United States v. Michael Wallace
759 F.3d 486
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wallace and Blocker were convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and (2) separate small-quantity distribution counts; both sentenced to the 240‑month mandatory minimum due to prior drug felonies.
- Government presented evidence of two overlapping sets of transactions: recurring purchases in the Dallas–Fort Worth area (DFW Transactions) and controlled buys/deliveries in Midland, TX (Midland Transactions). Cooperators and witnesses tied Wallace to repeated DFW purchases and tied Blocker to deliveries and possession of "pink" meth seized after a March 2011 arrest. Cell‑phone records and GPS data corroborated travel and communications.
- Trial evidence included testimonies from a user/buyer (Harris), supplier (Bradford), intermediary (Middleton), cooperators conducting controlled buys, and law enforcement witnesses; Wallace testified and admitted small distributions but denied participation in a large conspiracy; Blocker did not testify.
- The district court admitted prior‑bad‑act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b): both defendants were linked to a 2004 meth lab incident and related convictions (Wallace: possession 1–4 grams; Blocker: manufacture >400 grams). Court gave a limiting instruction.
- Government filed an §851 enhancement notice mischaracterizing Wallace’s prior conviction (described manufacture/delivery when conviction was possession 1–4 grams); Wallace stipulated at trial to the prior possession conviction. Alleyne/Almendarez‑Torres interplay arose on appeal concerning whether prior convictions must be found by a jury for mandatory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for single conspiracy (500+ g) | Gov: Evidence of repeated DFW purchases (ounces/week) and connected Midland deliveries supports 500+ g conspiracy involving both defendants | Wallace/Blocker: Evidence showed separate, localized transactions; variance from indictment and insufficient proof linking defendants to aggregate quantity | Court: Affirmed — reasonable jury could infer single conspiracy and aggregate quantity beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of prior narcotics conduct under Rule 404(b) | Gov: Prior convictions show knowledge, intent, familiarity between defendants and are relevant to conspiracy | Defendants: Prior convictions/charges are irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; Blocker argued remoteness | Court: No abuse of discretion — prior narcotics conduct probative on intent/relationship; remoteness not per se bar; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice |
| Adequacy of §851 enhancement notice (mischaracterized prior) | Wallace: Mislabeling of prior conviction deprived him of proper notice and due process for enhancement | Gov: Clerical error was minor; Wallace knew the correct conviction (stipulation and counsel’s arguments), so no prejudice | Court: De novo review — like Steen, error was not prejudicial; enhancement upheld |
| Whether prior convictions must be jury‑found after Alleyne (challenge to sentencing procedure) | Defendants: Alleyne requires any fact increasing mandatory minimum be submitted to a jury, so prior‑conviction enhancement must be jury‑found | Gov: Almendarez‑Torres exception survives Alleyne; prior convictions may be found by judge | Court: No plain error — Almendarez‑Torres exception remains; district court properly applied enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 507 F.3d 905 (5th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review and resolving all reasonable inferences in government’s favor)
- United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy: agreement, knowledge, voluntary participation)
- United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406 (5th Cir.) (tacit agreement may be inferred; prior drug possession evidence probative in conspiracy case)
- United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.) (variance test and factors for counting conspiracies)
- United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.) (prior possession conviction probative of intent in conspiracy to distribute)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir.) (standard and test for Rule 404(b) admissibility; probative vs. prejudicial)
- United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir.) (§ 851 notice purpose; minor clerical errors not reversible absent prejudice)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury) (court noted Almendarez‑Torres exception preserved)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior conviction is exception to rule requiring jury finding for sentence‑increasing facts)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principle that any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury except prior conviction)