United States v. Gonzalez, 686 F.3d 122

Gonzalez challenges a Southern District of New York judgment convicting him of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, heroin, ketamine, and morphine, arguing the indictment failed to allege a quantified cocaine amount and thus the mandatory minimum should not apply.
Evidence at trial included emails and undercover DEA agent testimony showing Gonzalez sought to trade cocaine for morphine and ketamine, and shipments corroborated by FedEx confirmations.
A second superseding indictment changed Count One to cite § 841(b)(1)(B) (500 grams or more) for cocaine, replacing the prior § 841(b)(1)(C) reference; defense objected at trial that the quantity was not alleged.
The district court instructed the jury with a special interrogatory on drug quantity and concluded that 500+ grams applied, imposing a 10-year mandatory minimum on Count 1 under § 841(b)(1)(B).
Gonzalez was sentenced to four concurrent 120-month terms, with a forfeiture order, and the judgment was appealed on the sufficiency of the indictment and related trial issues.
The Second Circuit held that the second superseding indictment was insufficient to support sentencing under § 841(b)(1)(B) and remanded for resentencing under § 841(b)(1)(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the second superseding indictment adequately plead cocaine quantity?	Gonzalez contends the indictment failed to allege the 500+ gram quantity.	The government argues that citing § 841(b)(1)(B) in Count 1 suffices to charge the quantity.	No; indictment insufficient for § 841(b)(1)(B); remanded to resentence under § 841(b)(1)(C).

United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (grand jury indictment protects against trial on uncharged offenses)
Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (mandatory indictment protections conceptually linked to grand jury requirements)
Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1 (1959) (grand jury indictment safeguards and charged offense boundaries)
United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc; drug quantity as element for enhanced penalties under Apprendi line)
United States v. Berlin, 472 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1972) (statutory citation cannot cure a missing element in an indictment)
United States v. Hernandez, 980 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1992) (indictment language can supply missing element if explicit and inferable)
United States v. Doe, 297 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (parenthetical quantity reference may not cure a missing element absent inferable language)
United States v. Gonzalez (Manuel), 420 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) (drug quantity is an element for aggravated § 841 offenses and must be pleaded)