United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019-08-20

21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

21 U.S.C. § 846

Role: applied; posture: Multi-count drug prosecution; §846 appears in the indictment alongside attempt and §841 counts; result: remanded; claim:

Uncertainty

None recorded

Misfit

Sufficiency and evidentiary admissibility point in different directions. This is an expressly scoped positive legal-sufficiency conclusion despite a vacated conviction, not an unqualified current guilty finding.

Claimant outcome refers to the prosecuting government, not the defendant-appellant; remanded and mixed retain unresolved or split dispositions.

B · Case × element grid

Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.

Elements 1–6 of 8

21 U.S.C. § 846
CaseIdentified offense in Subchapter IAgreement of two or more persons to the unlawful objectKnowledge of the unlawful agreement and objectiveKnowing and voluntary participation in the agreementWithdrawal before the applicable limitations periodIntent to commit the identified object offense
United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))· not addressed
✓ satisfied · lawNot counted: applied/procedural
· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed· not addressed

Elements 7–8 of 8

21 U.S.C. § 846
CaseConduct beyond preparation strongly corroborating intentObject-offense penalty incorporation
United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))· not addressed· not addressed

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopePatternExact source quotations
United States v. Hawkins — 934 F.3d 1251 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (21usc846: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))Agreement of two or more persons to the unlawful objectsatisfied
Excluded from merits counts
applied / procedural

basis: law; party: Hawkins; count: Count One conspiracy; subject: party=Hawkins; count=Count One conspiracy

The court rejects a sufficiency challenge using all admitted evidence but vacates the conviction for improper case-agent testimony. Procedural scope excludes this retrial-permitting conclusion from final merits-instance counts.
retrial/sufficient-record-including-erroneously-admitted-testimony
Through the intercepted conversations, the agents identified Carlos Ware as Jackson's cocaine supplier, McCree and Hawkins as distributors for Ware, and others who played various roles in the operation.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [1483:1685] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We find no merit to Hawkins's assertions that the evidence admitted at trial was not sufficient to support his convictions because a reasonable trier of fact certainly could have found him guilty given the evidence presented.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [45809:46034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

But because Agent Russell's testimony-which constituted the majority of the evidence against Hawkins as to all three counts-was admitted in error, we remand for a new trial.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/1251-01; Unicode character offsets [46035:46208] (end exclusive); SHA-256 db2e2c3e97883ca3f93a047deb87d2874ce5056a50b178817a970b81e1b0ffbd.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case