UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-10185
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCUS MORGAN, also known as Red;
RYAN JACKSON, also known as Anthony, also known as Tony;
JARVIS WRIGHT, also known as Jaye,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
______________________________________________
July 15, 1997
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
This direct criminal appeal involves three appellants who were
convicted of numerous drug-related offenses. Appellants raise
various challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary
rulings, and their sentences. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The narcotics conspiracy and related convictions in this case
result from an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)
operation in Dallas, Texas. FBI Agent Donna Brown and Officer Mark
Webster of the Dallas Police Department conducted an undercover
operation in the Frazier Courts area in Dallas. Agent Brown and
Officer Webster infiltrated the area and made numerous undercover
purchases of crack cocaine, many of which were recorded on
audiotape and/or videotape.1 As a result of their undercover
efforts, a grand jury returned a 49-count indictment against 24
defendants. All 24 defendants were charged with conspiracy to
distribute cocaine between December 1, 1994 and August 8, 1995, and
many were charged with other offenses as well. The three
appellants in this case were tried together.
Appellant Marcus Morgan was charged with conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 846), two counts of
maintaining a building for the purpose of distributing cocaine base
(21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1)) and aiding and abetting the same (18 U.S.C.
§ 2), employment of a minor to assist in drug trafficking (21
U.S.C. §§ 861(a)(1)) and aiding and abetting the same (18 U.S.C. §
2), three counts of distribution of cocaine base near a public
school (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 860(a)) (one count
included aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 2). On November 2, 1995,
a jury returned a verdict of guilty on the conspiracy count and
three counts of distribution of cocaine base near a school. The
jury found Morgan not guilty on both counts of maintaining a place
for distributing crack cocaine. The district court sentenced
1
The facts are set out in greater detail as needed to
review each appellant’s sufficiency points.
2
Morgan to 240 months on each count to run concurrently and an
eight-year term of supervised release.
Jarvis Wright was charged with conspiring to distribute
cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 846), maintaining a building for the
purpose of distributing cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1)) and
aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), and four counts of
distributing cocaine base near a school (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(iii), and 860(a)) and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C.
§ 2). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all six counts
against Wright. The district court sentenced Wright to 240 months
on each count to run concurrently and an eight-year term of
supervised release.
Ryan Jackson was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine
base (21 U.S.C. § 846) and four counts of distributing cocaine base
near a public school (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C),
(B)(iii), and 860(a)) and aiding and abetting the same (18 U.S.C.
§ 2). He was convicted of all charges save one count of
distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine
base near a school. The district court sentenced Jackson to 210
months on each count to run concurrently and five-, six-, and
eight-year terms of supervised release to be served concurrently.
The defendants timely filed notices of appeal.
Wright and Jackson seek to adopt by reference their co-
appellants’ briefs in their entirety. Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 28(I) permits an appellant to “adopt by reference any
part of the brief of another [appellant].” FED. R. APP. P. 28(I).
3
This circuit, however, has held that an appellant may not adopt by
reference fact-specific challenges to his conviction. See United
States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 n.2 (5th Cir. 1996)(citations
omitted). Thus, Jackson may not adopt Morgan’s and Wright’s
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, nor may Wright adopt
Morgan’s and Jackson’s challenges to the district court’s
application of the sentencing guidelines. See id. (noting that
sufficiency and sentencing challenges may not be adopted by
reference). The government does not challenge Wright’s adoption of
Morgan’s and Jackson’s argument that there was a material variance
between the indictment and the proof at trial.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury
verdict, we determine whether, viewing the evidence and the
inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to
the verdict, a rational jury could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States
v. Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 385 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v.
Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub
nom. Polley v. United States, 504 U.S. 978, 112 S. Ct. 2952
(1992)), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 712 (1996).
A. Conspiracy (Wright and Morgan)
Both Morgan and Wright challenge their conspiracy convictions
on the grounds of insufficient evidence. To establish a drug
conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must
4
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an agreement existed to
violate narcotics laws, (2) the defendant knew of the agreement,
and (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in it. United
States v. Misher, 99 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation
omitted), petition for cert. filed, No. 96-1983 (Mar. 17,
1997)(citations omitted). The jury may infer any element of the
conspiracy from circumstantial evidence. United States v.
Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 1994)(citations omitted);
Misher, 99 F.3d at 668 (citations omitted). Moreover, a conspiracy
conviction can rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice if the testimony is not on its face insubstantial.
