UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 93-3178
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
Walter Wallace, Michael Felton, and Murray Sutton,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(September 8, 1994)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DeMOSS and PARKER*, Circuit Judges.
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:
Defendant-appellants Michael Felton, Walter Wallace and Murray
Sutton were convicted by a jury on December 15, 1992 of
(1) possession of counterfeited Federal Reserve notes, and
(2) conspiracy to possess and pass counterfeited notes.2 The jury
*
In June 1994, when oral arguments were heard in this
appeal, Judge Robert M. Parker was chief judge of the Eastern
District of Texas, sitting on the appellate panel by designation.
As of the date of this opinion, Judge Parker has been confirmed
as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
2
"Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes ... or keeps in
possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited,
or altered obligation of the United States, shall be fined not
more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or
also convicted Felton of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the
intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Felton, Wallace and Murray appeal their convictions and
sentences, raising various claims of error.3 We AFFIRM the
convictions of all three appellants. We AFFIRM the sentences of
Wallace and Sutton, but we VACATE Felton's sentence and REMAND the
case for re-sentencing of Felton.
FACTS
Because none of the appellants challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction on any count, our factual
discussion will be brief. The government proved, through testimony
of co-conspirator Doug Friday and other corroborating evidence,
that in 1991 and 1992 Friday and Felton made several trips from New
Orleans to the border town of Roma, Texas, to obtain marijuana and
bring it back to New Orleans to be sold.
The government also proved, through Friday's testimony and
other corroborating evidence, that in 1991 and 1992 Friday, Felton,
Collins, Wallace and Sutton made plans to print and distribute
counterfeit bills using defendant Wallace's print shop, Tiger
Press, in New Orleans.4 The government's investigation was aided by
both." 18 U.S.C. § 472. See also 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy).
3
Co-conspirator Leslie Collins was also convicted of
conspiracy and possession of counterfeited notes, but does not
appeal. Another co-conspirator, Douglas Friday, pleaded guilty
and testified for the government at trial pursuant to a plea
agreement.
4
Wallace and Collins had both recently finished serving
their federal sentences for a previous counterfeiting conspiracy
which occurred in 1989. In the 1989 conspiracy, a different print
2
a paid confidential informant who accompanied the conspirators in
their counterfeiting activity, and by surveillance of the
residences of Felton and Friday. A warrant search of Friday's
residence on January 23, 1992 resulted in the seizure of a paper
cutter, paper trimmings, latex gloves and more than $99,000 in
counterfeit notes. Appellants Wallace, Felton and Sutton appeal
their convictions and sentences, raising several arguments for
reversal.
DISCUSSION
Batson Challenge to Peremptory Strikes
During jury selection, the government used six of its nine
peremptory strikes to exclude black panel members from the jury.
The government's other three strikes were against white panel
members. The defendants objected pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79, 86 (1986)(holding that Equal Protection Clause forbids
litigants from exercising peremptory strikes on the basis of race).
A Batson challenge has three steps: (1) The defendant
establishes a prima facie case by raising an inference that the
prosecution struck potential jurors solely because of race. Batson,
476 U.S. at 96-97; (2) The burden then shifts to the prosecution to
articulate legitimate, clear, and reasonably specific explanations
for each of the challenged strikes. At this stage, the prosecution
need only give a facially valid explanation. United States v.
Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1373 (5th Cir. 1993); (3) At the third
shop, also owned by Wallace, had been used to print the money.
Evidence of the 1989 conspiracy was introduced at trial to show
intent, knowledge and plan.
3
stage, the trial court determines whether the defendant has proven
purposeful discrimination. Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d at 1373. The
appellate court reviews this finding for clear error, giving great
deference to the trial court's finding that the prosecutor's
explanation was credible. Id. at 1374; United States v. Terrazas
Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1988).
Defendants' challenge concerns the third step of the Batson
analysis -- they claim that the trial court clearly erred in
finding that the prosecution's reasons for striking the black panel
members were race-neutral and not a pretext for purposeful
discrimination. The government gave these reasons for its strikes:
(1) one black man was struck because he kept his hat on in court
even though the marshal had asked another person to remove his hat;
the prosecutor thought this showed a lack of respect for authority.
