Opinion ID: 506212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Schoenhoff

Text: 147 Appellant Horst Schoenhoff raises issues which we examine in the following sequence: double jeopardy claims; claims as to admissibility of evidence; and claims of insufficient evidence. 148
149 Appellant contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars separate, consecutive sentencing for his convictions under counts 9, 10, 14, 20, and 21 because these offenses were all committed in the course of the same conspiracy and because the same evidence supports all counts. 42 Earlier in the opinion we held that the counts 9, 14, and 20 must be vacated and remanded for election by the government. We also observed that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar separate convictions for a substantive offense, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy even though all may relate to the same unlawful activity. We conclude that Schoenhoff's double jeopardy claims are without merit after our holding that Tye and Granbury were one conspiracy. 150
151 Schoenhoff claims that the court erred in admitting testimony that he was known as Frenchie. He also objects to the admission of statements alleging that Frenchie was or was to be the source for marihuana in Belize. No objection was made at trial to such statements, or to statements explicitly identifying Schoenhoff as the Belize marihuana connection. This objection has not been properly raised on appeal. United States v. Hamilton, 694 F.2d 398, 401 (5th Cir.1982). Undoubtedly this testimony was damaging. It was also highly probative. Schoenhoff thoroughly cross-examined the witness concerning it at trial. The jury was entitled to determine its weight. We do not find that the court committed plain error by permitting the jury to hear this testimony. Fed.R.Crim.P. rule 52(b). 152 Schoenhoff next contends that the court erred in admitting alleged co-conspirator hearsay regarding the fact that the appellant was to receive and received $330,000.00 for the 'Granbury' Episode. Having so claimed in headnote fashion, he makes no further argument as to relevant facts or law. We summarily dismiss this claim. 153 Finally, Schoenhoff argues that the court erred in admitting in evidence a piece of paper on which someone had written, HORST 1206. The document in question was Barrington's charge slip from the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Fort Worth dated January 7, 1985. 43 Appellant claims to have objected at trial that the exhibit was not forwarded in the defense discovery package, but we do not find evidence of such objection on the record. Appellant did object to the authenticity of the entry, and noted in objection that the government had presented no testimony that either the handwriting or entry was that of a hotel employee. The court admitted the exhibit over this objection, stating that the predicate was sufficient to leave the question of weight to the jury. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence challenged by Schoenhoff on this appeal. 154
155 Finally, Schoenhoff argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions under counts 9, 10, 14, 18, 20, and 21. Counts 9 and 10 relate to the Tye episode, counts 14, 20, and 21 to Granbury, and count 18 charges travel in interstate commerce on December 24, 1984, with intent to distribute proceeds of an unlawful activity. Having reviewed the record, we find the evidence overwhelming to sustain Schoenhoff's convictions on all counts except number 18. 156 Contrary to Schoenhoff's assertions on appeal, proof of his connection with the Tye episode does not rest solely on Spratlen. 44 Testimony by others also implicated Schoenhoff. While the truck loaded with marihuana was still parked near Poe hangar, Drewes told the witness that it would be gone as soon as the Frenchman came and got it. Drewes then identified the Frenchman as the man that loaded them down south. There was further testimony that Drewes and Goff linked the Frenchman in other ways with the conspiracy. 157 Schoenhoff's involvement in the Granbury episode likewise is fully demonstrated by the evidence. Spratlen testified that Barrington told him in mid-December, 1984, that a man called Horst from Belize would be his Belize connection where he would get the marihuana. Barrington also had introduced him to Schoenhoff prior to the Granbury trip, saying This is Horst and he's the man from Belize that we'll be doing business with. Afterwards Spratlen talked with Schoenhoff about going down and picking up some marihuana of high quality. 158 Spratlen testified further that Schoenhoff told him that he had personally loaded the Granbury marihuana. There was other testimony that Schoenhoff was closely associated with Barrington and the Granbury episode. According to Spratlen, Barrington and Schoenhoff received money derived from the transaction, and flew with it in their suitcases from Texas to Las Vegas on January 9 or 10, 1985. The government presented corroborating circumstantial evidence, in particular a customs declaration dated January 6, 1985, showing that a person named Horst Schoenhoff had entered New Orleans on that date via an airline serving Belize. In addition, a California narcotics officer who had been keeping Schoenhoff's residence in South Lake Tahoe under surveillance testified that he had seen him there on January 10, 1985, and that on January 11, Schoenhoff had deposited $10,000 in cash at a local branch bank. 159 Appellant does not offer separate arguments with respect to the Tye and Granbury counts. We merely state, therefore, that we find the evidence supports his convictions under counts 9, 10, 14, 20 and 21. 160 The government offered no evidence at all to support Schoenhoff's conviction on count 18. It presents no argument with respect to it on this appeal. The alleged travel in interstate commerce on or about December 24, 1984, is beyond the scope of the Tye episode (which yielded no proceeds), but prior to the Granbury importation. It is difficult to conceive how Schoenhoff could have traveled in interstate commerce with intent to distribute the proceeds of an importation that had not yet occurred. The government does not contend that Schoenhoff's travel to Las Vegas on January 9 or 10, 1985--over two weeks later--is the basis for the offense charged in count 18. Schoenhoff's conviction on count 18 must therefore be reversed for want of sufficient evidence.