Opinion ID: 758082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tim Maggard

Text: 20 Tim first contends that his conviction should be reversed due to the admission of materially prejudicial testimony of four government witnesses regarding Tim's prior wrongdoings. Mary Schumacher testified on direct examination that the appellant and her boyfriend had served time in prison together. Tr. at 76. Todd Blair and Scott Lance, law enforcement agents who worked on the investigation of the Maggards, testified on direct examination that they were familiar with Tim Maggard. 13 Tom Noyes, a deputy sheriff at the time of the investigation, testified on cross-examination that he felt that Tim knew what methamphetamine was from prior investigations. Tr. at 285. These four statements by government witnesses comprise the basis for Tim's request for reversal. 21 Initially, we note that appellant failed to object to any of the statements at trial. We therefore review the district court's admission of this evidence for plain error. See United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200, 1203 (8th Cir.1998). We will reverse for plain error only if the error affected the appellant's substantial rights and seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Robinson, 110 F.3d 1320, 1324 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 432, 139 L.Ed.2d 331 (1997) (internal citations omitted). 22 Assuming the admission of evidence concerning Tim's prior prison term and the references to Tim's relationship with prior drug investigations could amount to plain error, see Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), we find the error to be harmless. These four statements cannot be said to have affected Tim's substantial rights nor to have seriously affected the fairness of Tim's trial. After a thorough review of the record, we find that substantial evidence was produced at trial to support appellant's conviction and that these four isolated statements could have had only a slight influence, if any, on the verdict. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir.1994).
23 Tim next argues that the district court's refusal to offer the jury an addict instruction 14 constituted reversible error. While the district court has broad discretion in formulating jury instructions, see United States v. Hester, 140 F.3d 753, 757 (8th Cir.1998), a defendant's request for a specific instruction will be granted if the instruction is supported by the evidence and reflects a correct statement of the law. See United States v. Tucker, 137 F.3d 1016, 1036 (8th Cir.1998). The defendant is not entitled to a particularly worded instruction where the instructions given, when viewed as a whole, correctly state the applicable law and adequately and fairly cover the substance of the requested instruction. United States v. Parker, 32 F.3d 395, 400 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). We review the district court's formulation of jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. Id. 24 The district court gave the jury a general cautionary instruction 15 regarding the testimony of persons with whom the government had reached plea agreements. Appellant argues that this instruction was insufficient and that the testimony of Roger Hilburn, Mary Schumacher, Martin Bean, and Patty Bristol clearly established each witness as a drug addict, thus compelling an addict instruction. This court has adopted a case-by-case approach to determining whether an addict instruction is necessary. See United States v. Hoppe, 645 F.2d 630, 633 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 849, 102 S.Ct. 170, 70 L.Ed.2d 138 (1981). Factors which will obviate the need for an addict instruction include: a dispute as to whether the informant is actually an addict; cross-examination regarding the informant's drug addiction; an instruction to the jury to view the informant's testimony with care; and corroboration of the informant's testimony. See id. All four factors need not be present to dispense with the requirement of an addict instruction. See Parker, 32 F.3d at 401-02. 25 Here, we find that three of the factors are present. Each of the witnesses whom appellant claims are addicts testified that they were no longer using drugs at the time of trial. Appellant's and his co-defendants' counsel strenuously cross-examined the witnesses regarding their drug use. The witnesses corroborated each other's testimony. Other witnesses, including law enforcement agents, further corroborated the challenged witnesses' testimony. After reviewing the record, we find that appellant's proposed addict instruction was not supported by the evidence. The instruction given by the district court was adequate, and the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give appellant's proposed instruction.
26 Tim raises three sentencing issues on appeal. Tim claims the district court erred in sentencing him under the Sentencing Guidelines that became effective on November 1, 1995. Tim also challenges the district court's calculation of the quantity of drugs attributed to him. Lastly, Tim asserts that the district court erred in classifying Tim as a career offender. We review the district court's factual findings at sentencing for clear error while our review of the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is de novo. See United States v. Larson, 110 F.3d 620, 627 (8th Cir.1997). 27 Tim asserts that his sentence should have been governed by the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on October 18, 1995, 16 and that the district court erred in failing to make specific findings as to the type of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy. As discussed above in Part A.2. of this opinion, prior to November 1, 1995, the Guidelines maintained a distinction between l- and d- methamphetamine which Amendment 518 eliminated effective November 1, 1995. Tim contends his incarceration on October 18, 1995 prevented his participation, past that date in the conspiracy of which he was convicted. Conspiracy is a continuing offense from which a participant must affirmatively withdraw in order to end his legal liability. A defendant must take affirmative action, either making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his withdrawal in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.... Mere cessation of activities is not enough. United States v. Granados, 962 F.2d 767, 773 (8th Cir.1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Furthermore, a defendant may be guilty of conspiracy even if the purpose of the conspiracy is being effected while he is incarcerated. See United States v. Casares-Cardenas, 14 F.3d 1283, 1288 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 849, 115 S.Ct. 147, 130 L.Ed.2d 86 (1994). 28 Tim bears the burden of proving his withdrawal from the conspiracy. See Granados, 962 F.2d at 773. While Tim offered no evidence at trial to support his claim of withdrawal from the conspiracy, there was testimony from Patty Bristol indicating that Tim did not take the affirmative action necessary to terminate his participation in the conspiracy. 17 As a continuing offense, sentencing for conspiracy convictions are controlled by the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of the completion of the conspiracy. See United States v. Reetz, 18 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir.1994). Here, the jury found Tim guilty of participating in a conspiracy that began in approximately October of 1994 and ended with Arlie and Daisy Maggard's arrest on July 11, 1996. The district court sentenced Tim according to the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on that date. In so doing, we conclude that the district court did not err. 29 Next, Tim argues that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs attributed to him. The legal standards regarding drug quantity determinations is addressed above at Part 2.A. of this opinion. After reviewing the record and again noting that a co-conspirator is responsible for all reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), we cannot say that the sentencing judge clearly erred in attributing 10 to 30 kilograms of methamphetamine to Tim. 30 Tim also challenges his sentencing status as a career offender. Tim argues that his prior conviction for second degree burglary of an unoccupied residence should not be considered in assessing career offender status under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, it is well-settled law in this Circuit that second degree burglary is considered a crime of violence for career offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. See United States v. Reynolds, 116 F.3d 328, 330 (8th Cir.1997). We therefore find Tim's final argument to be without merit.