Opinion ID: 201905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wilfredo Perez

Text: 50 _______ not guilty 51 ? guilty of conspiracy involving greater than 5 K's of cocaine 52 ... 53 d. William Olivero 54 _______ not guilty 55 ? guilty of conspiracy involving _______ of cocaine 56 The net result was that the jury did not find a specific drug quantity as to Olivero but did find he was guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The jury was not asked to determine the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy as a whole. The court did, however, instruct the jury that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant joined this conspiracy — the one charged in the indictment, a wholesale rather than retail conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The indictment had alleged conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. 4 57 From this, Olivero's counsel argues that unless the jury has found a specific quantity of drugs, a defendant cannot be guilty of conspiracy. He bases this argument on United States v. Gonzalez, 420 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2005). He attributes to the case a holding that drug quantity must always be pled and proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury before there can be a conspiracy conviction. In the absence of a jury question asking the jurors to find the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy itself, he argues, that standard has not been met. 58 Olivero confuses issues of criminal liability with issues of sentence. He overreads Gonzalez, which simply holds that a defendant charged with an aggravated drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), who does not admit but rather disputes the requisite drug quantity, could not be held to a guilty plea to that offense. Id. at 115. Rather, such a defendant's plea at best supports a conviction on a lesser, unquantified drug charge, whose sentencing range is prescribed by § 841(b)(1)(C). Id. 59 Treating 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) as establishing a default statutory maximum sentence, the maximum is still 20 years. 5 This is so no matter how small the amount of the cocaine which was the subject of the conspiracy. This court has previously affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing no higher than the default statutory maximum of 20 years on similar facts. See United States v. Pérez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2003), cert denied, 541 U.S. 1005, 124 S.Ct. 2058, 158 L.Ed.2d 522 (2004) ( Pérez-Ruiz I ) (defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute specific drug quantities, but jury was not instructed that it had to find specific amounts in order to convict and there were no special verdict findings). No specific drug quantity needs to be proven for a jury to convict a defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. It is therefore not erroneous per se to allow a jury to find that a defendant is guilty of the crime charged but responsible for a lesser quantity of drugs than specified in the indictment. United States v. Gómez-Rosario, 418 F.3d 90, 104 (1st Cir.2005) (citations omitted); see also id. at 103-05 (special verdict form had one blank for filling in guilty/not guilty and other blanks for filling in defendant's responsibility for particular drug quantity, and jury was instructed to convict only upon finding that the agreement specified in the indictment, and not some other agreement ... existed). There is no basis here for reversing Olivero's conviction. 60