Opinion ID: 166604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double-Jeopardy Claim

Text: Mr. Smith contends that double-jeopardy principles require us to vacate his convictions on counts 3 through 11 of the indictment, in which he was charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (drug offenses) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting). Although this claim was not raised on direct appeal, Smith, 24 F.3d at 1232, and therefore may be procedurally barred, see United States v. Allen, 16 F.3d 377, 378 (10th Cir. 1994), we will address it on the merits because the government has not urged us to apply the procedural bar, see id. at 379. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution states: “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The prohibition on double jeopardy “has been said to consist of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against -3- multiple punishments for the same offense.” United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 129 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Double-jeopardy principles are implicated here by Mr. Smith’s contention that his sentences for both CCE and the predicate offenses of aiding and abetting unconstitutionally punish him twice for the same conduct. In rejecting Mr. Smith’s claim, however, the district court relied on two grounds, one of which is unchallenged in this court. The district court observed that “the jury’s Verdict Form indicates that the jury found Smith had directly violated each of the substantive drug laws alleged in . . . counts [3 through 11], and did not find him liable under 18 U.S.C. § 2 [aiding and abetting] for any of these counts.” Aplt’s App. Vol. 1 at 10. Mr. Smith’s brief in this court complains that the trial judge instructed the jury on aiding and abetting, but he does not explain (nor do we see) how he could have been harmed by the instructions in light of the jury’s verdict. We note that, as recognized in Mr. Smith’s brief, double-jeopardy principles are not violated by conviction and punishment for both CCE and the predicate substantive offenses making up the series of violations. Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 793 (1985). (This is not to say that we agree with Mr. Smith that there is a double-jeopardy bar when the predicate offenses are aiding-and-abetting offenses. We need not reach that issue.) -4- Because Mr. Smith has not contested the district court’s finding regarding the verdict forms, no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s assessment of Mr. Smith’s constitutional claim debatable or wrong. We therefore deny a COA on this issue.