(2) a black female security officer employed by the New Orleans
Police Department was struck because one of the prosecutors had in
the past prosecuted several N.O.P.D. police officers and "although
she may not know me, I don't want her to hold it against me."
(3) a black woman was struck because she was retired and "seemed
very feeble and somewhat old," and the prosecutor didn't think she
could "hold her own in jury deliberation."
(4) one black panel member was struck because she was a social
worker and had been the victim of two car thefts. (the government
believes social workers tend to sympathize with criminal
defendants, and an important government witness, Douglas Friday,
was a two-time convicted car thief).
(5) one black panel member was struck because she had an ongoing
tax dispute with the federal government and had once been
represented by Felton's trial counsel. In addition, she was
employed as a social worker.
(6) the last excluded black panel member was also a social worker.
Defendants argue that the government's reasons are flimsy and
pretextual, and that the trial court clearly erred because it made
4
no specific credibility findings, but merely listened to the
government's race-neutral reasons and stated that "I don't see any
racial problem" with the jury.
We find no basis for reversal. Jury selection is inherently
subjective, and Batson determinations largely turn on the trial
court's "evaluation of [the] credibility of counsel's explanation,"
Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d at 1374. We hold that the trial court did not
clearly err in accepting the prosecution's race-neutral reasons.5
Limits on Cross-Examination
Defendants complain that the trial court violated their rights
under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment when it
"severely limited" their cross-examination of Douglas Friday, a co-
conspirator who testified for the government pursuant to a plea
agreement. Defense lawyers questioned Friday regarding (1) his
understanding of his plea agreement with the government and his
reasons for entering into it; (2) the possible sentence he thought
5
We note in passing that government attorneys also objected
under Batson; the three defendants, all of whom were black, used
all 13 of their strikes against white panel members. The reasons
articulated by defense counsel for their strikes were largely
based on occupation, age and similar characteristics, although
several white panel members were eliminated "as a group decision
amongst defense counsel because there were more qualified white
representatives further down." The record indicates that 20
percent of the original panel members were black and 80 percent
were white. After several jurors were excused by the court for
cause, the panel was 18 percent black and 82 percent white. After
denying both Batson motions, the court commented: "It seems to me
that we have ended up with a very responsible group of citizens
who are not tilted one way or another as far as race goes." The
record does not show the racial composition of the chosen jury,
and none of the parties to this appeal have provided this
information to the court, although it might have given a clue as
to the government's intent for their peremptory strikes.
5
he could receive; (3) whether he feared his girlfriend might be
prosecuted; and (4) whether he feared prosecution by state
authorities in Louisiana or Texas. The court ruled repeatedly that
many of these questions called for legal conclusions and were
improper, and told Friday not to answer.
We have held that restrictions on the scope of cross-
examination rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
See, e.g., United States v. Summers, 598 F.2d 450, 460 (5th Cir.
1979). In addition, a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights do not
"guarantee cross-examination that is effective in whatever way and
to whatever extent, the defense might wish." Delaware v. Fensterer,
474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985). Our examination of the record shows that
Friday was fully cross-examined on all the subjects about which
defendants complain. We hold that it was within the trial court's
discretion to limit repetitive or improper cross-examination. See
United States v. Beros, 833 F.2d 455, 465 (3rd Cir. 1987)(upholding
limits on "repetitive" and "marginally relevant" cross-examination
into bias of government witness).
"Prosecutorial Misconduct"
For prosecutorial misconduct to warrant a new trial, it "must
be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire
atmosphere of the trial," United States v. Stewart, 879 F.2d 1268,
1271 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 899 (1989), and "casts
serious doubt upon the correctness of the jury's verdict," United
States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1457 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112
S.Ct. 2980 (1992). Defendants Murray and Felton argue that
6
prosecutors (1) improperly vouched for their own witness's
credibility by introducing Friday's plea agreement and questioning
him in detail on its terms; (2) made an improper statement in front
of jurors that revealed that the defendants were incarcerated, and
(3) asked several questions about a statement from a document that
had not been admitted into evidence.
We first note that a prosecutor may properly bring out the
terms of a plea agreement on direct examination. United States v.
