Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Mack WEST, a.k.a. Teeny Man, etc., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2000-01-26
Citations: 201 F.3d 1312
Docket Number: No. 95-6960
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Mack WEST, a.k.a. Teeny Man, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GODBOLD and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 201
Pages: 1312–1312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Mack WEST, a.k.a. Teeny Man, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 95-6960.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 26, 2000.
Robert B. French, Jr., Fort Payne, AL, Victoria D. Little, Decatur,' GA, Richard Stephen Jaffe, Jaffe, Strickland, Beasley & Drennan, PC, Birmingham, AL, William R. Gignilliat, III, Atlanta, GA, for Mack.
G. Douglas Jones, Birmingham, AL, for U.S.
Before GODBOLD and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
This decision is rendered by a quorum due to the retirement of then-Chief Judge Hatchett on May 14, 1999. See, 28 U.S.C. §46(d).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case comes before us by order of the United States Supreme Court, which has vacated the judgment of this Court as to appellant Roy Mack West, and remanded the case for our reconsideration in light of Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985(1999). See United States v. West, 142 F.3d 1408 (11th Cir.1998), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 2042, 144 L.Ed.2d 211 (1999). In Richardson, the Supreme Court held that "a jury in a federal criminal case brought under [21 U.S.C.] § 848 must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some 'continuing series of violations' but also that the defendant committed each of the individual 'violations' necessary to make up that 'continuing series.' " 526 U.S. at -, 119 S.Ct. at 1709.
West was convicted of both conducting a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE")(Count 1) and being a member of the underlying drug conspiracy (Count 2). At sentencing, the court vacated Count 2 as a lesser included offense of the CCE conviction. See United States v. Nixon, 918 F.2d 895, 908 (11th Cir.1990) (when defendant convicted on both a CCE count and a conspiracy count, the Court will merge the two offenses by vacating the conviction of the lesser included conspiracy count). The government concedes that the jury instruction given was not in accord with the requirements of Richardson and that West's conviction on the CCE count cannot stand, see also United States v. Riley, No. 96-4653, 161 F.3d 20 (11th Cir.l998)(unpublished), and requests that this Court remand to the district court with instructions to reinstate the vacated drug conspiracy count and resentence West.
Accordingly, we vacate West's conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Since the conspiracy conviction under Count 2 was vacated only because it was a lesser included offense of the CCE conviction, and the CCE conviction no longer stands, we remand this case to the district court with instructions to reinstate West's conspiracy conviction under Count 2 and resentence him.
VACATED AND REMANDED.