United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 181 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing
United States v. Gardea Carrasco, 830 F.2d 41, 44 (5th Cir. 1987)).
Melvin Ammons, John Stuart, and Johnny Robinson testified that
they had an agreement to distribute crack cocaine in the Frazier
Courts area. The record shows that Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson
occupied one of the top rungs of the drug-dealing ladder in this
area. Ammons bought cocaine in Dallas and Los Angeles for
distribution in the Frazier Courts area. Stuart and Robinson sold
crack from Ammons’s duplex on Frank Street. Andre Rogers was
another key player who appears to have occupied an intermediate
rung. Rogers employed appellant Jackson, bought crack from Ammons,
Stuart, and Robinson, and sold crack to Jackson, Morgan, and
Wright.
The record also supports an inference that Frazier Courts was
a protected territory for the distribution of crack cocaine; that
5
is, dealers in the area would not allow just anyone to sell crack
cocaine in the area. Dealers were equally choosy about their
clientele. Both Stuart and Rogers testified that they would not
sell crack cocaine to someone they did not know. Agent Brown’s and
Officer Webster’s testimony also bears this out: to make undercover
purchases of crack cocaine, they had to have area residents
involved in the drug scene introduce them to dealers.
1. Wright
The record in this case is sufficent to allow a reasonable
jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright knew of and
voluntarily participated in an agreement to distribute crack
cocaine in the Frazier Courts area.
Wright made crack cocaine purchases from several of the key
members of the Frazier Courts conspiracy. During 1995, Stuart sold
and “fronted” crack (i.e., allowed Wright to pay for crack with the
proceeds of its sale to others) to Wright. Robinson also fronted
crack to Wright. Wright twice attempted to purchase crack from
Ammons “on consignment.” Ammons testified that he refused because
it was “common knowledge” that Wright was “working for” Stuart.2
Wright also purchased crack from Andre Rogers.
2
Wright apparently argues that a colloquy between the
district court and Stuart at the sentencing hearing shows that the
district court found Stuart to be a credible witness and that
because Stuart testified that Wright did not work for him in 1995,
Ammons’s testimony to the contrary should have been discredited by
the jury. Credibility issues are for the finder of fact and do not
undermine the sufficiency of the evidence. See United States v.
Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 297 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub nom.
Jefferson v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 961 (1996)(citing United
States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 414-15, 100 S. Ct. 624, 637
(1980)).
6
Wright did not purchase crack cocaine only for his personal
use. Wright concedes that the government proved that he sold crack
to Officer Webster on April 19, 1995, April 26, 1995, May 23, 1995,
and July 18, 1995. The government also presented evidence that
Wright distributed crack in the neighborhood.3 According to
Rogers, Wright once asked Rogers to let him “have a customer.”
Wright also referred Officer Webster to 2939 School Place, an
apartment out of which he and his relatives Darren Choice and
Shawntee Cherry sold drugs. When Officer Webster made a purchase
of crack from Shawntee Cherry, Wright paged him. Officer Webster
testified that Wright first asked him why he had purchased from
Cherry, but then said “oh, well, it doesn’t really matter, he works
for me, it’s all the same.”
All these pieces of evidence, especially in light of other
testimony that Frazier Courts was a protected area where only
insiders could sell crack, are sufficient to support Wright’s
conspiracy conviction.
2. Morgan
The evidence of Morgan’s participation in the crack-
distribution conspiracy is sufficient as well. The record
demonstrates that Morgan bought crack from Ammons, Stuart, and
Robinson during 1995, made two crack sales to undercover officers
3
Wright also argues that his affiliation with a gang could
not be used to prove the conspiracy. This argument is frivolous.
The government did not introduce evidence at trial of Wright’s
affiliation with the 415 Bloods, much less did it rely on that
affiliation to prove conspiracy.
7
during the same period, and was aware of at least a tacit agreement
between Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson.4
In March 1995, Morgan referred Officer Webster to Andre Rogers
for the purchase of crack cocaine. Ammons testified that in May
1995, Morgan approached him to buy crack cocaine. He told Ammons
that he was buying the crack because Rogers was no longer at his
house at 2821/2823 Carter, but his customers were “still coming
down there” so Morgan “wanted to make some money.” It requires
only a small and permissible inferential step to conclude that
Morgan was taking over Rogers’s role in distributing cocaine in
that part of Frazier Courts.
