Court Opinion

ID: 9465543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:49:20.957563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:14.066353
License: Public Domain

*220GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, with whom ALDISERT, Circuit Judge,
joins, dissenting.
In November, 1975, a three-count indictment was returned against the appellant, Pedro Gomez. That indictment charged him with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I), possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count II), and actual distribution of one-half kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count III). A jury returned a verdict of guilty on each count. Gomez, a first offender, was sentenced on Count I to a 15-year term of imprisonment, the maximum provided by §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). He also received a 10-year term on Count II, to be served consecutive to the sentence on Count I, and a 15-year sentence on Count III, to be served concurrent with the Count I sentence. As provided in § 841(b)(1)(A), a special parole term was also imposed on each count.
On this appeal Gomez does not challenge either the merits of his conviction on the conspiracy count or the sentence imposed thereunder. He urges, however, that since the only possession shown in support of the second count was the identical possession involved in the distribution charge (Count III), the separate conviction on Count II was impermissible. We disagree with the majority that a separate judgment of sentence could have been imposed on Count II. Consequently, we would reverse that conviction and vacate the sentence imposed under it.
The statute which details the substantive offense, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), provides that:
it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally—
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance .
That statutory subsection creates four disjunctive crimes: (1) knowing or intentional manufacture of a controlled substance; (2) knowing or intentional distribution; (3) knowing or intentional dispensing; and (4) knowing or intentional possession with intent to manufacture, distribute or possess. Count II of the indictment charged the fourth crime, which plainly requires both a knowledgeable possession and a specific criminal intention. For example, the possession of a controlled substance for personal-consumption purposes is not made a crime by § 841(a)(1). Under § 404(a) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. No. 91-513, 21 U.S.C. § 844, possession of controlled substances for purposes other than the three specific purposes listed in § 841(a)(1) is only a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum jail sentence of one year.
Gomez’s objection to the judgment of sentence under Count II is fundamental. He urges that when Congress enacted § 841(a)(1) it did not intend to permit conviction both of possession with a specific criminal object and of the accomplishment of that object at the same time and place, when possession was an essential element of such accomplishment. One cannot manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance without also having possession of it.1 One can possess a controlled substance with the intention of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing it and yet fall short of the accomplishment of any of those purposes. Gomez argues that Congress never intended, however, that when the government proved the accomplishment of one of the three criminal purposes, it could also, because that accomplishment required possession, convict the defendant of the separate crime of possession.
The structure of the penalty provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and its rather sparse legislative history lend support to Gomez’s contention. In the penalty provisions, Congress carefully differentiated between types of substances and types of offenses. The statute reduces penalties for *221personal possession,2 doubles the maximum penalty for distribution to persons under the age of 21,3 punishes conspiracies separately in the same manner as the substantive object of the conspiracy would be punished,4 and deals specially with continuing criminal enterprises.5 Congress rather meticulously integrated the penalty scheme, reserving the most severe penalty, a 15-year term of imprisonment, for those persons who illegally manufacture, sell, or distribute Schedule I or II controlled substances. If, as the government contends, there can be a separate conviction for the possession element of a manufacture, distribution, or dispensation, then the carefully crafted statutory scheme will be thrown entirely out of kilter. Instead of a 15-year term of imprisonment, the maximum sentence for a single distribution could be 30 years — 15 years for the distribution and another 15 years for possession with intent to distribute. That maximum would increase to 45 years if the controlled substance were to be distributed to a person under 21 years of age.6 A 15-year prison term is an extremely severe sentence. We do not believe that Congress intended the possession element of a specific distribution to be sanctioned separately, so as to increase the maximum sentence for a single transaction from 15 years to 30 or possibly 45 years. Rather, we conclude that the possession offense in § 841(a)(1) was intended to apply only where the government cannot prove, with respect to a specific instance of possession, that a manufacture, distribution, or dispensation actually took place.
The majority’s only answer to Gomez’s proposed statutory construction is this classic non sequitur:
Nothing in the statute indicates any congressional intent to limit the reach of this legislation, which is described in its very title as “Comprehensive.” If indeed, as we believe, it was the intent of Congress to proscribe all drug activity, then it follows that separate charges and convictions for each component of the offenses described must necessarily be permitted so as to prevent a drug violator from escaping criminal responsibility.
How a drug violator would escape criminal liability by the reasonable construction of the statute for which Gomez argues is left unexplained, because it is unexplainable. If the government proved possession and intent, without proving distribution, § 841(a)(1) still would apply. Even possession solely for personal use is proscribed in another section of the same law.
In this case the grand jury charged Gomez separately with a possession and a distribution at the same time and place. The government proved a possession for the purpose of distribution and an actual distribution at the time and place. Under the district court’s instructions and verdict form, the jury was permitted to return separate verdicts on the separate counts. It should have been instructed that if the evidence established a distribution at the specified time and place, a guilty verdict should be returned on the more inclusive distribution charge alone. Alternatively, when the verdicts were returned on both counts, the district court, could well have molded them to provide for a conviction only on the more factually inclusive distribution charge. Those courts which have considered the problem of multiple convictions for the same possession have, by varying rationales, reached essentially the same result which we believe is statutorily required. See United States v. King, 521 F.2d 356, 359 *222(6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Stevens, 521 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Curry, 512 F.2d 1299, 1305-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832, 96 S.Ct. 55, 46 L.Ed.2d 50 (1975); United States v. Atkinson, 512 F.2d 1235, 1240 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 1477, 47 L.Ed.2d 743 (1976).
