Opinion ID: 203448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conviction for Detectable Amount of Heroin

Text: Finally, Pimentel argues that his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) involving a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, without more, was entered for an offense for which there is no Sentencing Guideline. He argues that the indictment is unreasonable and plain error because it did not contain a specific weight of heroin and should be declared invalid. He maintains that the conviction under Count Five without a specific weight of heroin is plain error. Although the D.C. -10- Circuit has held that a related subsection of § 841 contains no threshold drug-quantity requirement and, therefore, it was not error to indict [the defendant] for possessing 'a detectable amount' but omit mention of the specific quantity, United States v. Gillespie, 436 F.3d 272, 276 (D.C. Cir. 2006), we do not need to decide this issue today because Pimentel did not properly raise this argument in the district court. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) requires that a claim that an indictment has a defect, such as being insufficiently specific, be raised prior to trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B); see also United States v. DiGregorio, 605 F.2d 1184, 1193 n.10 (1st Cir. 1979). If the claimed defect is not jurisdictional, the defendant's failure to raise the Rule 12(b)(3) claim constitutes a waiver from which this Court will grant relief only for good cause. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e); United States v. Mack, 892 F.2d 134, 136 (1st Cir. 1989). The alleged error is not a jurisdictional defect because the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1991). This category of offenses includes crimes defined in Title 21. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. The Supreme Court has determined that indictment defects are not jurisdictional, and thus, the omission of specific drug quantities in a 21 U.S.C. § 846 drug conspiracy offense was -11- not a jurisdictional defect. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002); see also United States v. López, 300 F.3d 46, 59 n.5 (1st Cir. 2002). Moreover, we have previously held that drug quantity is not an element of a § 841 offense. See United States v. Malouf, 466 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Goodine, 326 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2003). The failure to state the specific drug quantity affects only the maximum punishment possible for the offense and not the offense charged. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b); Goodine, 326 F.3d at 32-33. Pimentel's claim, therefore, is without merit.