On June 15, 1995, Morgan flagged Officer Webster down. Morgan
told Officer Webster he was “back in power.” Officer Webster then
purchased crack cocaine from Morgan. During the purchase, Officer
Webster saw numerous small baggies of crack in Morgan’s car,
further supporting the inference that Morgan was distributing crack
in the area.
The record also contains strong evidence that Morgan knew of
the agreement between Stuart, Ammons, and Robinson. Stuart twice
sold crack cocaine to Morgan at Ammons’s Frank Street duplex. On
the first occasion, Morgan purchased approximately 7 grams of crack
cocaine for $200. The next time, he purchased an ounce. Stuart
testified that he tried to charge Morgan $450. Morgan apparently
4
Morgan asserts that his first sale to Webster on January
9, 1995 was not evidence of his knowing participation in any
conspiracy because Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson had not yet entered
into an agreement at that time. Even without this sale, the
evidence is sufficient to support Morgan’s conviction.
8
had bought an ounce from Ammons for $400; Morgan protested to
Stuart that “Sinky [Ammons] let me have them for 4." Stuart
testified that he reduced the price to $400 “out of respect for the
duplex [on Frank Street] and the business relationship we all had.”
On another occasion in 1995, Morgan came to Ammons’s residence
to purchase crack cocaine. When Morgan arrived, Ammons and
Robinson were cooking powder cocaine into crack cocaine. Ammons
instructed Robinson to tell Morgan that it would be awhile before
the crack was finished. When the crack was ready, Robinson
delivered it to Morgan on Carter Street. Morgan bought
approximately 60 grams of crack in this transaction alone.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, there is substantial evidence from which the jury could
conclude that there was an agreement to sell crack cocaine in the
Frazier Courts area and that Morgan was aware of and voluntarily
participated in that agreement.
B. Crackhouse Statute (Wright)
Wright challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for maintaining a place
for the distribution of a controlled substance or aiding and
abetting the same.
A conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a) (the “crackhouse
statute”) requires the government to show that the defendant (1)
knowingly (2) opened or maintained a property (3) for the purpose
of manufacturing, distributing, or using the drug. Gibson, 55 F.3d
at 181. Only the second element is at issue in this case.
9
Although this circuit has previously encountered the “maintenance”
element of Section 856(a)(1), the evidence presented in those cases
allowed us to paint with a broader brush than the evidence in this
case will permit. See United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th
Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Preston v. United States, 500
U.S. 955, 111 S. Ct. 2264 (1991); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d
1425 (5th Cir. 1989), en banc reh’g denied, 894 F.2d 1335 (1990).5
During an undercover transaction on April 26, 1995, Wright
told Officer Webster that he could also contact Darren Choice and
Shawntee Cherry, Wright’s relatives, at 2939 School Place to
purchase narcotics. Wright called the School Place apartment “our
spot” and gave Webster the address as “the place from which he sold
his dope.” That night Webster went to the address and bought crack
from Cherry in the parking lot. Webster testified that Wright
later told him that Shawntee Cherry “worked for him.” Donald
Greer, Wright’s uncle and a co-defendant who pleaded guilty before
trial, testified that Wright was known to sell drugs from “Shawn’s
house” on School Place “in the projects.”
Two and a half months later, Webster returned to the
apartment. When Webster entered, Wright was lying on the couch.
Wright motioned Webster in and instructed an unidentified man “to
go to the closet and remove a plastic bag . . . and deliver it to
Mr. Wright.” Wright then sold the crack to Webster. When the
police searched 2939 School Place, they found a baggy containing
5
On several other occasions, we have considered the “for
the purpose of” element, see Gibson, 55 F.3d at 181; United States
v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183, 187-90 (5th Cir. 1990).
10
crack, along with a plate and a razor blade, more baggies, and
white powdery residue, although these items were not directly
linked to Wright. The record does not contain evidence Wright paid
rent for the apartment or that he lived in the apartment. The
apartment lease was in the name of Charisee Choice, another of
Wright’s relatives. Wright argues that even if crack was
distributed from the School Place apartment, there is no evidence
that he “maintained” the apartment within the meaning of the
statute.
Although neither Roberts nor Onick squarely controls our
disposition here, we draw guidance from them. Onick offers several
hints as to the meaning of maintenance. In Onick, the evidence
showed that the defendant lived in the house he was found to have
maintained. Papers found at the house showed that the defendant
listed it as his home address; clothes found there were labeled
with his nickname, and bottles of prescription medicines bore his
name; and he “selected clothing from one of the closets to wear to
the police station.” 889 F.2d 1430. Based on this evidence, the
court concluded that the defendant had “dominion and control” over
the house, and thus had constructive possession of drugs in the
house. Id. Against this factual backdrop, we held that “the jury
could infer that Tolliver maintained the house because he lived
there.” Id. at 1431.6
6
We reversed the conviction of another defendant in Onick
who did not live at the house. Id. at 1431. We noted, however,
that we did not “mean to suggest that living on the premises is
either necessary or sufficient for conviction under this statute.”
889 F.2d at 1431 n.2.
11
In Roberts, this court gave a clear signal that the
constructive possession concepts of “dominion and control” are
relevant to the maintenance inquiry. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221.
The evidence in Roberts was strong: the defendant “paid most of the
rent” on the condominium; he attempted to “swap” the condominium
for another place; he was present when the police searched the
place and was heard “issuing orders to the condominium’s
occupants”; and a government informant had previously seen him
“cutting cocaine” inside the residence. Id. From this evidence,
the court concluded that the defendant “did exercise sufficient
dominion and control” to support a finding that he “opened or
maintained” the condominium. Id.
Both Onick and Roberts suggest that dominion and control over
a place are relevant to showing maintenance. See id.; Onick, 889
F.2d at 1431. Other circuits have gone further and held that
evidence of dominion and control over or constructive possession of
a place is sufficient to support a maintenance finding. See United
States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir. 1994).
We are wary of equating possession with maintenance by holding
that any time the evidence would support a finding that the
defendant was in constructive possession of a premises, the
evidence would also support a conviction under the crackhouse
statute when controlled substances are distributed from such
premises. Indeed our opinion in Roberts suggests that not just any
showing of dominion and control will suffice to support a
12
maintenance finding. We held that there was evidence that the
defendant exercised “sufficient dominion and control” over the
condominium, suggesting that dominion and control may fall short of
maintenance. Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (emphasis added). We
believe that the Roberts court properly qualified its holding.
Congress could have, but did not, make it an offense to “possess”
a place for the purpose of distributing controlled substances.
“Maintain” connotes a degree of continuity and duration that is not
an attribute of “possession.”7 See United States v. Clavis, 956
F.2d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir.)(listing duration and continuity as two
factors to be taken into consideration in determining the
maintenance issue), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. United States,
504 U.S. 990, 112 S. Ct. 2979 (1992), modified on other grounds,
977 F.2d 538 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 998, 113 S.
Ct. 1619 (1993).
With this background in mind, we turn to whether there was
sufficient evidence that Wright maintained the apartment on School
Place. On one hand, the record is devoid of evidence that Wright
lived at the apartment, leased the apartment, paid rent for the
apartment, had such control over the apartment that he could lend
it to others, or that the utilities or telephone service were in
his name.
7
Compare Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 718
(1984) (defining to “maintain” as “to keep in an existing state:
preserve from failure or decline; to sustain against opposition or
danger: uphold and defend; to continue or persevere in: carry on,
keep up) with id. at 918 (defining “possess” as “to instate as an
owner . . . to have and hold as property).
13
On the other hand, the evidence demonstrates that Wright
exercised some supervisory control over the apartment, shown by his
instructions to the person who retrieved the crack from the closet
and brought it to him and by the fact that Cherry, who lived in the
apartment, worked for him. Supervisory control over the premises
is one factor that this court has considered probative of
“maintaining” a place. See Roberts, 913 F.2d at 221 (noting that
the police heard the defendant giving orders to the occupants of
the condominimum). The Eleventh Circuit has also recognized that
acts of maintenance may include “supervising, protecting, [or]
supplying food to those at the site . . . .” Clavis, 956 F.2d at
1091. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit in dictum emphasized that the
statute “appears to be aimed, like the drug-kingpin statute, at
persons who occupy a supervisory, managerial, or entrepreneurial
role in a drug enterprise . . . .” United States v. Thomas, 956
F.2d 165, 166 (7th Cir. 1992)(citations omitted).
The question in this case is whether the slim evidence of
supervisory control over the apartment, in combination with the
other slender reeds upon which the government relies, is sufficient
to show that Wright “maintained” the apartment.