The government urges that the conviction on the second count should stand because there is evidence in the record from which the jury could have found possessions by Gomez at times and places other than on April 2, 1975, at Paterson, New Jersey. Concededly, there was some evidence, admitted in support of the conspiracy count, from which such an inference might have been drawn. But the grand jury did not indict the appellant for possession at any other time or place. Moreover, the jury was not instructed respecting Gomez’s possession of a controlled substance at any other time or place. It would be the grossest speculation to attribute to the verdict on Count II a finding of possession other than at the specific time and place charged. Properly the majority does not rely on this specious argument.
The government also urges that, even if Gomez has correctly interpreted § 841(a)(1), the appropriate remedy for the error which occurred is to let both convictions stand and to remand the case to the district court for resentencing. In support of the argument, the government cites United States v. Corson, 449 F.2d 544 (3d Cir. 1971). We think that the government’s reliance on Corson is misplaced. First, although we need not decide the issue in this case, we are convinced that even with respect to the federal bank robbery statute, Corson does not survive the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976). In Corson, in order to preserve the most serious sentence, this court declined to hold that the less inclusive charges merged into the more inclusive ones charged. Thus, we remanded for the imposition of a general sentence. In Gaddis, however, the Supreme Court recognized that convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) merged into the more inclusive § 2113(d) charge. In reaching that decision, the Court stated:
In light of Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 [77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370], the concurrent sentences under Counts 1 and 2 should also be vacated, leaving the respondents under single 25-year prison sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d).
424 U.S. at 549 n.12, 96 S.Ct. at 1027. The majority’s effort to read the quoted language as an approval of the Corson rule that the remedy will “invariably . uphold the heaviest sentence”, 424 U.S. at 547-48 (majority opinion p. 218), while perhaps consistent with the spirit which in criminal cases animates this court as one of the most pro-government appellate tribunals in the federal system,7 is unpersuasive. It ignores what the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed, namely,
[that] “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 [91 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 28 L.Ed.2d 493] (1971). ... In various ways over the years, we have stated that “when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222 [73 S.Ct. 227, 229, 97 L.Ed. 260] (1952). This principle is founded on two policies that have long been part of our tradition. First, “a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if *223a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.” McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 [51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816] (1931) (Holmes, J.). . . Second, because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures and not courts should define criminal activity. This policy embodies “the instinctive distastes against men languishing in prison unless the lawmaker has clearly said they should.” H. Friendly, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and the Reading of Statutes, in Benchmarks 196, 209 (1967). Thus, where there is ambiguity in a criminal statute, doubts are resolved in favor of the defendant. (Footnote and citations omitted.)
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522-523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). See Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978). The majority suggests that the Court in Gaddis embraced just the opposite practice, as it has done, of resolving any possible ambiguity in favor of harshness rather than lenity. But the Gaddis Court vacated the offending judgments, leaving standing convictions on only the most inclusive charge. It did not endorse the maximizing spirit of Corson.
Moreover, without even referring to them, the majority leaves Gomez subject to the collateral consequences which will in the future flow from three rather than two convictions. This court is well aware that in determining eligibility for parole the United States parole board applies mechanical rules with respect to convictions. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.20. Its construction has not only upheld the heaviest sentence, but also probably postponed parole eligibility. We do not believe the Gaddis Court would tolerate that result.
More importantly, even assuming that Corson does survive Gaddis, it does not apply to § 841(a)(1). Corson was at most an interpretation of the presumed intention of Congress in drafting the bank robbery statute. We certainly did not intend in Corson to announce a rule of appellate remedies dependent upon some other statute, such as 28 U.S.C. § 2106. We concluded only that, with respect to the federal bank robbery statute, Congress intended that multiple convictions would stand but that a general sentence would be imposed. There is no such legislative intention evident in § 841(a)(1) in a case where the possession charged separately is the identical possession required for the distribution. In cases where the grand jury charges a separate possession from that required for the distribution, it seems clear that separate convictions and separate sentences are proper. But where, as here, the possession element is common to both charges, we think that Congress intended a conviction to lie on only the most inclusive substantive offense. See Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978). Since we arrive at that conclusion as a matter of statutory interpretation, we have no occasion to discuss whether that result is required by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. But since the majority construes § 841(a)(1) otherwise, it seems to us that the double jeopardy question demands a less cursory treatment than it has in the majority opinion received.
We would affirm the judgment appealed from with respect to Counts I and III, but vacate the judgment of sentence on Count II.

. One need not have actual, physical possession of a controlled substance in order to be held to have possession of it. Constructive possession is sufficient.

. Section 404 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (hereinafter the Act), Pub.L. No. 91-513, 21 U.S.C. § 844.

. Section 405 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 845.

. Section 406 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 846.

. Section 408 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 848.

. Under the statutory scheme, only the penalty for the distribution offense is doubled if the distribution is to a person below the age of 21. 21 U.S.C. § 845. Thus, if the government’s argument were accepted, a 45-year maximum would be achieved by doubling the 15-year sentence for distribution and adding another 15 years for the possession with intent to distribute.

. In recent years the percentage of reversals in criminal appeals in this court has been considerably lower than the national average of Courts of Appeals. Thus, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978, the national average of reversals was 10.7%, the Third Circuit 7.9%; for 1977, the percentages were 10.3% and 5.3%; for 1976, 10.7% and 7.7%. See Annual Reports of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Table B-l, A-4 (1978); Table B-l, 300 (1977); Table B-l, 276 (1976).