United States v. Ronen Nahmani
696 F. App'x 457
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ronen Nahmani was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and controlled substance analogues after a six-day trial and sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months.
- Government evidence: Nahmani imported synthetic cannabinoids from suppliers abroad, sold/wholesaled powder and smokeable products, used aliases and storage space to process and ship, and communicated about specific chemicals (e.g., AB‑Fubinaca, THJ‑2201). Seized materials tested positive for several named compounds.
- Three substances (THJ‑2201, 5‑Bromo‑UR‑144, 5‑Chloro‑UR‑144) were not scheduled at the time; government presented expert testimony (chemistry and pharmacology) to prove they qualified as controlled‑substance analogues under the Analogue Act.
- Pretrial suppression motions were denied; at trial government admitted witness Hurley (a purchaser) and DEA expert Trecki; defense challenged identification, admissibility, and expert reliability; jury asked clarifying questions during deliberations about possession and substances.
- At sentencing the PSR held Nahmani responsible for 1,200 kg of mixture containing synthetic cannabinoids and used the Guidelines’ marijuana‑equivalency rule by treating THC as the most closely related substance (1 g synthetic = 167 g marijuana), producing a Guidelines range capped by the statutory maximum of 240 months. Defendant objected to indictment sufficiency, suppression rulings, evidentiary rulings, jury instruction, statutory maximum, and equivalency ratio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nahmani) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency: whether indictment must identify specific drugs | Indictment defective for failing to identify specific controlled substances/analogues; thus inadequate notice and sentencing exposure uncertainty | A generic conspiracy indictment naming "controlled substances" and analogues is sufficient; later paragraphs identified substances | Court: Generic indictment permissible; challenge non‑jurisdictional and reviewed for plain error; no reversible error (affirmed) |
| Suppression: probable cause for vehicle search | Search lacked probable cause because sale of "spice" wasn’t proven illegal at time of stop; thus evidence should be suppressed | Informant, surveillance of covert transactions, evasive behavior, and seizure of package by UPS gave fair probability of contraband; automobile exception applies | Court: Stop lawful for speeding; probable cause existed under totality of circumstances; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Expert evidence and trial fairness (Daubert, cumulative error, jury instruction) | Trecki’s analogue/opinion testimony unreliable (no human studies); Hurley testimony and certain questioning prejudicial; jury was misled by supplemental instruction | Trecki relied on accepted scientific methods (structure, in vitro/in vivo, case reports); Hurley testimony intrinsic to crime story; jury instructions viewed as whole were adequate | Court: District court did not abuse discretion admitting Trecki or Hurley; cross‑examination and instructions preserved fairness; no cumulative error; conviction upheld |
| Sentencing: statutory maximum and Guidelines equivalency ratio | Indictment generic meant only schedule V exposure (1‑year max); Guidelines misapplied—marijuana (not THC) is most closely related so 1:167 ratio improper | Indictment alleged conspiracy to distribute analogues, which §813 treats as schedule I for sentencing (20‑year max); expert evidence supported THC as most closely related substance so 1:167 ratio proper | Court: Analogue allegation gave notice that schedule I treatment applied; district court’s finding that THC was most closely related was not clearly erroneous; 240‑month sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (generic controlled‑substance conspiracy indictments allowed)
- United States v. Narog, 372 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) (constructive amendment of indictment by jury instructions reversing conviction)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping for expert reliability)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (police may not ignore immediately available exculpatory information)
- United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 2003) (purpose of Analogue Act to deter slight chemical alterations to evade schedules)