Along with evidence that Wright exercised a supervisory role
at the apartment, there is some evidence of the duration of
Wright’s connection with the apartment: at least two and a half
months passed between when Wright referred Officer Webster to the
apartment (calling it “our spot”) and when Wright was in the
apartment, selling crack to Officer Webster. There is also
14
evidence that Wright stored his crack in a closet at the apartment,
which is not a common area. See Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1092 (noting
that items owned by defendant convicted under Section 856(a)(1)
were found in a locked closet); United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d
1397, 1403-04 (10th Cir. 1990) (emphasizing the fact that items
connected to the defendant were found in a closet), cert. denied,
500 U.S. 925, 111 S. Ct. 2033 (1991).
This case does not involve an isolated sale of crack from a
location. Rather, all the evidence is consistent with Wright
having participated in the maintenance of a crackhouse. Wright
directed others to the crackhouse; called the location “our spot”;
told Officer Webster that Cherry, who resided in the apartment,
worked for him; and exercised dominion and control over the
apartment by directing another person during a drug transaction and
by storing his drugs in a closet in the apartment. Although any of
these facts might be insufficient in isolation, they coalesce to
support the jury’s finding here that Wright maintained 2939 School
Place for the purpose of distributing crack cocaine in violation of
Section 856(a)(1).
We emphasize that whether a defendant has “maintained” a place
is necessarily a fact-intensive issue that must be resolved on a
case-by-case basis. In doing so, we must be mindful of the
conditions under which crackhouse operations are often conducted.
Drug dealers who maintain a location for the purpose of selling
drugs may not avoid conviction under the crackhouse statute by
simply ensuring that the lease or deed for the location and the
15
utilities, if any, are not in their name. See, e.g., United
States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913, 919 (10th Cir. 1995); Howell, 31 F.3d
at 741; see also United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250, 1254
(D.C. Cir. 1992).
Where the evidence shows that over a period of time the
defendant can direct the activities of and the people in a place,
the jury may infer that he is involved in maintaining the place.
Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence as a whole is sufficient
to support the jury’s finding that Wright maintained 2939 School
Place for the purpose of distributing cocaine base.
C. Aiding and abetting the sale of crack cocaine near a public
school (Morgan)
The jury convicted Morgan of Count 14, which charged that
Morgan, Jackson, and Rogers aided and abetted each other in the
possession and distribution of crack near a public school on March
10, 1995. The record shows that Morgan referred Officer Webster to
Rogers at 2831/2823 Carter for the purchase of crack. Webster went
to the Carter address and was met by Ryan Jackson, whom Webster
knew from a previous sale. Webster and Jackson negotiated the
sale, Jackson got baggies of crack from Rogers, and Jackson and
Webster drove to another location to complete the sale.
Morgan appears to complain of his conviction because although
he referred Webster to Rogers, Jackson actually handled the
transaction. This argument is without merit. Aside from the fact
that Rogers was in fact involved in the transaction, evidence at
trial showed that Jackson worked for Rogers. This evidence is more
than sufficient to support the conviction.
16
II. Variance
Morgan, Jackson, and Wright8 argue that a fatal variance
existed between the indictment, which alleged a single conspiracy,
and the proof at trial, which they claim established the existence
of two or more separate and independent conspiracies. To prevail
on a material variance claim, the appellants must prove (1) a
variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, and (2)
that the variance affected their substantial rights. United States
v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
2595 (1995). Whether the evidence shows one or multiple
conspiracies is a question of fact for the jury. United States v.
Guerra-Marez, 928 F.2d 665, 671 (5th Cir.)(citations omitted),
cert. denied, 502 U.S. 917, 112 S. Ct. 322 (1991). The principal
considerations in counting the number of conspiracies proven are
“(1) the existence of a common goal, (2) the nature of the scheme
and (3) overlapping of participants in the various dealings.”
United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 761 (5th Cir.), reh’g
denied en banc, 21 F.3d 1110, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 870, 115 S.
Ct. 193 (1994) (quoting United States v. Richerson, 833 F.2d 1147,
1153 (5th Cir. 1987)). A jury’s finding that the government proved
a single conspiracy must be affirmed unless the evidence, viewed in
the light most favorable to the government, would preclude
reasonable jurors from finding a single conspiracy beyond a
8
The government does not contest Wright’s adoption of this
issue by reference.
17
reasonable doubt. Morris, 46 F.3d at 415 (citing United States v.
DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 118 (5th Cir. 1989)).
This court has defined the “common goal” factor used to count
conspiracies broadly. Morris, 46 F.3d at 415. In Morris, we held
that the common goal of a single conspiracy was “to derive personal
gain from the illicit business of buying and selling cocaine.” Id.
