United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983-04-04
21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury convictions (846 conspiracy, 841(a)(1) possession with intent and distribution of quaaludes); three defendants appeal; Vera and Posada challenge sufficiency of the evidence of knowledge, plus voir dire, prosecutor comment, severance; Romero challenges only suppression; result: claimant-won; claim: (a)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
One sufficiency holding ("knowingly participated in the conspiracy and knowingly possessed and distributed") decides knowledge, possession, distribution and conspiracy in a single sentence for each defendant; splitting it across element blocks duplicates the held line and overstates how separately the court analysed possession and distribution.
Three defendants and four kinds of count (846 conspiracy, 841 PWID, 841 distribution, 844 simple possession; plus an acquittal noted in a footnote). `party` and `count` now type the qualifier of each block, but there is still no defendant x count matrix: Romero's 841 convictions (quaaludes, hashish) are affirmed with no element analysed at all (only a suppression issue), which the file cannot show except by omission.
The court does not say on what theory Vera and Posada "distributed" (personal delivery vs. Pinkerton vs. aiding and abetting), so the act.distribute block carries no `theory` and `aiding` is neither satisfied nor rejected. The 846 conspiracy, a separate offence with its own elements, is held in one flat background block (under `aiding`, see its gloss) until an 846 law file exists.
Much of the reasoning is by distinguishing precedents on their facts (Littrell, Aguiar, Craig, Franklin, Pruett, Squella-Avendano: mere presence, unwitting driver, unopened package). These negative exemplars define the variant boundary but cannot be quoted as facts of this case.
Non-statutory issues decided against the defendants (voir dire limits, challenge for cause, prosecutor's closing, comment on silence, severance, voluntariness of confession/consent) have no place in an element model and are omitted.
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 18
Elements 7–12 of 18
| Case | Death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance (§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C) 20-year mandatory minimum) | Recidivist enhancement for prior conviction for a serious drug felony or serious violent felony (§ 841(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851) | Prohibited act under § 841(a)(1): manufacture, distribute, or dispense | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | Aiding and abetting route under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (cross-statute) | Categorical / modified categorical comparison of state drug offense to 21 U.S.C. § 841 (INA / ACCA / Guidelines) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · provedNot counted: background/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 18
| Case | Drug conspiracy route under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (cross-statute) | Fifth Amendment Due Process / Equal Protection challenge to carrier-medium weight sentencing (Chapman) | Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition) | Rule of lenity in construing ambiguous penalty provisions of § 841(b) | Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions | Continuing-offense venue for § 841(a)(1) possession with intent to distribute / distribution (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Distribution (delivery / actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera and Posada; count: 841(a)(1) distribution count; subject: party=Vera and Posada; count=841(a)(1) distribution count The court states no separate test for "distribute"; the distribution convictions stand or fall with knowledge. Neither appellant personally handed drugs to the buyer; they loaded part of the load that a co-conspirator delivered. | delivery/staged-wholesale-delivery-to-undercover-agent | Hassan would deliver the quaalude tablets in the van to a prearranged location where a person designated by Fiano could inspect the tablets.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [2174:2314] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Agent Gardner entered the back of the van, opened two of the boxes and examined the tablets taken from the plastic bags inside the boxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [6042:6179] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Viewing the evidence as a whole in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say that a reasonable jury must necessarily have a reasonable doubt as to Vera’s guilt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [22460:22636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Cross-statute route alias: see separate aiding-abetting (§ 2) and x-conspiracy-846 (§ 846) routes | satisfied Excluded from merits counts background / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera and Posada; count: 21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count; subject: party=Vera and Posada; count=21 U.S.C. 846 conspiracy count NOT aiding liability under § 841: this is the separate 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy count, parked under `aiding` only because neov2/law/21usc841.law declares no § 846 id; `role background` keeps it out of the § 841 instances. Separate offence under 21 U.S.C. 846 (v0 parked it under `aiding`); kept as a background block, not as accomplice liability for the 841 counts. It has no held line of its own: the conspiracy is upheld in the same sentences that decide knowledge for each defendant. | conspiracy-846/acts-furthering-delivery-as-proof-of-knowing-participation | In the case at bar, however, Vera and Posada performed numerous acts in furtherance of the purpose of the conspiracy such as loading the boxes of quaaludes into the van and driving the van.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [45683:45872] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.To support a conviction of conspiracy, the government must prove that an agreement existed between two or more persons to commit a crime and that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined or participated in the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [15302:15529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.A defendant’s knowing participation in a conspiracy may be established through proof of surrounding circumstances such as acts committed by the defendant which furthered the purpose of the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16539:16739] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Specific intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense the possessed controlled substance | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) Recited as an element but not disputed (388,000 tablets in a negotiated 400,000-tablet sale to an undercover agent). | Unspecified route | In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16881:17116] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera; subject: party=Vera No evidence he looked inside the boxes or of what was said; knowledge of contents inferred from presence at the final deal preparations, driving the buyer-supplied delivery van to the stash, 20 minutes in the shed, loading the boxes, and their leaking/torn condition. Distinguished from mere-presence and unwitting-courier cases (Littrell, Aguiar, Craig, Pruett). | loader-of-sealed-boxes-coordinated-with-delivery | Fiano saw appellant Vera together with Hassan, Adamo and Romero in the back room.