Dockray, 943 F.2d 152, 156 (1st Cir. 1991). Regarding the
prosecutor's statement which revealed that the defendants were
incarcerated, we hold that the remark, even if improper, did not
cast doubt on the correctness of the verdict. The record shows that
while the jury was filing out of the courtroom for a recess,
Felton's counsel made a request to the court that Doug Friday and
another potential government witness, Steven Miller, be kept
separated from one another during the break. The prosecutor, noting
that the courthouse had only two holding cells, responded that the
only alternative was to place one of the witnesses "in with the
defendants." It is unlikely that any of the jurors heard this
statement, and in any case the evidence of guilt was sufficient
such that the jurors' knowledge that the defendants were
incarcerated does not cast serious doubt upon the correctness of
the verdict. Regarding the prosecutor's questions relating to the
letter not in evidence, the record shows that the prosecutor was
attempting to question the witness about the words "Doug Friday's
a rat," that were written on the wall of the courthouse holding
7
cell, not about the letter, although the letter also mentioned the
words on the wall. In any case, the court sustained the defense
objections, and the question was never answered. We hold that these
three minor incidents were not enough to cast doubt on the
correctness of the verdict, and a new trial is not warranted.
Mention of Polygraph Test
During cross-examination, government witness Friday stated:
"If you are interested in my credibility --
you wanted to see my PSI report earlier -- I
will be more than happy to submit my PSI
report and a lie detector test if your co-
defendants will do the same."
Defense counsel immediately requested a bench conference and moved
for a mistrial. The trial court denied the mistrial, but allowed
counsel to jointly draft a curative instruction acceptable to both
prosecution and defense, which the court read to the jury:
"The witness's last statement was non-
responsive, inappropriate and should be
stricken from the record. Polygraph
examinations are not admissible in this or any
court by any party. The witness's statement
must not be considered by you in any way
during your deliberations. Even if the parties
agreed to take such a test, the results would
not be admissible before the Court."
The judge then admonished the witness Friday, in the presence of
the jury, to "just answer the attorney's questions. Don't
volunteer." Although they concede that the government had nothing
to do with the witness's outburst, the defendants argue that this
incident so prejudiced them that they are entitled to a new trial.
We disagree, and hold that any prejudice was cured by the court's
instruction. See United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 390-91
8
(5th Cir. 1981)(any prejudice caused by witness's unsolicited
reference to polygraph cured by instruction to disregard), vacated
in part on other grounds, 650 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied, 456 U.S. 949 (1982).
Issue 5: Wallace's Prior Conviction
Appellant Wallace argues that the trial court violated Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b)6 by improperly admitting evidence of his
prior counterfeiting conspiracy and conviction with co-defendant
Leslie Collins. The government called three witnesses to testify
about the 1989 former counterfeiting conspiracy, and their
testimony covered 38 pages of the 1,200-page trial transcript.
Wallace claims that the evidence of his extrinsic offense was
admitted to show bad character, which is prohibited, rather than to
prove intent, plan, motive, identity or lack of knowledge, which is
permitted under Rule 404(b). Wallace claims that the unfair
prejudice to him caused by the detailed testimony of his prior
offense substantially outweighed any proper probative value. He
points out that he was willing at trial to stipulate to the prior
conviction in order to limit the prejudicial relating of the
details.
A district court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed
under an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., United States v.
6
"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not
admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show
action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible
for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
accident." FED.R.EVID. 404(b).
9
Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 597 (5th Cir. 1986). We will give great
deference to the district court's informed judgment in making the
balancing decision required by Rule 404. United States v. Moye, 951
F.2d 59, 61-62 (5th Cir. 1992). In this case, the evidence of
Collins' and Wallace's 1989 conspiracy, in which they manufactured
$20 counterfeit notes at Wallace's print shop and distributed them,
was probative on the issues of intent, knowledge and plan.7 In
addition, as the trial court noted, the factual similarity and
closeness in time between the two conspiracies increased the
probative value of the evidence. See Moye, 951 F.2d at 62. We also
note that the amount of testimony about the prior conspiracy was
brief when compared to the whole trial, and the jury was properly
instructed that the testimony could only be considered on the
listed issues. We will not disturb the trial court's decision to
admit the evidence.
