Opinion ID: 797573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Two (Firearms)

Text: 26 Both Keyon Mitchell and Duford Mitchell contend that there was a material variance between count two of the indictment, which charged them with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and the government's proof at trial. We conclude that although there was a variance, it was not prejudicial. 27 Count two charged that [o]n or about October 1, 2003, the defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) 4 by knowingly possess[ing] a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime . . ., to wit: possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams or more [sic] of a cocaine mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, namely, crack cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance. 28 The defendants assert that there was a material variance because the government never proved that they committed the drug-trafficking crime named in the indictment, possession with intent to distribute, since there was no evidence they actually possessed crack cocaine on October 1, 2003. The defendants point to the fact that although they participated in a break-in of Robinson's home in an effort to steal his crack cocaine, they never found it, and therefore they never possessed it. The defendants also maintain that there was another, different material variance because the government argued that it could prove the defendants' guilt by relying on other incidents—apart from the October 1, 2003, robbery—when the defendants possessed firearms and crack cocaine together. 29 We will consider the second alleged variance first. At the hearing on the defendants' Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal after the close of the government's case-in-chief, the defendants pointed out that the government had not proved they actually possessed crack cocaine on October 1, 2003. The government responded, inter alia, that since the indictment used the non-exclusive language [o]n or about, the government could just take out the date of October 1 and point to occasions of firearms possession at any time during the course of the conspiracy. The district court appears to have agreed with the government's argument; the court denied the Rule 29 motion, reasoning that generally speaking, proof of any date before the return of the indictment ... and within the statute of limitations is sufficient. 30 The defendants assert in essence that to the extent the government relied on other occasions of firearms possession apart from the events of October 1, 2003, it prosecuted them for a crime other than the one charged in the indictment. Although the defendants do not specifically describe what occurred below as a constructive amendment, they in essence argue that the indictment was constructively amended. A constructive amendment occurs when the government changes its theory during trial so as to urge the jury to convict on a basis broader than that charged in the indictment, or when the government is allowed to prove `an essential element of the crime on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment.' United States v. Robles-Vertiz, 155 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Salvatore, 110 F.3d 1131, 1145 (5th Cir. 1997)). 31 The problem with the defendants' argument, however, is that the government did not change its theory at trial since it did not rely on occurrences of other firearms possession in its argument to the jury. The government's argument that it could just take out the date of October 1 from the indictment and rely on other occurrences of firearms possession was an argument before the judge in order to defeat the Rule 29 motion. The government's argument to the jury with respect to count two focused almost exclusively on the October 1, 2003, robbery. 5 The government argued to the jury that there actually was crack cocaine present in Robinson's house (hidden in a trash-can liner) but that the robbers had simply not looked in the right place. Furthermore, the court did not specifically instruct the jury that it could look at occurrences of firearms possession apart from October 1, 2003; the jury charge simply included this circuit's pattern on or about instruction. 6 We therefore conclude that the indictment was not constructively amended. 32 We do agree, however, that there was a variance between the language of count two and the evidence presented at trial: although the indictment charged that the underlying drug-trafficking crime was possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, the defendants never actually possessed crack cocaine during the course of the robbery since they found no drugs at Robinson's house. Instead, the government proved that the defendants possessed firearms in furtherance of a different drug-trafficking crime: attempted possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. 7 33 Yet we do not reverse the defendants' convictions because the variance did not prejudice the defendants' rights. Rule 31(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits conviction of a lesser included offense of the charged offense even though the lesser offense was not charged in the indictment. See FED. R.CRIM. P. 31(c)(1) (A defendant may be found guilty of ... an offense necessarily included in the offense charged.). Possession of a firearm in furtherance of attempted possession with intent to distribute is a lesser included offense of possession of a firearm in furtherance of the crime of completed possession with intent to distribute. See United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 453 (2d Cir.2004) ([A]ttempted drug possession in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 is simply a lesser-included offense of the drug possession proscribed by § 841(a)(1).); see also United States v. Remigio, 767 F.2d 730, 733 (10th Cir. 1985) (The crime of attempt is a lesser included offense of the substantive crime.). As the Sixth Circuit stated in United States v. Solorio, [t]he concept of variance is designed to prevent the prosecution from convicting the defendant of a different offense, not a lesser variation on the charged offense. 337 F.3d 580, 590 (6th Cir.2003) (holding that conviction of a lesser included offense did not constitute prejudicial variance because such a conviction was permitted under Rule 31(c) and therefore the variance did not affect the defendant's ability to defend himself). 34 Moreover, because the facts overwhelmingly support conviction of the lesser offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect such a conviction without affecting the defendants' substantial rights. See United States v. Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 543 (5th Cir.2006) (modifying judgment to reflect offense of attempt where the defendant pleaded guilty to completed offense but the facts reflected that the defendant unsuccessfully attempted to commit the offense). 35 Accordingly, we decline to reverse the defendants' convictions on count two. But we do modify the judgment to reflect convictions for the lesser offense of possession of a firearm in furtherance of the drug-trafficking crime of attempted possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine.