United States v. West
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2906
10th Cir.2012Background
- Confidential informant bought drugs from West, some at his apartment within 1000 feet of Holcom Park.
- West was indicted on four counts related to Holcom Park: two drug distribution counts, possession with intent to distribute, and maintaining a place for distribution near a playground.
- District court denied West’s motion for acquittal and for a new trial, concluding Holcom Park met §860(e)(1)’s playground definition.
- Jury convicted West on all counts; district court sentenced 48 months on all counts.
- West appealed arguing Holcom Park is not a playground; the government introduced evidence of multiple park amenities beyond the jungle gyms.
- Appellate panel affirmed the convictions, holding Holcom Park satisfies the playground definition under §860(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Holcom Park a playground under §860(e)(1)? | West contends only two jungle gyms and a swingset exist, not three apparatus. | West argues the park’s fields/courts are not “apparatus” and not three distinct play structures. | Yes; park constitutes a playground; sufficient evidence of three or more apparatus. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 380 (10th Cir. 1993) (construction of §860(a) as an offense and not a sentencing enhancement; insufficient to prove 1,000-foot proximity to a playground)
- United States v. Parker, 30 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1994) (court rejected treating a blacktop or unclear park elements as three apparatus; ejusdem generis applied restrictively)
- United States v. Migi, 329 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (rejected narrow ejusdem generis, held diverse park features can be apparatus; including clause controls)
- United States v. Alpers, 338 U.S. 680 (1950) (canon of statutory construction; limits but clarifies why not to defeat Congress’s intent)
- Cooper Distrib. Co. v. Amana Refrig., Inc., 63 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 1995) (ejusdem generis not applicable when statute uses including, but not limited to)
- Sorenson v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 475 U.S. 851 (1986) (same meaning of identical words across statute parts)
- Hall Street Assoc., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (canon on when general terms follow specific terms; reinforces statutory interpretation)