"Improper Comments" by Trial Court
Defendants Wallace and Felton argue that the trial court
prejudiced them with improper comments during the seven-day trial,
including (1) "bolstering the government witness's credibility";
(2) repeating an unresponsive comment by a DEA agent that the
confidential informant was "being paid to risk his life"; (3)
7
The government's closing argument emphasized expert
testimony that the bills from the 1989 conspiracy had several
identifiable flaws that did not appear in the bills from the
instant conspiracy, although the production methods were similar.
The government suggested that Wallace, who owned a print shop and
already knew how to print counterfeit money, had learned how to
print a better counterfeit bill by listening to the expert
testimony in his first trial.
10
stating that the defense could call the DEA agent as a witness,
thus implying that a criminal defendant has an obligation to put on
evidence; (4) answering a question posed to a witness; and (5)
stating in front of the jury that defense motions for a mistrial
were "frivolous."
A federal district judge may comment on the evidence, question
witnesses, bring out facts not yet adduced, and maintain the pace
of the trial by interrupting or setting time limits on counsel.
United States v. Hawkins, 661 F.2d 436, 450 (5th Cir. 1981), cert.
denied sub. nom., Valdes v. United States, 459 U.S. 832 (1982).
"Improper" comments by a trial judge do not entitle the defendant
to a new trial unless the comments are error that is substantial
and prejudicial to the defendant's case. Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d
1115, 1129 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1982). In
reviewing this issue, we must view the record as a whole rather
than viewing individual incidents in isolation. United States v.
Jacquillon, 469 F.2d 380, 387-88 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 410 U.S. 938 (1973).
This was a hotly contested trial, and outbursts of temper from
the attorneys and witnesses were frequent. We have examined the
entire trial transcript, putting into context the comments about
which appellants complain. We also noted similar comments from the
bench that arguably benefitted the defense. We hold that any error
committed by the court by these comments did not substantially
prejudice the defense, and in any case, was cured by the court's
instruction to the jury to disregard any such comments.
11
Quashing of Subpoenas
At trial, the government rested its case without having called
two of the witnesses that had been listed on its prospective
witness list, DEA Agent John Houston and U.S. Border Patrol Agent
William Rasbury. This action surprised the defendants, because
Houston and Rasbury were on a list read to the jury as "witnesses
that the government may use," and the government had already
produced Jencks Act8 material in anticipation of their possible
testimony. Houston and Rasbury were present in the hallway on the
last day of the government's case, and counsel for Wallace had
spoken to them about their anticipated testimony. After the
government rested without calling Houston or Rasbury, defendants
attempted that evening to subpoena the two agents to testify for
the defense. However, the trial court granted the government's
motion to quash the subpoenas because defendants had not complied
with the procedure set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.21 et. seq.,
regulating the issuance of subpoenas to Department of Justice
employees.9 The trial court stated that defense counsel should have
known that the government, for trial strategy reasons, might not
call all of its listed witnesses. If the defense wanted to be
certain that the agents would be available to testify, the court
8
18 U.S.C. § 3500.
9
"If oral testimony is sought by a demand in a case or
matter in which the United States is a party, an affidavit, or,
if that is not feasible, a statement by the party or by the
party's attorney setting forth a summary of the testimony sought
must be furnished to the Department attorney handling the
matter." 28 CFR § 15.23(c).
12
stated, then the defense should have subpoenaed the agents in
advance and followed the applicable regulations:
"There's a lot of work that should have been
done ahead of time. This is a last-minute
effort here, and I am not going to let the
case languish here while we have some extra
motions that nobody even contemplated."
The court also expressed concern about the growing length of the
trial, which was already in its fifth day despite the attorneys'
original estimate of a two-day trial.
The defendants contend that the trial court's quashing of the
subpoenas denied them a fair trial and the right to present
evidence on their behalf and compel witnesses to testify. We
disagree. The Department of Justice regulations for subpoenaing
witnesses have been held to be valid and mandatory. United States
v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 406 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836
(1977). Because the defendants failed to make a timely demand in
accordance with the required procedure set out in 28 C.F.R. §
16.23(c), we do not reach their constitutional claims. United
States v. Marino, 658 F.2d 1120, 1125 (6th Cir. 1981).
