Filed: Mar. 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN IGNATIOUS SAVOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05- cr-00415-AMD-4) Argued: January 30, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Nin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN IGNATIOUS SAVOY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05- cr-00415-AMD-4) Argued: January 30, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Nint..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN IGNATIOUS SAVOY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-
cr-00415-AMD-4)
Argued: January 30, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and Arthur L. ALARCÓN,
Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part and vacated and dismissed in part by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Ansley Claire Tillman, KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Bradley H. Cohen, Gary G. Grindler, KING & SPALDING,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Matthew Jeweler, Law Clerk, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Savoy was arrested, indicted, and convicted on
charges of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and using a firearm
during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Savoy was sentenced on the conspiracy
charge to a mandatory minimum life sentence under 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(A) and sentenced on the firearm charge to a mandatory
minimum, consecutive sentence of 10 years under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Savoy appeals, arguing the Government’s
evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to prove
that he knowingly joined a conspiracy or that his firearm use
occurred during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime.
Savoy also contends the district court erred in instructing the
jury, improperly admitted evidence of another crime, and
incorrectly imposed the statutory mandatory minimum life
sentence.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the conspiracy
conviction and sentence on that charge. However, because we
hold that the Government failed to prove that Savoy’s firearm
use occurred during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime,
we vacate his conviction and sentence on that charge.
3
I.
In September 2005, Savoy was indicted with 6 co-defendants
on a charge of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (i.e., crack
cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (“Count One”). In
addition, Savoy was indicted individually on a count of
possessing and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a
drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(“Count Four”). Savoy pled not guilty and was tried
individually.
To establish the existence of the conspiracy alleged in
Count One, three indicted co-conspirators testified at trial
that Pioneer City, a housing complex in Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, was an open-air drug market in which the members of
the conspiracy cooperated to sell crack cocaine and prevent non-
members from selling it. These witnesses testified that the
members of the conspiracy had a code of silence against speaking
to the police and drove out drug dealers from other areas who
attempted to enter the Pioneer City drug market. In addition,
when one co-conspirator ran out of crack cocaine, he would refer
customers to another co-conspirator or other co-conspirators
would share their supply with him.
To establish that Savoy was a member of the conspiracy, an
unindicted co-conspirator, Fabian Gray, testified that Savoy had
4
been present when Gray sold crack cocaine. Gray also gave Savoy
sufficient crack cocaine to restart his drug dealing business
after Savoy was released from prison in 2004. Evidence also
indicated that Savoy participated in the November 2004 beating
of Kevin Johnson in Pioneer City. Johnson was unable to
identify his assailants but Savoy’s fingerprints were recovered
from his Cadillac, which was stolen during the attack. The
Government argued that Johnson’s beating was an example of the
conspiracy’s efforts to exclude outsiders from Pioneer City.
To establish the firearm offense alleged in Count Four,
witnesses testified that members of the conspiracy were present
at a September 2004 birthday party held at a nightclub near
Pioneer City. Savoy was seen and photographed brandishing a
handgun during the party. Individuals from Annapolis, where a
rival drug gang operated, were also present at the party. A
fight broke out and spread outside, where Officer William Hicks
observed “pockets of people fighting” in the parking lot. While
attempting to break up the various fistfights, Hicks heard and
saw an unidentified black male firing shots into the air. While
pursuing that suspect, Hicks was shot in the right arm.
Witnesses identified Savoy as the shooter. Though there was no
evidence that drugs were distributed or even present during the
party, the Government argued that Savoy shot Hicks to impress
5
the conspiracy’s rivals from Annapolis and deter them, and
police, from interfering with the Pioneer City drug market.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Savoy entered a motion
for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence on both counts. The district court
denied the motion and the case was submitted to the jury. On
the final day of its deliberations, the jury sent a question to
the court: “Clarify how the drugs charges should relate to the
defendant’s association with the conspiracy? During the trial
there was a statement by the judge about this. This would be
the charges which occurred during the timeframe of 2002-2005.”
(J.A. 300.) The court, without consulting counsel, responded
with its own note: “Dear Jury: Your question is unclear.
Please attempt to clarify your question.” (J.A. 301.) The jury
did not reply but found Savoy guilty on both counts and entered
special verdicts that the amount of crack cocaine involved in
the conspiracy relating to Count One was 50 grams or more and
that the firearm relating to Count Four had been discharged.
The court informed counsel of the jury’s question when
counsel were recalled to receive the jury’s verdict. The court
summarized the event, offered to show the notes, and asked
counsel, “[A]nybody have any concerns or questions?” Neither
party objected. (J.A. 301-02.)
6
The Probation Office subsequently prepared Savoy’s pre-
sentencing report, which included 5 prior state criminal
convictions. Savoy objected to the inclusion of two drug
convictions: one from 1994 (K950039), because he was under 18
at the time of the offense, and one from 1997 (K9700895),
because it was classified a misdemeanor under state law. Savoy
did not challenge the inclusion of a third drug conviction.
Finding that Savoy had at least two prior felony drug
convictions and relying on the jury’s special verdict that the
conspiracy involved 50 grams or more of cocaine base, the
district court imposed the mandatory minimum life sentence
required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) on Count One. Relying on
the jury’s special verdict that Savoy discharged a firearm
during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, the
district court also imposed the mandatory minimum, consecutive
sentence of 10 years required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)
on Count Four. Savoy filed a timely notice of appeal and we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §
3742(a).
II.
Savoy contends the Government’s evidence is insufficient to
prove that he knowingly and voluntarily joined any conspiracy to
distribute crack cocaine or to prove that he shot Officer Hicks
7
during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. Savoy
also argues that the district court should not have admitted
evidence of Kevin Johnson’s beating under Rule 404(b) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence and that it erred in failing to
clarify its jury instructions in response to the jury’s note on
the last day of deliberations. Finally, Savoy argues that the
district court improperly imposed the mandatory minimum life
sentence required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) because the 50
grams of crack cocaine found by the jury to be involved in the
conspiracy should not have been attributed to Savoy and because
the district court improperly considered his 1994 and 1997 state
drug convictions.
A.
We first consider Savoy’s argument that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions. When a criminal
conviction is appealed on the ground that the underlying
evidence is insufficient, we review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government to determine whether “any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Abuelhawa, 523 F.3d 415, 422 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing United
States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc)).
8
1.
In order to prove conspiracy to distribute and
possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, the
government [must] establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that: “(1) an agreement” to distribute and “possess .
. . with intent to distribute existed between two or
more persons; (2) the defendant knew of the
conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily became a part of this conspiracy.”
United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225-26 (4th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857). Savoy argues that the
evidence does not establish that he knew of any conspiracy or
knowingly entered into any agreement to distribute crack
cocaine. We disagree.
Because “a conspiracy is clandestine and covert,” it
“generally is proved by circumstantial evidence and the context
in which the circumstantial evidence is adduced.” Burgos, 94
F.3d at 857. “A conspiracy, therefore, may be inferred from a
development and collocation of circumstances.” Id. at 858
(internal quotation marks omitted). Once a conspiracy has been
shown to exist, “the evidence need only establish a slight
connection between the defendant and the conspiracy to support
conviction.” Id. at 861 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[F]requently . . . contemporary drug conspiracies . . .
result[] in only a loosely-knit association of members linked
only by their mutual interest in sustaining the overall
enterprise of catering to the ultimate demands of a particular
9
drug consumption market . . . .” United States v. Banks, 10
F.3d 1044, 1054 (4th Cir. 1993). Witnesses, including several
of the alleged co-conspirators, testified at Savoy’s trial that
at the time of his arrest the Pioneer City housing complex was
an open-air drug market in which drug dealers conspired to sell
crack cocaine, protect each other from police investigation,
maintain the market for crack cocaine sales by sharing supplies
or referring customers, and excluding non-members. While Savoy
argues that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy and never
agreed to join it, Gray testified that Savoy knew he sold drugs
and that Savoy later accepted drugs from Gray given for the
express purpose of re-establishing Savoy in the business of
selling crack cocaine in Pioneer City following his release from
prison.
Other evidence showed that, in a drug market where members
of the conspiracy excluded non-members, Savoy was permitted to
sell drugs and had amicable relations with co-conspirators. For
example, three co-conspirators testified that Savoy sold drugs
in Pioneer City and Savoy was arrested in September 2004 for an
open alcohol container violation when officers caught him
drinking beer with two co-conspirators. A search subsequent to
that arrest led to the discovery of eight bags of crack cocaine
in Savoy’s pocket. Savoy also had crack cocaine in his
possession in Pioneer City at the time of his arrest on the
10
charges in the case at bar. Finally, the evidence of Savoy’s
participation in the beating of Kevin Johnson indicates not only
that Savoy was accepted by the conspiracy as one of its members-
-because the conspiracy allowed him to sell crack cocaine in
Pioneer City--but that Savoy actively furthered its goal of
excluding non-members even to the point of physical violence.
We conclude this evidence is sufficient to support a
rational jury’s finding beyond reasonable doubt that a
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
existed among the crack cocaine dealers in Pioneer City, and
that Savoy was a knowing and voluntary member of that
conspiracy. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction on Count One.
2.
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), “the
Government [must] prove: (1) [the defendant] used or carried a
firearm (2) during and in relation to (3) a drug trafficking
offense.” United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 265-66 (4th
Cir. 2000). “To meet the ‘in relation to’ requirement, the
Government must prove that the firearm has some purpose or
effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime[.] . . .
[T]he gun at least must facilitate or have the potential of
facilitating, the drug trafficking offense.” Id. at 266
(internal quotation marks omitted) (ellipsis and alteration in
11
original). Savoy argues that there is no evidence establishing
that the shooting of Officer Hicks occurred in relation to the
drug conspiracy. We agree.
There is no evidence in the record that any drugs were
present at the nightclub, that any drug transactions took place
there, or that any activity relating to the conspiracy occurred.
The Government argues that Savoy shot Officer Hicks to send a
message to the police and rival drug dealers from Annapolis not
to interfere in the Pioneer City drug market. However, while
witnesses testified that individuals from other areas were at
the party and that the fight began with an altercation between
someone from Pioneer City and someone from Annapolis, there is
no evidence that any rival drug dealers were present. In short,
the record fails to establish that Savoy had the audience the
Government contends he sought to impress. Similarly, there is
nothing but pure speculation that Savoy was in some theoretical
way furthering the conspiracy when he shot a police officer
during a nightclub brawl.
The Government had the burden to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that Savoy used a firearm in relation to the drug
conspiracy, i.e., that the firearm facilitated or had the
potential to facilitate the conspiracy. The Government did not
meet its burden and the district court erred in denying the
motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge. Accordingly,
12
we vacate Savoy’s conviction and sentence on Count Four and
dismiss that count of the indictment.
B.
We next turn to Savoy’s argument that the district court
erred when it failed to supplement the jury’s instructions in
response to its note and when it admitted the evidence of Kevin
Johnson’s beating. Savoy did not preserve either issue with a
timely objection at trial, so we review for plain error. E.g.,
Taylor v. Virginia Union University, 193 F.3d 219, 239 (4th Cir.
1999) (failure to object to district court’s response to jury
question); United States v. Chin,
83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir.
1996) (failure to object to admission of evidence under Rule
404). To prevail on plain error review, the defendant
must demonstrate (1) that an error occurred, (2) that
the error was plain, and (3) that it affected his
substantial rights. If the defendant satisfies these
threshold requirements, correction of the error is
within our discretion, which is appropriately
exercised only when failure to do so would result in a
miscarriage of justice, such as when the defendant is
actually innocent or the error seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.
United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 222 n.4 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).
13
1.
Savoy does not argue that the district court’s response to
the jury’s note was an improper ex parte communication with the
jury. Rather, he argues only that the response was insufficient
to answer the question the jury’s note posed. Any response, or
lack of response, to a question from a deliberating jury is
within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States
v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 925 (4th Cir. 1997).
