United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298

ICE investigated Medina for cocaine distribution; 153 kilograms of cocaine were found hidden in Sanders's tractor-trailer during a Georgia traffic stop.
Sanders was indicted in 2008 with Medina and others for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.
Pretrial motions sought to suppress the traffic-stop statements and seized cocaine and to exclude Sanders's 1988 marijuana conviction; the court denied suppression and reserved the marijuana issue for trial.
Trial evidence included Medina's testimony, co-conspirator testimony about prior marijuana loads, and police video of the traffic stop showing Sanders’s consent to search.
A key issue at trial was whether Sanders knew the substance was cocaine, or merely a controlled substance, with the jury ultimately finding five kilograms or more of cocaine involved.
Sanders was convicted on both counts; the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 250 months, with a mandatory minimum due to prior drug conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the jury charge constructively amend the indictment?	Sanders argues the court broadened the indictment by instructing knowledge of a 'controlled substance' rather than cocaine.	Sanders contends the instruction improperly expanded the charged offenses beyond the grand jury indictment.	No constructive amendment; charge consistent with indictment and law.
Was the 1988 marijuana conviction properly admitted under Rule 404(b)?	Sanders argues the remote, dissimilar conviction had little probative value and was unduly prejudicial.	United States contends prior drug convictions are highly probative of intent in conspiracy cases.	Admission was abusive but harmless in light of overwhelming other evidence.

United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (drug type/amount not elements of § 841(a); no knowledge required of drug type for conviction)
United States v. Mejia, 97 F.3d 1391 (11th Cir. 1996) (applies knowledge requirements in § 841(a))
United States v. Gomez, 905 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1990) (knowledge of drug type not required for § 841(a))
United States v. Narog, 372 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) ( Narog used to caution against narrowing indictments to a subset of drugs)
Starke v. United States, 62 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1995) (constructive amendment doctrine and jury instructions)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Lampley, 68 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 1995) (Rule 404(b) probative value and admissibility standard in drug cases)
United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (intent evidence and 404(b) considerations)
United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2001) (Apprendi-related sentencing considerations for drug quantities)
United States v. Behety, 32 F.3d 503 (11th Cir. 1994) (indictment scope and element interpretation under § 841)