We additionally note that the necessity or value of the two
agents' testimony was questionable. We have reviewed defense
counsel's proffer of what testimony they would have elicited from
Houston and Rasbury, and we are satisfied the issues involving the
agents were adequately brought out by other testimony.10 Therefore,
10
Agent Houston had interrogated Steve Miller, the brother
of government witness Doug Friday. In Agent Houston's official
report, Miller made statements about Friday's counterfeiting and
marijuana activities that defense counsel wanted to use to
13
we hold in the alternative that the exclusion of the two witnesses
may be upheld under the trial court's power to control the trial
and limit testimony that would be cumulative and marginally
relevant.
"Like many other constitutional rights, the
right to call witnesses is not absolute. The
right to present relevant testimony may, in
appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other
legitimate interests in the criminal trial
process. ... The State's interest in the
orderly conduct of a criminal trial is
sufficient to justify the imposition and
enforcement of firm rules relating to the
presentation of evidence. ... The right of
compulsory process does not, therefore,
entitle a defendant to subpoena witnesses
whose testimony would be collateral, rather
than material, to the issues in the case. If
the court could properly have excluded
proffered testimony on the ground that the
evidence was collateral, its refusal to
subpoena witnesses who were to give that
testimony cannot be deemed error."
United States v. Bertoli, 854 F. Supp. 975, 1081-82 (D.N.J.
1994)(citations omitted); see also United States v. Campbell, 874
F.2d 838, 850-51 (1st Cir.1989)(no error in quashing of subpoena of
government informant where "his testimony could add nothing
relevant and material to [the] defense"). For these reasons, we
impeach Friday's testimony about the defendants. In addition,
Miller had accompanied Friday and Felton on at least one of their
trips to Roma, Texas to obtain marijuana. Miller was caught on a
bus carrying a duffel bag of marijuana and was arrested by Agent
Rasbury, a border patrol officer. Felton's counsel wanted to use
Agent Rasbury's testimony on Miller's arrest and Agent Houston's
testimony about the interview with Miller to point out minor
inconsistencies with Friday's testimony and thus imply that
Friday was lying about Felton's involvement in the drug
trafficking. Although the trial court quashed the defense
subpoenas for the two agents, defense counsel called Steve Miller
to the stand to testify about these issues and used Houston's
report to cross-examine Miller.
14
hold that the trial court did not err in quashing the subpoenas.
15
Jencks Act Issues
A. Friday's PSI
During the testimony of government witness/co-conspirator
Douglas Friday, defendants requested that the government produce
Friday's presentence investigation report pursuant to the Jencks
Act.11 Defendants also argue that the PSI "version of events" was
potentially exculpatory because of its impeachment value, and thus
also should have been turned over under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83, 86 (1963).
The Fifth Circuit has held that a PSI is not an Jencks Act
statement. United States v. Jackson, 978 F.2d 903, 909 (5th Cir.
1992). cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2429 (1993). Even if Friday had
"adopted" his PSI by failing to object to it, such adoption is very
different from the "adoption" required to make the report Friday's
own statement under the Jencks Act. See Jackson, 978 F.2d at 909.
With regard to the defendants' Brady request, the trial court
examined the PSI version of events and found that it did not
contain any material differences from Friday's testimony and
therefore would not be useful for impeachment, or "favorable to the
defense" under Brady. The district court thus fulfilled its duty
and afforded the defendants all the rights to which they were
entitled. See Jackson, 978 F.2d at 909. We find no reversible
11
The Jencks Act provides: "After a witness called by the
United States has testified on direct examination, the court
shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to
produce any statement ... of the witness in the possession of the
United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the
witness has testified." 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
16
error.
B. Notes of Agent Billiot
The government called DEA Special Agent Keith Billiot to
testify regarding his execution of a search warrant on Friday's car
and the resulting seizure of evidence, and a confession given by
Felton after he was arrested. Defendants requested that the
government produce Agent Billiot's notes and reports under Brady
and the Jencks Act. The government turned over Billiot's memoranda
concerning the search warrant and the confession, but the court
denied the motion as to the remainder of the agent's notes, relying
on United States v. Gaston, 608 F.2d 607, 611-12 (5th Cir. 1979).
