Opinion ID: 2972190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Pro Se Claims

Text: Finally, Boudreau filed several pro se supplemental briefs containing numerous additional challenges to his sentence. He first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him, but we have previously held that the testimony of co-conspirators, without more, can be sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, see, e.g., United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 600 (6th Cir. 2003), and that a large volume of narcotics purchased by a defendant can create a presumption of conspiracy to distribute. See, e.g., United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d 229, 233 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 373 (6th Cir. 2003). In addition, though Boudreau challenges in some detail the factual assertions in the co-conspirators’ testimony, the witnesses’ credibility was a matter - 13 - Nos. 02-1738, 02-2214 United States v. Makki/Boudreau for the jury, not for this Court. See, e.g., Lones v. Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton R.R. Co., 398 F.2d 914, 921 (6th Cir. 1968). Boudreau next challenges the power of Congress to enact the Controlled Substances Act, but we have previously denied such challenges. See United States v. Tucker, 90 F.3d 1135, 1140-41 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Brown, 276 F.3d 211, 214-15 (6th Cir. 2002). He challenges the sufficiency of his indictment, but the indictment, which alleges that he was involved in conspiracy to import drugs from abroad, is also sufficient, both constitutionally and factually. See, e.g., United States v. Piccolo, 723 F.2d 1234, 1237-39 (6th Cir. 1983) (en banc). Boudreau also claims that the use of guns seized from his house constituted a “variance” or “amendment” to his indictment, and that these guns were highly prejudicial to his case, but we have previously held that firearms may be used as “tools of the trade” evidence in drug trafficking prosecutions. See, e.g., United States v. Hardin, 248 F.3d 489, 499 (6th Cir. 2001). These guns thus not only did not constitute a variance to or amendment of his indictment, but were also properly admitted to prove the charges against him. Boudreau additionally claims that prosecutorial misconduct during discovery kept him from properly preparing for trial, but has failed to show how such misconduct, even if proven, in any way prejudiced his case. In the absence of any such proof, any such misconduct constitutes harmless error. See, e.g., Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993).