United States v. Eugene Stallings, Jr.
701 F. App'x 164
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Stallings (alias “Bruno”), a Baltimore-based heroin supplier, sold bulk heroin to Pennsylvania buyers Forrester, Stouffer, and Gries over ~5 months; buyers resold in Pennsylvania.
- A Pennsylvania overdose death led investigators to Gries, and the three buyers implicated Stallings.
- Stallings was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin, distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and use of a communication facility; tried by jury and convicted on all counts.
- Trial evidence included repeated large-quantity sales (often weekly/daily; up to 24 grams) and testimony that buyers and sellers coordinated repackaging, shared proceeds, and worked together.
- District Court sentenced Stallings to 252 months; he appealed on sufficiency, jury instructions (buyer-seller and conspiracy), venue, and Speedy Trial Act grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Stallings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Evidence showed shared purpose and agreement; buyers’ testimony established conspiracy and Stallings’ role | Relationship was only buyer-seller; no evidence of more than arm’s-length transactions | Affirmed; evidence supported conspiracy (length, large quantities, mutual trust) |
| Buyer-seller jury instruction | Not applicable; conspiracy evidence was strong and charge covered disagreement | Entitled to instruction that mere buyer-seller does not establish conspiracy | Denied; instruction unnecessary and duplicative |
| Alleged misstatement about multiple conspiracies in charge | Jury charge, read as a whole, accurately presented conspiracy elements | Charge confused buy-sell arrangements with multiple conspiracies; asserted plain error | No plain error; model instructions and overall charge were adequate |
| Venue for distribution counts in Middle District of Pennsylvania | Conduct continued into Pennsylvania where resale occurred; §3237(a) allows prosecution where offense continued/completed | Distribution and possession occurred entirely in Maryland, so venue improper | Venue proper in Middle District PA because offense began in MD and continued/ended in PA |
| Speedy Trial Act continuances | Continuances were justified by plea negotiations, new counsel preparation, and prosecutor scheduling emergencies; excludable under §§3161(h)(6) & (h)(7) | Court improperly excluded time (June–Nov 2015; Dec 2015–Feb 2016) | No abuse of discretion; exclusions proper and applied via joinder with codefendants |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999) (factors suggesting seller’s knowledge of larger conspiracy)
- United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2001) (distinguishing buyer-seller relationships from conspiracies)
- United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (standards for rejected jury instructions)
- United States v. Auernheimer, 748 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 2014) (venue review framework)
- United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554 (1st Cir. 1989) (possession with intent to distribute as a continuing offense under §3237(a))
- United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439 (3d Cir. 1994) ("ends of justice" continuances may permit plea negotiations)
- United States v. Arbelaez, 7 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 1993) (joined defendants share excludable time under §3161(h)(6))