The jury could reasonably have concluded that the common goal of
the charged conspiracy in this case was to distribute crack cocaine
in the Frazier Courts area.
Both the nature of the scheme and the overlap of participants
also support a single conspiracy in this case. A bird’s eye view
of the evidence presented at trial shows that Ammons, Stuart, and
Robinson were “key men” who supplied crack cocaine to the Frazier
Courts area. See United States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120,
1127 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, No. 96-9480 (June
19, 1997); Morris, 46 F.3d at 416 (quoting United States v.
Richerson, 833 F.2d 1147, 1154 (5th Cir.1987)(internal citations
omitted)). Rogers, Wright, and Morgan acted as middle men, buying
from Ammons, Stuart, and Robinson, and selling to area residents.
Jackson worked for Rogers, who bought crack from Ammons and Stuart
at the Frank Street duplex. The evidence also showed that Morgan
referred business to Rogers. Viewed in the light most favorable to
the verdict, the efforts of each were “necessary or advantageous .
. . to the overall success of the venture . . . .” Morris, 46 F.3d
at 417. The government made a strong showing that the sellers and
18
the mid-level purchasers had direct relationships and that there
was overlap between the groups of distributors.
Jackson argues that the government proved two conspiracies:
the Ammons-Stuart-Robinson conspiracy (the “charged conspiracy”)
and a conspiracy headed by Andre Carl Rogers. Jackson also lists
members of the charged conspiracy, including Ammons, Stuart, and
Robinson, who were unaware that Jackson sold cocaine. Id. Of
course, the fact that other participants in the charged conspiracy
were unaware of Jackson’s involvement in the overarching scheme
does not preclude a finding that he was a part of the conspiracy.
Morris, 46 F.3d at 416 (“The government does not have to establish
that the sellers and purchasers knew each other or knew what each
other was doing.”). Jackson also relies on Rogers’s testimony that
his suppliers were not among those charged in the indictment and
that some of the individuals who distributed for him were not
charged. Even if Rogers had other suppliers, the record is clear
that Rogers purchased crack cocaine from Ammons and Stuart.
Further, the fact that some conspirators in Roger’s line of
distribution may have escaped indictment does not establish a
separate conspiracy.
Morgan argues that the places at which the prosecution proved
he sold crack cocaine differed from the locations at which co-
conspirators were shown to distribute. He also argues that Rogers
was a competitor, not a part of the same conspiracy. The fact that
some participants in the scheme are in competition does not
preclude a finding of a single conspiracy. See United States v.
19
Wilson, ___ F.3d ___, 1997 WL 351805, *4 (5th Cir. June 26, 1997)
(citations omitted); Morris, 46 F.3d at 416 (holding that
competition among purchasers was just a part of the “larger common
plan” to distribute drugs). As discussed in Section I.A.2 above,
the evidence was sufficient to show that Morgan was involved in the
overarching conspiracy.
Even were we to conclude that there was a variance, appellants
have failed to prove that it affected their substantial rights.
See Guerra-Marez, 928 F.2d at 672. The evidence is sufficient to
prove each appellant’s participation in at least one conspiracy,
and none has shown reversible error under joinder and severance
principles. See Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d at 1128. This court has
“long held that when the indictment alleges the conspiracy count as
a single conspiracy, but the ‘government proves multiple
conspiracies and a defendant’s involvement in at least one of them,
then clearly there is no variance affecting that defendant’s
substantial rights.’” Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 762 (citations
omitted), cited in Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d at 1128.
In addition, the jury received a cautionary instruction
warning against the transference of guilt, which further
safeguarded against the possibility of prejudice. See, e.g., Pena-
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d at 1128; Morris, 46 F.3d at 417 (citing Guerra-
Marez, 928 F.2d at 672); United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d
929, 936 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
864, 115 S. Ct. 180 (1994). The written jury instructions in this
case cautioned jurors against finding guilt if the proof
20
established any conspiracy other than that charged in the
indictment.
In sum, we conclude that the government proved a single
conspiracy, but even were we to conclude that the government
adduced evidence of more than one conspiracy, the substantial
rights of appellants were not affected.
III. Sentencing
Defendants Wright and Morgan challenge their sentences on
several grounds. The district court’s factual determinations at
sentencing are reviewed for clear error; its legal conclusions, de
novo. United States v. Siciliano, 953 F.2d 939, 942 (5th Cir.
1992).