The district court responded to the jury’s note by asking
for clarification of its question. Savoy concedes that “[i]t is
difficult even now to unpack what the jury’s particular question
was.” (Reply Br. 14.) Savoy argues that the note could
indicate that the jury wanted to know more about his state
convictions, about his prior arrests, or whether the Government
had to prove he sold drugs. Therefore, by all accounts, the
jury’s note was unclear and we cannot fault the district court’s
exercise of its discretion to attempt to ascertain the precise
issue on which the jury sought clarification before issuing any
supplemental instructions. Savoy therefore fails to satisfy the
first prong of plain error review because he has not
demonstrated that an error occurred. Moreover, because the jury
continued its deliberations and returned a verdict without
further instruction, Savoy has not demonstrated how the district
14
court’s response affected his substantial rights. Savoy simply
has not shown plain error on this issue.
2.
Savoy argues that the district court erred in admitting
evidence of the assault on Kevin Johnson because “[t]he only
purpose of this testimony was to portray Mr. Savoy’s character
in a negative light,” in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b). 1 (Br. Appellant 37.) Admission or exclusion of evidence
under Rule 404(b) is within the discretion of the trial court.
United States v. Jackson, 327 F.3d 273, 298 (4th Cir. 2003).
The Government contends “the beating . . . was an act
committed in furtherance of the Pioneer City drug conspiracy”
because “[t]he intimidation and physical assault of outsiders
was, as alleged in the indictment, a specific method of
operation utilized by the conspirators to protect the
conspiracy. . . . [T]he Pioneer City conspiracy depended on its
ability to exclude others--if necessary through physical force.”
(Br. Appellee 38.)
1
Savoy also argues for the first time in his reply brief
that the evidence should not have been admitted because its
prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value in violation
of Rule 403. We do not consider arguments raised for the first
time in a reply brief. See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d
549, 556 n.11 (4th Cir. 2008).
15
The Government established through the testimony of Savoy’s
co-conspirators that the conspiracy did in fact endeavor to
exclude outsiders from the Pioneer City area. The Government
then introduced the evidence of Kevin Johnson’s beating, and
Savoy’s role in the beating, to link Savoy to the conspiracy and
its effort to protect its turf. We see no abuse of discretion
in the district court’s decision to admit the evidence for that
purpose and Savoy has failed to meet his burden of proving an
error occurred. We find no reversible error on this issue.
C.
Finally, Savoy argues the district court erred by imposing
the mandatory minimum life sentence required by 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(A). The district court imposed the sentence based on
Savoy’s three prior state drug convictions and the jury’s
special verdict that 50 grams or more of crack cocaine were
involved in the conspiracy. At sentencing, Savoy challenged the
inclusion of a 1994 conviction (K950039) on the ground that he
was a minor at the time of the offense and a 1997 conviction
(K9700895) on the ground that it was classified as a misdemeanor
under state law. On appeal, Savoy concedes that the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burgess v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1572
(2008), forecloses his challenge to the 1997 conviction.
Together with an unchallenged 1995 conviction (K9501975), Savoy
16
clearly has at least two prior qualifying convictions, and we
need not reach his challenge to the inclusion of the 1994
conviction.
Savoy now argues, however, that the district court erred in
attributing to him all 50 grams or more of crack cocaine found
by the jury to have been involved in the conspiracy. 2 This issue
was not raised below and is therefore subject to plain error
review. E.g., United States v. Pendergraph, 388 F.3d 109, 113
(4th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise objection at sentencing
hearing).
In United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2005),
we held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New
Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), required a jury to find beyond
reasonable doubt the amount of crack cocaine attributable to
each specific defendant involved in a drug conspiracy. 415 F.3d
at 314. The jury’s finding may be based on evidence (1) that
the individual defendant himself distributed an amount of crack
cocaine or (2) that other members of the conspiracy did so, and
their actions were reasonably foreseeable to the individual
2
Savoy does not argue that the evidence is insufficient to
establish that 50 grams or more of crack was involved in the
conspiracy. He concedes that the Government introduced evidence
that members of the conspiracy collectively possessed 97.44
grams. (Br. Appellant 43.) Rather, he argues that the district
court improperly attributed 50 grams or more of this total to
him for sentencing purposes.
