Opinion ID: 2780190
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cocaine Quantity Instructions

Text: Defendants argue that the district court committed error under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), because the jury allegedly did not find the amount of cocaine attributable to each defendant (an element of the offense) beyond a reasonable doubt.5 The district court, however, specifically instructed the jurors for both the possession and importation counts that they needed to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the agreement specified in the indictment existed between at least two people to [possess/import] with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine; and . . . that the defendant willfully joined in that agreement. Finally, the district court had jury verdict forms for each individual defendant on which the jurors specifically found 5 Five kilograms of cocaine is the threshold for the most aggravated form of drug distribution, and carries a mandatory minimum of 10 years. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 960(b)(1)(B). -13- that the amount of cocaine involved in the offense was more than five kilograms. Defendants also argue that the district court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included (i.e., lower amount) offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B),(c). But they never asked for such an instruction, cite no authority for why it was nevertheless required, and, in any event, cannot establish plain error prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of a quantity in excess of five kilograms. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 (2004) (plain error must have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of a judicial proceeding).