Opinion ID: 472609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conspiracy to Import Cocaine

Text: 22 Count I of the indictment charged Dollinger, Osgood, and others with conspiring to import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 952(a) and 963. A section of Count I, entitled Introduction and Objects of the Conspiracy, stated that Dollinger had imported the cocaine from South America by employing various couriers whom he caused to use specially constructed luggage with hidden compartments especially designed to conceal the cocaine. Osgood, along with others, was then specified to have received Dollinger's cocaine and to have distributed it in the Western District of Texas and elsewhere. On appeal, Osgood admits that a conspiracy to import cocaine existed. Nevertheless, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the conspiracy charged because there is no evidence that [he] ever saw or handled any double-walled suitcase, and the evidence establishing his agreement and inclination to import reflected schemes not identified in the indictment. 23 There is sufficient evidence to support Osgood's conviction for the importation conspiracy charged, notwithstanding the additional substantial testimony of Osgood's participation in related importing schemes not specifically articulated in the indictment. 8 The essence of a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 952(a) is an agreement between the defendant and others to import into the United States from any place outside thereof, any controlled substance. United States v. Conroy, 589 F.2d 1258, 1269 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 831, 100 S.Ct. 60, 62 L.Ed.2d 40 (1979). To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government must establish that a conspiracy existed, that the accused knew of the conspiracy, and that he knowingly and voluntarily joined it. United States v. Vergara, 687 F.2d 57, 60 (5th Cir.1982). It also must prove at least the same degree of criminal intent necessary for the underlying substantive offense. United States v. Nelson, 733 F.2d 364, 368 n. 8 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 341, 83 L.Ed.2d 276 (1984). A defendant's mere close association with someone involved in criminal activity will not alone support an inference of guilt. Vergara, 687 F.2d at 61. The defendant's knowledge and participation, however, may be inferred from  'a development and collocation of circumstances,'  id. (quoting United States v. Marx, 635 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir.1981)), and the government need not prove that the defendant knew of all the details, only that he knew of the conspiracy's essential purpose. United States v. Davis, 666 F.2d 195, 201 (5th Cir.1982); Conroy, 589 F.2d at 1269. In addition, a conviction for conspiracy to import a controlled substance may be sustained although the defendant engaged only in the conspiracy's distribution or delivery aspects after the contraband entered the country; importation is not complete until the drugs reach their final destination. United States v. Mitchell, 777 F.2d 248, 261-62 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1493, 89 L.Ed.2d 895 (1986); United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1303-04 (11th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Baresh, 790 F.2d 392, 400 (5th Cir.1986). 24 The conspiracy's essential purpose as charged in this case was the importation of cocaine from South America, initiated by Dollinger's couriers with the aid of specially constructed suitcases, and completed by the further distribution and delivery efforts of Osgood and others. To sustain Osgood's conviction we need review only one transaction: Osgood's April 1982 delivery of Dollinger-imported cocaine to Eisenhart at the Houston Intercontinental Airport. With respect to Dollinger's importing methods and his relationship with Eisenhart, the record is clear. To effectuate this enterprise, Dollinger encouraged the distributors to provide him with front money to finance drug-buying trips in return for increased quality or a reduction in the cocaine's final delivery price. When testifying at trial about the April 1982 cocaine delivery, Eisenhart stated that Osgood delivered a manila envelope containing three packages of cocaine for which Eisenhart and others had fronted Dollinger $30,000 three months earlier. Osgood's relationship with Dollinger and Eisenhart, Osgood's documented inclination to engage in related cocaine-importing and recovery schemes with these individuals and Peter Van Flagg, and the names and entries in Osgood's address book, when considered collectively, indicate that Osgood not only knew of the package's contents, but also was aware of its foreign place of origin. Taken with Osgood's actual physical delivery of the package and concurrent acknowledgement, [h]ere is the stuff, the evidence further establishes Osgood's awareness of the conspiracy and willingness to join. The fact that there is no evidence that Osgood ever saw or handled any double-walled suitcase, is of no consequence. The evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that he knowingly participated in the conspiracy's delivery end, and that the cocaine was actually imported in the manner specified. That is all that is required. See Mitchell, 777 F.2d at 261-62; Baresh, 790 F.2d at 400.