A. Quantity of Cocaine (Morgan)
The district court assigned Morgan a base offense level of 34,
the offense level under the guidelines for 50 to 150 grams of
crack. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4). Morgan challenges the quantity
range under which he was sentenced, complaining of the district
court’s failure to find a specific gram amount attributable to him.
The district court found that “even if you exclude some of it,
you’re still above the 50 level.” The better practice would be to
make a specific finding of the quantity of cocaine attributable to
a defendant. Failure to do so, however, is not reversible if a
finding within the sentencing range is not clearly erroneous. See
United States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1495 (5th Cir.)(holding
that the district court’s finding that “at least 1000 kilograms”
were attributable to the defendant was “clearly adequate and
21
sufficiently specific” to comply with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 180 (1996); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 comment.
(n. 12)(the sentencing judge may “approximate the quantity” of the
controlled substance if no drug seizure occurred); Basinger, 60
F.3d at 1410; United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510, 1516-17
(10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 883, 114 S. Ct. 230
(1993).
The district court’s finding that the amount of crack
attributable to Morgan was more than 50 grams was not clearly
erroneous. Stuart testified that he sold Morgan 60 grams of crack
cocaine in one transaction alone. We are not persuaded by Morgan’s
argument that the evidence associated with this amount bears
insufficient indicia of reliability to support his sentence.
B. Type of Cocaine (Morgan)
Morgan argues that the district court erred in applying the
sentencing guidelines for cocaine base (crack), as opposed to
another form of cocaine, because there was insufficient evidence
that the drug bought and sold was crack cocaine. We have reviewed
the record and the arguments of the parties and conclude that this
point lacks merit.
C. Obstruction of Justice (Morgan)
Morgan appeals the enhancement of his offense level by two
points for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The
district court enhanced Morgan’s sentence under this guideline
because it found that Morgan had given perjurious testimony at
trial and that the testimony was material. We review U.S.S.G. §
22
3C1.1 enhancement findings for clear error. See United States v.
Gray, 105 F.3d 956, 971 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 1856 (1997). Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Morgan,9 the district court did not clearly err
in finding that Morgan committed perjury with respect to material
trial testimony. Clearly, Morgan’s perjured testimony provided a
sufficient basis for imposing an obstruction of justice
enhancement. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 113 S.
Ct. 1111, 1114-17 (1993); Gray, 105 F.3d at 971; United States v.
Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295-97 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514
U.S. 1084, 115 S. Ct. 1798 (1995); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.
3(b)).
D. Criminal History Categories (Jackson, Morgan)
Both Morgan and Jackson argue that the district court should
have departed downward because the criminal history category
assigned to them overrepresents the seriousness of their criminal
histories. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
The record reflects that the district court exercised its
discretion in refusing to adjust Morgan’s and Jackson’s criminal
history categories. The district court did not refuse to depart in
violation of law or because of a mistaken application of the
guidelines, nor did it do so out of a mistaken belief that it
lacked the power to do so. Under these circumstances, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to depart
downward in calculating Morgan’s and Jackson’s criminal history
9
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
23
categories. See United States v. Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1185 (5th
Cir. 1995); United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir.
1995); see also United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 589 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1080, 114 S. Ct. 899 (1994).
IV. Evidentiary Rulings
A. Shotgun
Wright and Jackson appeal the admission of Officer Webster’s
testimony that, during the course of one of the undercover drug
deals where Jackson was present, a participant held a shotgun to
Officer Webster’s head. Webster testified that Nathaniel Williams
was holding a shotgun when Webster entered the residence and that
Williams held the shotgun to Webster’s head during the transaction.
The district court also allowed Webster to identify a noise on the
undercover tape recording of the transaction as “racking” the
shotgun. We review admissibility rulings for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1334 (5th Cir. 1996).
In this case, the court held a hearing outside the presence of
the jury, concluded that the evidence was not extraneous to the
charge, and overruled Jackson’s Rule 404(b) objection. The
district court acted within its discretion in determining that the
use of the shotgun was not evidence extrinsic to the charge. The
shotgun was used in connection with a drug sale, which involved
Jackson and other charged co-conspirators who pleaded guilty before
trial. The district court’s determination that the evidence was
not extrinsic comports with the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis in
United States v. Weeks:
24
Evidence of criminal activity other than the charged
offense is not considered extrinsic within the
proscription of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence if it is an uncharged offense which arose out of
the same transaction or series of transactions as the
charged offense, United States v. Kloock, 652 F.2d 492,
494 (5th Cir. 1981), if it was inextricably intertwined
with the evidence regarding the charged offense, United
States v. Killian, 639 F.2d 206, 211 (5th Cir. 1981),
cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1021, 101 S. Ct. 3014, 69 L.Ed. 2d
394 (1982), or if it is necessary to complete the story
of the crime of the trial, United States v. Wilson, 578
F.2d 67, 72-73 (5th Cir. 1978).
