United States v. Jerome Mancuso
718 F.3d 780
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mancuso, a Montana dentist, was charged in 2010 with possession with intent to distribute, distribution, and maintaining drug-involved premises, plus a forfeiture count.
- Jury verdict in 2011 found Mancuso guilty on Counts I–IV and acquitted Count V; the district court later denied forfeiture before sentencing.
- The district court denied several pretrial motions, including challenges based on statute of limitations, duplicity, notice, and multiplicity.
- Sentencing relied on a PSR that attributed 263.01 grams of cocaine to Mancuso after adjustments; Mancuso received a 16-month sentence due to a downward variance.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated Counts II, III, and IV, affirmed Count I, remanded for retrial on Counts III and IV, and reversed the denial of forfeiture, remanding for further proceedings.
- Rule 32.2 forfeiture procedures were not followed at trial, but the error was deemed harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicitous count II | Mancuso asserts Count II aggregates distinct distributions into one continuing offense. | Mancuso contends Count II duplicitous because it aggregates multiple distributions. | Count II vacated as duplicitous. |
| Constructive amendment/duplicity for I, III, IV | Mancuso argues the evidence presented at trial altered the charged offenses. | United States contends no constructive amendment/duplicitous misjoinder. | Claims rejected for Counts I, III, IV. |
| Jury instructions on §856(a)(1) (Counts III & IV) | Shetler standard unsettled; instructions may be improper. | Instructions followed Fifth Circuit formulation at time; no error. | Plain error; Count III vacated and remanded; Count IV vacated and remanded. |
| Forfeiture procedure under Rule 32.2 | Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) requirement to decide jury-retained forfeiture before deliberations was not followed. | Failure harmless under advisory notes. | Harmless error; forfeiture remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pariseau, 685 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2012) (continuing-offense concept for quantity/duplicitous charging)
- United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2003) (continuing-offense concepts in distribution context)
- United States v. Muhammad, 502 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2007) (continuing-offense rationale for drug crimes)
- United States v. Palafox, 764 F.2d 558 (en banc 9th Cir. 1985) (limited exception where distribution to same recipients may be same offense)
- United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (adopted broader §856(a)(1) interpretation; primary/principal use standard in residential context)
- United States v. Culps, 300 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (guidelines quantity approximations require reliability and caution)