United States v. Fred Cooper
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8577
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cooper was arrested following police observations of suspected drug dealing in Houston; searches revealed large quantities of powder cocaine, cash, and three firearms near the drugs and money.
- A search of Cooper’s home yielded hundreds of grams of cocaine, crack cocaine, paraphernalia, and over $45,000.
- Cooper was charged by superseding indictment with Counts 1, 3, 2, 4, and 5, including drug offenses, firearm offenses, and possession as a felon.
- The jury convicted Cooper on all five counts; he was sentenced to 481 months total, with concurrent terms on Counts 1 and 3.
- On appeal, Cooper challenges indictment sufficiency, constructive amendment, juror bias, lesser-included-offense instructions, and a Fifth Amendment due process issue related to a question about consent to search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Counts 2 and 4 indictment | Cooper contends indictment failed to state elements of §924(c) | Indictment captions “in Furtherance” cure missing elements | indictment sufficient; captions cured ambiguity |
| Constructive amendment of indictment | District instruction altered essential elements | Instruction did not broaden bases of conviction | No constructive amendment; instruction within scope of indictment |
| Failure to dismiss juror for cause | Juror equivocated on bias due to burglary history | District court credibility findings supported denial | No abuse of discretion; juror impartiality found |
| Lesser-included-offense instruction on Count 3 | Simple possession should be lesser-included | Evidence supported only distribution/proximity to drugs and guns | No abuse of discretion; no rational basis for simple possession conviction |
| Due process—question about consent to warrantless search | Question implicated Fourth Amendment rights | Question prejudicial; defendant’s rights violated | Question harmless; substantial evidence supported convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fontenot, 665 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2011) (indictment sufficiency standards; de novo review)
- United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1999) (elements and specificity of indictment)
- United States v. Lavergne, 805 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1986) (double jeopardy and particularity considerations)
- United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1976) (captions can supply elements in indictment)
- United States v. Ramos, 537 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2008) (practical considerations in indictment validity)
- United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560 (5th Cir. 2006) (constructive amendment framework)
- United States v. Holley, 23 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 1994) (constructive amendment standard source)
- United States v. Hoover, 467 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2006) (informing defendant of charge; practical considerations)
- United States v. Crow, 164 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 1999) (indictment sufficiency and practical interpretation)
- United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002) (Due Process framework for prejudicial statements)