Court Opinion

ID: 2964415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:17.229327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:09.915412
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-2332

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    STANLEY PROU,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-2333

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   RAHEAM JOHNSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                     Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

               Wayne R. Foote for appellant Prou.
               ______________
               Bruce A. Jordan for appellant Johnson.
               _______________
               Margaret E.  Curran, Assistant United States  Attorney, with
               ___________________
          whom Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
               __________________                              ____________
          Browne,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  were  on brief  for
          ______
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 20, 1996
                                 ___________________

               Per curiam.   Codefendants  Stanley Prou and  Raheam Johnson
               __________

          seek reversal  of their  drug trafficking convictions  on various

          grounds.   We find  none of their  claims to  be meritorious, and

          therefore affirm.

               The facts,  briefly  stated and  viewed  in the  light  most

          favorable  to the government, are  as follows.   Prou and Johnson

          were arrested on April  3, 1995 while meeting with  an undercover

          agent, Rocha,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  cocaine.    The

          defendants had  been in  frequent contact  with Rocha  since late

          February, when an  informant arranged a  meeting between them  on

          the  premise  that  Rocha   was  a  large-scale  cocaine  dealer.

          Testimony showed that the defendants had planned to receive eight

          kilograms of cocaine on the day of their arrest: two and one-half

          for cash, two and one-half on consignment, and three for free, as

          a  reward for providing information to Rocha.  When the agent and

          the defendants met,  both defendants were  armed and Johnson  was

          carrying a  bag of cash  that contained about  half of  the money

          needed  for the  purchase.   The arrests  occurred shortly  after

          Rocha  questioned Johnson  about the amount  of cash  and shortly

          before the drug exchange was supposed to occur.

               Both  defendants  argue that  the  district  court erred  in

          failing  to  define  the  term  "distribution"  as  part  of  its

          instructions on the drug  trafficking counts.1  Neither defendant
                              
          ____________________

               1  Count  I  charged   the  defendants  with  conspiring  to
          distribute and  possess with intent to  distribute five kilograms
          or more of cocaine, in violation  of 21 U.S.C.    841(a) and 846.
          Count  II charged  them with  aiding and  abetting an  attempt to
          possess  with  intent to  distribute  five kilograms  or  more of

                                         -3-

          timely  objected to  this  omission  at  trial, however,  and  we

          therefore  may review only for plain error.   It is apparent that

          no such error  occurred.  Not only was the  jury fully capable of

          understanding the concept of  "distribution" in this context, but

          the evidence and remaining instructions negate any possibility of

          prejudicial  misunderstanding.   We  particularly  note that  the

          testimony established  that defendants sought to  obtain at least

          some cocaine from Rocha  on consignment, i.e., with a  promise to
                                                   ____

          pay  from   the  proceeds  obtaining   by  selling  it.     Thus,

          "distribution" was an integral part of  the scheme set up by  the

          defendants.

               Prou  additionally argues  that  the court  committed  plain

          error by failing to give an aiding and abetting instruction as to

          him  on Count II, which charged the defendants with the attempted

          possession of cocaine with  intent to distribute.  This  claim is

          wholly   without  merit.     Lacking   an  aiding   and  abetting

          instruction,  the jury was left  with the option  of finding that

          Prou  either was  guilty as  a principal  or  not guilty  at all.

          Thus, omission of  the aiding and  abetting instruction --  which

          would have permitted conviction  based on a less central  role in

          the transaction -- arguably worked to Prou's benefit.  The jury's

                              
          ____________________

          cocaine,  in violation  of 21 U.S.C.     841(a)  and 846,  and 18
          U.S.C.   2.   Counts III, IV and V related  to possession and use
          of firearms.

                                         -4-

          determination  that he  was culpable as  a principal  disposes of

          this claim.2

               Finally, we  reject Prou's pro  se challenge,  based on  the

          Supreme  Court's decision in United  States v. Lopez,  115 S. Ct.
                                       ______________    _____

          1624  (1995), to  the constitutionality  of the  drug trafficking

          statutes  under which  he was  convicted.   See United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Zorrilla,  93 F.3d  7,  8-9 (1st  Cir.  1996); United  States  v.
          ________                                       ______________

          Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996).
          _________

               Affirmed.
               ________

                              
          ____________________

               2  To the  extent that  Prou's complaint  is that  the court
          failed to instruct the jury that he could  not be convicted based
          on his "mere  presence" at the meeting with Rocha,  it is no more
          potent.   He  failed  to ask  for  such an  instruction  and  the
          evidence overwhelmingly belied that defense. 

                                         -5-