United States v. Clark
14-4656-cr
| 2d Cir. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Four defendants (Anderson, Bryant, Clark, Santos) convicted in District of Connecticut for narcotics offenses (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846); appeals to Second Circuit.
- Anderson argued trial-court errors (including failure to rule on evidentiary objections) denied him a fair trial.
- Bryant contended the evidence showed multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy charged; also contested sentence quantity finding.
- Santos argued he never formed a conspiracy meeting-of-minds (intended to rob co-conspirator) and sought a specific jury instruction; he also challenged sentence enhancements based on prior conviction.
- Clark pleaded guilty with an appellate waiver reserving challenges to a $100 special assessment only; counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; Government moved to dismiss parts of Clark’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-court conduct / evidentiary rulings (Anderson) | Anderson: court’s failure to rule on objections and other conduct denied fair trial | Government: any errors were harmless; no prejudice shown | Affirmed — no prejudice; no reversible error |
| Single vs. multiple conspiracies (Bryant) | Bryant: evidence showed multiple separate conspiracies, not the single charged conspiracy | Government: sufficient evidence for single collective venture directed to common goal | Affirmed — rational jury could find single conspiracy |
| Santos’s meeting-of-minds / buyer-seller instruction | Santos: intended to rob co-conspirator, so no agreement to distribute; requested specific instruction | Government: jury was adequately instructed on meeting-of-minds; Santos argued facts to jury; buyer-seller instruction appropriate | Affirmed — no instructional error; argument for jury available |
| Sentencing challenges (Anderson, Bryant, Santos) | Various: quantity findings, use of prior convictions, jury determination of sentencing facts | Government: district court reliance on record, plea colloquy, and precedent supported findings | Affirmed — district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions appropriate (including use of acquitted conduct and prior-record rules) |
| Clark plea, appellate waiver, and special assessment | Clark: appeals sentence and special assessment despite waiver | Government: move to dismiss merits-based appeals within waiver; special assessment challenge not waived but lacks merit | Anders motion granted; appeal as to imprisonment and supervised release dismissed; special assessment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sureff, 15 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 1994) (standard for finding a single conspiracy)
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1990) (conspiracy law and collective venture test)
- United States v. Rowland, 826 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2016) (meeting-of-minds instruction principles)
- United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574 (2d Cir. 1996) (jury instruction and intent issues)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (buyer-seller instruction authority)
- United States v. Vaughn, 430 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2005) (acquitted conduct and sentencing quantity findings)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior-conviction fact is sentencing, not juror-determined)
- United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) (use of state plea colloquy to establish predicate offense)
- United States v. Moreno, 821 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016) (controlled-substance offense analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach to prior-offense analysis)
- United States v. Gomez-Perez, 215 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2000) (Anders brief and counsel withdrawal standards)
- United States v. Cunningham, 292 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2002) (scope of appellate waivers and reserved challenges)