In Gaston we held that interview reports prepared by agents are
Jencks Act material only to the extent that they relate to the
subject matter of the agent's direct testimony. The district court
found that Agent Billiot's notes did not relate to the limited
facts to which he testified. We find no clear error in the district
court's finding that the government was not required to produce the
notes under the Jencks Act.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant Felton argues that his attorney provided ineffective
assistance at trial because he failed to follow the correct
procedures to subpoena Agents Houston and Rasbury. Defendant Sutton
lists numerous reasons why his trial counsel was ineffective, also
adopting Felton's argument regarding the subpoenas.
We conclude that this case is appropriate for application of
the general Fifth Circuit rule that such claims cannot be resolved
17
on direct appeal unless adequately raised in the district court.
United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 380 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 114 S. Ct. 1565 (1994). Although the issue of ineffective
assistance was at least mentioned at trial,12 we hold that the
record is not sufficiently developed with respect to these
ineffective assistance claims to justify an exception to the
general rule of non-review. See United States v. Bermea, F.3d
, No. 92-7349, 1994 WL 459951 at *36-37 & n.4 (5th Cir. Aug. 25,
1994). Felton and Sutton remain free to pursue their claims of
ineffective assistance in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Felton's Sentence
Appellant Felton was sentenced to a total of 262 months on all
counts. The district court found Felton to be a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Felton argues that this determination was
error, because § 4B1.1 requires that the current offense be a
"controlled substance offense," and he was merely convicted of
conspiracy to possess marijuana, rather than of the substantive
offense of possession. Felton asserts that drug conspiracies are
not included in the list of "controlled substance offenses" in 28
U.S.C. § 994(h), from which the Sentencing Commission drew its
authority to punish career offenders. Therefore, he argues, the
12
Felton's trial counsel made a brief statement regarding
ineffective assistance during arguments over the quashed
subpoenas. Sutton approached the court on the fourth day of trial
and stated that he no longer wanted his current lawyer to
represent him and that he needed adequate representation by
"someone who's not going to take everything that I say and bring
it to the prosecutor." The court said that Sutton had made his
decision about representation before trial and that he had not
given a sufficient reason to change attorneys midstream.
18
Sentencing Commission exceeded its statutory authority in
Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, when it defined "controlled
substance offense" to include a conspiracies to commit such
offenses. See, e.g., United States v. Price, 990 F.2d 1367, 1370
(D.C. Cir. 1993).
Felton's argument has merit. A recent Fifth Circuit opinion
vacated a sentence on the same basis. United States v. Bellazerius,
24 F.3d 698, 705 (5th Cir. 1994). In light of Bellazerius, we
vacate Felton's sentence and remand his case for re-sentencing.13
Sutton's Sentence
Appellant Sutton received 60-month and 120-month sentences on
the two counterfeiting counts, to run concurrently with each other
and with a separate sentence imposed in a related case by another
federal district judge a month earlier for conspiracy,
possession/passing of counterfeit notes, and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, all in connection with his arrest on March
8, 1992. Sutton argues that the district court improperly grouped
the conviction counts in both cases together, and improperly used
Sutton's possession of a firearm in one case to enhance his
sentence in the other.
Sutton's possession of a firearm in his truck with the
counterfeit bills was properly included as relevant offense conduct
in either of the two related counterfeiting conspiracies. The
13
Because we vacate Felton's sentence, we do not address his
two additional sentencing issues. However, we note that both of
the findings he contests -- the drug quantity and the
obstruction-of-justice enhancement -- will not be vacated absent
clear error by the trial court.
19
indictment under which Sutton was convicted in the instant case
explicitly charges that Sutton's actions on March 8, 1992
constituted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The
firearm would thus be relevant conduct even if Sutton had not been
convicted of "felon-in-possession," or even if the convictions in
the two cases had not been grouped together. Therefore, the
grouping of the counts made no difference in the length of the
sentence Sutton now appeals, and the inclusion of the firearm as
relevant conduct was not error.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we AFFIRM
the convictions of all three defendants. We AFFIRM the sentences of
Wallace and Sutton, and we VACATE Felton's sentence and REMAND the
case for re-sentencing of Felton.
g:\opin\93-3178.opn
ACE/mek/wjl 20