United States v. Ladson
643 F.3d 1335
11th Cir.2011Background
- Ladson was convicted on Counts I, II, and IV of the second superseding indictment; Count III was acquitted.
- The first information (May 4, 2009) sought §851 enhancements but was never filed with the district court.
- On May 12, 2009, the Government announced its intent to file a second §851 information and attempted to file it in open court.
- A mistrial occurred May 13, 2009 due to late fingerprint evidence disclosures.
- A July 2009 second superseding indictment and a September 2009 third information raised issues about proper filing and service; the third information lacked proper signing.
- At sentencing (January 5, 2010) the district court relied on the second information for §851 enhancement; Ladson challenged service, the court denied an evidentiary hearing, and this Court vacated the §851 enhancement and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports the convictions. | Ladson. | Ladson. | Affirmed sufficient evidence; convictions upheld. |
| Whether there were cumulative trial errors prejudice Ladson. | Ladson. | Ladson. | No reversible cumulative error. |
| Whether the § 851 information was properly filed and served before trial. | Ladson. | Ladson. | Government failed strict § 851(a)(1) service; remanded for resentencing without § 851 enhancement. |
| Whether the district court properly addressed Ladson’s service objection at sentencing. | Ladson. | Ladson. | Summary findings insufficient; service not proven; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Naranjo, 634 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency of evidence; standard of review)
- United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2006) (support for evidentiary review standards)
- United States v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (remand for hearing when issues arise at sentencing)
- United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 2001) (service of § 851 information; Rule 49(b) requirements)
- United States v. Williams, 59 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 1995) (multi-trial § 851 notice filing rule)
- United States v. Noland, 495 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1974) (strict compliance with service before trial; knowledge alone insufficient)
- United States v. Olson, 716 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1983) (vacating enhancement where service/notice lacking)
- United States v. Cevallos I, 538 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1976) (distinguishable; knowledge not enough for service)