)(1)(C) covers distribution of unspecified amounts of cocaine. Thus, allegations of distribution of cocaine or possession with intent to distribute cocaine are sufficient to state a complete offense under that statute.
Home260 f3d 133 leonardo santana-madera v. united states of america