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [3660:3741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Vera then drove the van, which had been provided for the delivery of the drugs, to Posada’s house.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [19702:19800] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Approximately 20 minutes later, Vera and Posada emerged from the shed carrying a box measuring approximately three feet in width and one and a half feet in height which they loaded into the van.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [4919:5113] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.In addition, a white powdery substance was seeping out of one of the large boxes found in the van and some of the boxes in the van were “torn and broken.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [22305:22459] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Rather, knowledge may be proved through inferences based upon surrounding circumstances.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [18953:19041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Close association with a co-conspirator or mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient evidence of knowing participation in a conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16257:16406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.A reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence established that Vera knowingly participated in the conspiracy and knowingly possessed and distributed the quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [22637:22837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Posada; subject: party=Posada | owner-of-stash-premises-who-loaded-and-drove | Moreover, Posada owned the shed in which the boxes were stored.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23429:23492] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.After the boxes were loaded into the van, Posada drove the van by himself to the shopping center where Hassan was waiting and left the van with Hassan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23493:23644] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Although there is no direct evidence of Posada’s knowledge, sufficient circumstantial evidence of his knowledge exists.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23163:23282] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Posada’s ownership of the shed where the boxes containing the quaaludes were located and his exercise of dominion and control over the boxes while driving the van to the shopping center clearly supports an inference that he knowingly possessed the boxes containing quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23645:23920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Posada; subject: party=Posada | dominion-over-premises-or-vehicle-holding-drugs | Vera parked the van next to a shed located by the house. After a brief conversation, Vera, Posada and a third individual entered the shed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [4780:4918] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Shortly thereafter, Posada drove the van to the same shopping center and left the van with Hassan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [5394:5492] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17301:17405] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17604:17788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it is clear that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Posada knowingly participated in the conspiracy and knowingly possessed and distributed the quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23921:24168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera; subject: party=Vera The contested point was identity/continuity: whether the boxes Vera handled were the boxes later seized (van was out of full view at Romero's house). Matching box size plus a co-conspirator's remark about picking up "stuff" at a "warehouse" sufficed. | physically-loaded-boxes-of-drugs | The first two boxes which Vera and Posa-da loaded into the van were approximately three feet in width and one and a half feet in height and were substantially larger than the other boxes placed in the van by Vera and Posada.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [20087:20311] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Inside the van, the agents found two large boxes which were approximately the same size as the two large boxes placed in the van by Vera and Posada and eight smaller boxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [6425:6597] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.All ten of the boxes found inside the van contained quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [21651:21713] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Although it is conceivable that some of the boxes loaded into the van by Vera and Posada may have been unpacked or unloaded at Romero’s house, such a possibility does not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt in light of the totality of the evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [21714:21966] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Controlled substance (21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812 Schedules I-V) or counterfeit substance (§ 841(a)(2)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1) Quaaludes (methaqualone) and hashish; identity undisputed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Rather, knowledge may be proved through inferences based upon surrounding circumstances.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Rather, knowledge may be proved through inferences based upon surrounding circumstances.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [18953:19041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Under McFadden v. United States (576 U.S. 186 (2015)), the government must prove the defendant knew he was dealing with "a controlled substance" (either by knowing the substance is listed on the federal schedules, or by knowing the physical identity/chemical makeup of the substance even if unaware it is scheduled).
interpretation
Close association with a co-conspirator or mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient evidence of knowing participation in a conspiracy.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Close association with a co-conspirator or mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient evidence of knowing participation in a conspiracy.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16257:16406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Under McFadden v. United States (576 U.S. 186 (2015)), the government must prove the defendant knew he was dealing with "a controlled substance" (either by knowing the substance is listed on the federal schedules, or by knowing the physical identity/chemical makeup of the substance even if unaware it is scheduled).
interpretation
Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17301:17405] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17604:17788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In order to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove three essential elements: (1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute it.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [16881:17116] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Routinely inferred from distribution-level quantity, purity, street value, packaging materials, scales, ledgers, firearms, or absence of personal-use paraphernalia.