Opinion ID: 577092
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: from which he derives substantial income or resources.

Text: 38 United States v. Boldin, 818 F.2d 771, 774 (11th Cir.1987). 39 Coppola's contentions that he committed no felony narcotics violation and that evidence did not establish a continuing series of violations are without merit. The jury convicted Coppola outright on three narcotics counts, which is all that is necessary to satisfy the continuing-series element. See United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 874 F.2d 1402, 1408 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1032, 110 S.Ct. 1484, 108 L.Ed.2d 620 (1990). Further, the government presented evidence of several other CCE predicates, including the two transactions with Church. 40 Coppola next contends that the government failed to prove that (1) he acted in concert with five or more persons (2) with respect to whom he held a position as an organizer, supervisor, or manager. According to the CCE statute, the government must prove that the defendant occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management with respect to five or more other persons. 21 U.S.C. § 848(b)(2)(A). The Supreme Court has given this definition a common-sense reading, finding that it is designed to reach the 'top brass' in the drug rings, not the lieutenants and foot soldiers. Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 781, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2413, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). See also United States v. Oberski, 734 F.2d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir.1984) (defining these statutory terms according to their ordinary meanings). 41 In United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 325, 102 L.Ed.2d 342 (1988), the Tenth Circuit examined the statutory definition, noting the significance of the fact that the statute is phrased in the disjunctive: The government can prove a defendant's role as an organizer or a supervisor or any other type of manager, and the terms can denote differing levels of managerial control and coordination. Id. at 426. 42 The Second Circuit has stated that [i]n ordinary parlance, a relationship of supervision is created when one person gives orders or directions to another person who carries them out. United States v. Stratton, 779 F.2d 820, 827 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1162, 106 S.Ct. 2285, 90 L.Ed.2d 726 (1986). 43 An organizer, on the other hand, is not necessarily able to control those whom he or she organizes. United States v. Ray, 731 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir.1984). Rather, an organizer can be defined as a person who puts together a number of people engaged in separate activities and arranges them in their activities in one essentially orderly operation or enterprise. Apodaca, 843 F.2d at 426 (quoting 2 E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 58.21 (1977)). 44 The defendant need not be the only, or even the dominant, organizer, supervisor, or manager, see United States v. Becton, 751 F.2d 250, 255 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 3480, 87 L.Ed.2d 615 (1985); United States v. Losada, 674 F.2d 167, 174 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1125, 102 S.Ct. 2945, 73 L.Ed.2d 1341 (1982), and the government need not show that the defendant had the same type of relationship with respect to each of the five or more persons. See United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501, 1513 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 253, 116 L.Ed.2d 207 (1991). Further, to satisfy the in-concert element the government need not prove that Coppola conspired with the five other persons at the same time or that the five conspired with one another. See id. 45 The government presented evidence that in the New York conspiracy, which formed the basis for Count Five, Coppola acted as a supervisor of Biscuiti and as a supervisor or organizer of Tribiano and Papanier. 8 Biscuiti, for instance, reported to Coppola on the ongoing negotiations with the potential source and had to await Coppola's approval before going ahead with the deal. 46 With respect to Counts Six and Seven and other CCE predicate acts, the government presented evidence that Coppola acted either as a supervisor or organizer of Lee and Rodovich, organizing the scheme, telling Lee and Rodovich what their roles would be, telling Lee when to acquire cocaine, how to dispose of the profits, and whom to contact as a source. Although the three agreed to split the profits equally, Coppola financed the scheme. Lee, whose role was to transport the cocaine, testified that he considered that he worked for Coppola. 47 Further, this court has held that [a]n individual need not have direct communications with participants in order to be their supervisor.... [I]f a defendant personally hires only the foreman, that defendant is still responsible for organizing the individuals hired by the foreman to work as the crew. United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, 1226 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919, 107 S.Ct. 1377, 94 L.Ed.2d 692 (1987). Adding Lee underlings Caswell, Ray Fosberg (Fosberg), and Marilyn Jones (Jones) for their part in the Kansas City distributions brings the total of persons acting in concert with Coppola to eight. Several other individuals arguably could be added to this total. A reasonable trier of fact could therefore find from the evidence that Coppola held a position as organizer, manager, or supervisor with respect to five or more persons. 48 Finally, Coppola claims that the government failed to prove that he derived substantial income or resources from the CCE. The Ninth Circuit, noting that [i]n applying the CCE statute, other courts have wisely refrained from establishing a precise definition of what constitutes 'substantial' income or resources, has found that [t]he practical meaning of [this term] will normally be a question for the trier of fact and its scope will develop case by case. United States v. Medina, 940 F.2d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.1991). This court has held that evidence that large amounts of cocaine and tens of thousands of dollars passed through the operation satisfies this element. Smith, 918 F.2d at 1514. 49 The government offered evidence that in the first three Kansas City distributions and the May, 1984 transaction with Edelstein, the organization reaped approximately $140,000. The jury may reasonably conclude that the supervisors and managers of such a lucrative operation derived income from it. Id. Large portions of the kilos of cocaine remaining in the possession of members of the organization count as resources under the statute. See id., 918 F.2d at 1513-14. Under any definition, Coppola's share of this income and these resources was substantial.