558 F. App'x 173
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Coles led a large cocaine/crack distribution organization; Baukman was his right‑hand man and Morris was a significant supplier. All three were tried jointly and convicted on multiple federal drug, firearms, and money‑laundering counts.
- Sentences: Coles received life + 55 years (later partial vacatur of two §924(c) counts), Baukman 360 months, Morris life. Appeals followed challenging sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, suppression rulings, sentencing enhancements, and §924(c) multiplicity.
- Key factual bases: intercepted calls between Coles and co‑defendants; surveillance and searches finding drugs, paraphernalia, firearms, cash, and money‑counting equipment; use of nominees (young child, cousin) for leases and titles; recorded deliveries and consignment relationships.
- Baukman’s convictions challenged: CCE (§848), §924(c) firearm nexus, extensive money‑laundering counts (§1956), maintaining a drug storage facility (§856), conspiracy (§846), and sentencing arguments.
- Morris’s challenges: timeliness of §851 notice for enhanced sentence, expert testimony (ultimate issue and scope), suppression of evidence seized at a house and a vehicle, and sufficiency of conspiracy evidence.
- Coles’s challenges: suppression of a firearm seized during a frisk and double‑counting §924(c) convictions based on the same predicate offense (Double Jeopardy issue resolved under Diaz).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for CCE (Baukman) | Gov: evidence shows organizer/supervisor over ≥5 persons | Baukman: only buyer‑seller ties and co‑worker testimony | Affirmed — jury could infer managerial role over at least five people (leases, supervision, consignment, intermediaries) |
| §924(c) nexus (Baukman) | Gov: guns found at School House Lane advanced drug trafficking | Baukman: no drugs found there; no direct linkage | Affirmed — guns found near cash and money machine, accessible, altered serial, magazines present; Sparrow factors satisfied |
| Money‑laundering intent (Baukman) | Gov: lease and nominee transactions promoted/concealed drug enterprise | Baukman: (on appeal) challenges intent element not preserved; argues otherwise | Affirmed — evidence supported intent to promote (apartment used for production) and to conceal (use of nominees); plain‑error review fails |
| Maintaining a storage facility (§856) (Baukman) | Gov: rented/paid for Essex Ave apt used to manufacture/package drugs | Baukman: lacked knowledge of drug activity there | Affirmed — paraphernalia, production evidence, his visits/letters provided knowledge and intent |
| Conspiracy (§846) (Baukman) | Gov: intercepted calls, supervision, deliveries show agreement | Baukman: insufficient agreement proof | Affirmed — intercepted communications and conduct supported agreement |
| Timely §851 notice (Morris) | Morris: notice filed electronically but not served timely on counsel | Gov: filing on ECF one hour before jury selection constituted service | Affirmed — counsel was ECF user (consented to service) and filing before jury selection satisfied “before trial” requirement |
| Expert testimony on intent and “drug conversation” (Morris) | Morris: expert opined on ultimate issue and exceeded proper scope | Gov: expert gave hypothetical opinion and explained coded terms | Affirmed — Rule 704(b) not violated (hypothetical opinion, did not usurp jury); expert’s shorthand about a recorded exchange was within discretion |
| Suppression of evidence at Burden Hill house and car (Morris) | Morris: affidavit lacked connection between him and the house | Gov: affidavit showed repeated calls, recorded references, corroboration (vehicle, custody report) | Affirmed — magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause under Gates; denial of suppression upheld |
| Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence (Morris) | Morris: mere buyer‑seller relationship only | Gov: calls, credit, code words, mutual trust, trips to meet supplier show agreement | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (credit, code words, meetings) supported membership in conspiracy |
| Frisk and seizure of firearm (Coles) | Coles: frisk violated Fourth Amendment | Gov: officers had reasonable suspicion he was armed and dangerous | Affirmed — furtive movements, noncompliance, hand placement justified Terry pat‑down |
| Multiple §924(c) convictions based on same predicate (Coles) | Coles: convictions violate Double Jeopardy | Gov: conceded after Diaz | Vacated in part — Counts 70 and 72 vacated and remanded for amended judgment under Diaz |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278 (3d Cir. 1986) (elements of CCE)
- United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Aguilar, 843 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1988) (organizer/supervisor and numerosity requirements)
- United States v. Sparrow, 371 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 2004) (factors for §924(c) nexus)
- United States v. Reyes, 930 F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1991) (guns found near drug money relevant to §924(c))
- United States v. Omoruyi, 260 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements of money laundering under §1956)
- United States v. Richardson, 658 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (use of third parties as evidence of concealment)
- United States v. Thayer, 201 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1999) (plain‑error review for unpreserved sufficiency claims)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (Olano framework for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Diaz, 592 F.3d 467 (3d Cir. 2010) (multiple §924(c) convictions based on same predicate violate Double Jeopardy)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of circumstances and officer experience in assessing suspicion)
- United States v. Moorefield, 111 F.3d 10 (3d Cir. 1997) (Terry frisk during traffic stop upheld for furtive movements)
- United States v. Watson, 260 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2001) (limits on expert testimony about ultimate issue)
- United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2005) (expert hypothethical testimony about intent permissible)