Opinion ID: 2828567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Drug Manufacturing

Text: Defendant argues that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to request an instruction that he was not engaging in drug manufacturing or distribution when the raid 18 took place. We are not persuaded. Count 1 charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (j), which requires that the defendant “[1] during and in relation to any . . . drug trafficking crime . . . , uses or carries a firearm, or . . . [2] in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm.” Id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Count 3 charged a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(B), which punishes anyone who intentionally kills a lawenforcement officer “during the commission of, in furtherance of, or while attempting to avoid apprehension . . . for . . . a felony violation of [the drug laws in 21 U.S.C. §§ 801– 971].” Neither statute required Defendant to be manufacturing or distributing drugs at the time of the shooting. Rather, the jury needed to find only that Defendant possessed a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possessed any equipment or chemical intending to use it to manufacture a controlled substance, see id. § 843(a)(6), or maintained a place for the manufacture or distribution of drugs, see id. § 856(a). Since Defendant’s suggested instruction was not warranted under the law, his trial attorneys could not have been ineffective for failing to propose it. See Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146, 1158 (10th Cir. 1999) (“Because this claim is meritless, [defense] counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise it.”); see also Williamson, 746 F.3d at 990 (“[O]f course, the court can reject an instruction that misstates the law.”).