716 F.2d 830, 832 (11th Cir. 1983); see also United States v.
Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v.
Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 942 (2d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
The use of the shotgun in this case arose out of the drug
conspiracy, was inextricably intertwined with the specific drug
deal, and was part of “the story of the crime.” See Weeks, 716
F.2d at 832. Under these circumstances, the district court’s
determination that this evidence was not extraneous was not an
abuse of discretion.
Jackson also argues that the district court erred in failing
to make Beechum findings on the record as required by United States
v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1983). We disagree for
two reasons. First, because the district court properly determined
that the evidence was not extraneous, no Beechum findings were
required. United States v. Maceo, 947 F.2d 1191, 1199 n.3 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 949, 112 S. Ct. 1510 (1992).
Second, even if Beechum did apply, the district court was not
required to conduct an on-the-record Beechum analysis because
25
Jackson failed to request it. United States v. Fox, 69 F.3d 15, 20
(5th Cir. 1995).
Finally, although the shotgun evidence is no doubt
prejudicial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that any unfair prejudice did not “substantially
outweigh” its probative value as required under Rule 403.
B. Gangs
Wright assigns as error the district court’s admission of
evidence “pertaining to gangs and violence.” Because Wright did
not object to the admission of this testimony at the time of trial,
we review for plain error. United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035,
1054 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1165 (1995).10
The only references to the term “gang” in the course of the
trial were contained in Agent Brown’s testimony that she was
assigned to the “organized crime gang squad in the Dallas Division
[of the FBI]” and that she received information about the Frazier
Courts area from the gang unit of the Dallas Police Department. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this
testimony. In any event, Wright cannot show that such reference to
10
We review for plain error even though the matter admitted
was the subject of a pretrial Rule 404(b) ruling because Wright
made no contemporaneous objection to the admission of the testimony
at the time of trial. See Clements, 73 F.3d at 1337 n.7 (citing
United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-53 (5th Cir. 1993),
cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1081, 114 S. Ct. 1829 (1994)). At the
pretrial Rule 404(b) hearing, the government introduced evidence
that Wright was affiliated with the “415 Bloods.” The district
court ruled that the government could mention gangs generally, but
that he would rule separately on any specific extrinsic criminal
act related to gangs. At trial, the government made no attempt to
prove any defendant’s affiliation with a gang or even that gang-
related activity was occurring in the area.
26
gangs prejudiced his substantial rights, much less that the
reference “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Johnson v. United States,
___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Accordingly, Wright has not shown plain
error.11
V. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Wright)
Wright claims that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). In this circuit, “a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the
claim has not been raised before the district court since no
opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the
allegation.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.
1987) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1075, 108 S. Ct.
1051 (1988). Although Wright raised the issue of his counsel’s
effectiveness in a rudimentary form in the district court,12 this
11
Wright also complains that his presentence report states
that he was a leader in the 415 Bloods and that the gang had been
linked to violent crimes in Dallas. Other than arguing that this
“unfairly attempted to sway the reader,” he does not allege that he
was prejudiced by this reference. He would be hard-pressed to do
so given that the district court stated at Wright’s sentencing
hearing that he would not consider Wright’s gang-affiliation
“either for or against the defendant in any shape, fashion, or
form.”
12
After trial but before sentencing, Wright filed a post-
trial motion for re-appointment of counsel, in which he complained
of the representation he had received from his appointed counsel.
At a hearing on this motion and related matters, the district court
told Wright that the court was “not really going to get into it
with [him] about [his] unhappiness with [his] lawyer.” Wright’s
appointed trial counsel continued to represent him through the
27
is not one of the “rare cases” in which the record is sufficiently
developed on direct appeal that it would “allow[] us to evaluate
fairly the merits of the claim.” Hidgon, 832 F.2d at 314 (citation
omitted).
CONCLUSION
The convictions and sentences of Marcus Morgan and Ryan
Jackson are AFFIRMED. The convictions and sentences of Jarvis
Wright are AFFIRMED without prejudice to his ability to pursue an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a habeas corpus
proceeding.
filing of his notice of appeal.
28