Opinion ID: 546225
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ciancaglini

Text: 185 Joseph Ciancaglini was convicted under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 of distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, a controlled substance. 70 He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove a completed delivery of methamphetamine or that he aided any such distribution. He also asserts that in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we should not consider DelGiorno's testimony concerning the nature of the substance because it consisted entirely of inadmissible hearsay. Brief for Ciancaglini at 36. Based on our review of the record, we find no substance to these contentions. 186 Ciancaglini's guilt as to the distribution offense was established through the testimony of Thomas DelGiorno. Tr. 10/12/88 at 29-32. DelGiorno stated that in May of 1983, Ciancaglini, then a captain in the enterprise, authorized him to arrange a methamphetamine deal between two drug dealers, John Santilli and Vinnie Perry. Ciancaglini and DelGiorno, with underboss Salvatore Merlino's approval, agreed that certain members of the enterprise would receive $3000 for every pound of methamphetamine Santilli sold to Perry. Although DelGiorno never actually saw the drugs, 71 he stated that he received $150,000 from a series of transactions involving fifty pounds of methamphetamine. Pursuant to the co-conspirators' agreement, DelGiorno turned half of the profits over to Ciancaglini, who provided Scarfo and Merlino with their shares: 187 Q: What did you actually do with the $150,000? 188 A: I gave him $75,000. 189 Q: Who did you give the $75,000 to? 190 A: Ciancaglini. 191 Q: And what was your understanding of what he was supposed to do with the $75? 192 A: Half of it he had to give to Chuckie [Salvatore Merlino] and Scarfo. 193 Q: Do you know if he did do that? 194 A: Yes. 195 Q: How do you know that? 196 A: He told me and Chuckie told me he got the money. 197 Tr. 10/12/88 at 32-33. 198 Section 841(a)(1) makes it a crime knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or dispense ... a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). 72 Courts have broadly construed the term, distribute, as encompassing any acts perpetrated in furtherance of a transfer or sale, such as arranging or supervising the delivery, or negotiating for or receiving the purchase price. United States v. Brunty, 701 F.2d 1375, 1381 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 848, 104 S.Ct. 155, 78 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983). See also United States v. Baresh, 790 F.2d 392, 399 (5th Cir.1986) (aiding and abetting charge under section 841 did not require proof that defendant had actual or constructive possession of marijuana or that he was physically present when the drugs were distributed); United States v. Winston, 687 F.2d 832, 834-35 (6th Cir.1982). Thus, assuming that Santilli and Perry engaged in a methamphetamine deal, DelGiorno's testimony that Ciancaglini authorized him to arrange the deal would be sufficient to prove that he participated in a distribution of that substance. 199 Although DelGiorno had no personal knowledge about what actually transpired between Santilli and Perry, a reasonable jury could infer from DelGiorno's receipt of the $150,000 that the methamphetamine deal was consummated. Furthermore, contrary to Ciancaglini's assertions, the government's proof that the substance sold was methamphetamine did not rest solely on the hearsay declarations of Santilli and Perry, as the manner in which the deal was arranged and the large sums of money involved provide strong circumstantial evidence that the transaction concerned an illicit substance. United States v. Murray, 753 F.2d 612, 615 (7th Cir.1985) (A high price for the substance purchased and the covert nature of the transaction ... may provide support that the substance was a drug); United States v. Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447, 1456 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964 (1985). As the parties contemplated a methamphetamine deal, the jury certainly was justified in concluding that the substance in fact was methamphetamine. 200 In short, we have no difficulty concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support Ciancaglini's conviction under section 841(a)(1).