Opinion ID: 27814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Apprendi and penalty enhancements for drug quantity

Text: 8 Defendants claim that the absence of a requirement in the jury instructions on the conspiracy charge that the jury find a specific amount of crack cocaine resulted in Apprendi error. Under this Circuit's interpretation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), drug quantities that the government uses to seek penalty enhancements under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B) must be charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Green, 246 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir.2001). Because defendants raise this issue for the first time on appeal, 3 review is for plain error even though Apprendi was decided after trial. United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Rios-Quintero, 204 F.3d 214, 215 (5th Cir.2000); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). 9 Though the instruction on the conspiracy charge did not explicitly inform the jury that they had to determine a specific amount, it did require the jury to find three elements beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each defendant. The instruction concerning the first element required the jury to find each defendant party to an agreement with at least one other person to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, `crack', as charged in the indictment. The indictment stated that each defendant possessed with intent to distribute over fifty (50) grams of cocaine base or `crack' and that the conspiracy involved more than fifty (50) grams of cocaine base. It also listed overt acts involving well over fifty grams and the government presented testimony that the conspiracy dealt with amounts far exceeding fifty grams. 10 The error was harmless. Given the reference to the indictment, the jury found the defendants guilty of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute over fifty (50) grams of cocaine base, and the record holds more than enough evidence to substantiate the over fifty grams threshold that triggers maximum sentencing pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A). See Green, 246 F.3d at 437 (holding that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless, in part, because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive, detailed, and uncontroverted).