17
defendant. Id. at 311. A district court must not impose a
sentence under § 841(b) based on a jury’s finding of the amount
attributable to the conspiracy generally. Id. at 314. In
United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2007), we held
that a district court’s failure to comply with Collins by
instructing the jury to make individualized findings constitutes
reversible plain error. 3 Id. at 251-52.
There is no evidence in the record that Savoy personally
distributed 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. Consequently,
“for the statutory maximums and mandatory minimums of § 841(b)
to apply . . . the jury must determine that the threshold drug
amount was reasonably foreseeable to the individual defendant.”
Brooks, 524 F.3d at 558 (quoting Foster, 507 F.3d at 250-51)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In Collins, the district court instructed the jury that
“[t]he amount of drugs applies to the entire group of
conspirators. In other words, it’s a conspiracy to distribute
3
Foster was tried jointly with two co-defendants and all of
them received life sentences under § 841(b). Foster’s co-
defendants also received life sentences arising from 18 U.S.C. §
924(j). We determined that the district court’s § 841(b)
sentencing error had no effect on the co-defendants and declined
to reverse their sentences. However, because Foster had not
been sentenced to life imprisonment under any other charge, the
life sentence improperly imposed under § 841(b) was necessarily
prejudicial and required reversal under the plain error standard
of review. Id. at 251-52.
18
50 grams or more of crack cocaine. That's what the charge is.
So the amount applies to the conspiracy, to the group.” 415
F.3d at 311. In Foster, “the district court instructed the jury
to determine . . . the amount of crack cocaine ‘involved in the
conspiracy.’” 507 F.3d at 249. In Brooks, the district court
instructed the jury “that ‘the amount of controlled substances
you will need to determine . . . is not the amount a single
defendant may have been involved with, but rather the amount of
controlled substances involved in the conspiracy as a whole.’”
524 F.3d at 557 (ellipsis in original). These cases are clearly
distinguishable from the one before us.
The district court in this case specifically instructed the
jury to find an amount of crack cocaine individually
attributable to Savoy, whether he personally distributed it or
possessed it with intent to distribute or whether the
distribution or possession with intent to distribute by his co-
conspirators was reasonably foreseeable to him:
A special verdict form, which you will see in a
moment, ladies and gentlemen, will be given to you on
which if you find the government has proven the
defendant’s membership in the charged conspiracy
beyond a reasonable doubt you must use to determine
the quantity of drugs attributable to Mr. Savoy.
. . . .
In determining what quantity of controlled
substance is attributable to the defendant, if any,
you should consider the following factors:
First, the defendant is accountable for the
quantity of drugs which he personally distributed or
possessed with intent to distribute[;]
19
Second, the defendant is also accountable for any
quantity of drugs which he attempted to or planned to
distribute or possess with intent to distribute.
Specifically, the defendant is accountable for those
drugs even if those drugs were never actually obtained
or distributed, so long as an objective of the
conspiracy was for the defendant to distribute or
possess with intent to distribute such a quantity of
drugs;
Third, the defendant is also accountable for any
quantity of drugs which another member of the
conspiracy distributed or possessed with intent to
distribute as part of the conspiracy, so long as it
was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, Mr.
Savoy, that such a quantity of drugs would be involved
in the conspiracy which he joined;
Fourth and finally, the defendant is also
accountable for any quantity of drugs which another
member of the conspiracy attempted to or planned to
distribute or possess with intent to distribute, so
long as it was reasonably foreseeable to the
defendant, Mr. Savoy, that such a quantity of drugs
would be involved in the conspiracy which he joined.
The defendant is accountable for those drugs even if
those drugs were never actually obtained or
distributed by other members of the conspiracy, so
long as an objective of the conspiracy was for the
other members of the conspiracy to distribute or
possess with intent to distribute such a quantity of
drugs.
Now, these last two rules apply even if the
defendant did not personally participate in the acts
or plans of his co-conspirators or even if the
defendant did not have actual knowledge of those acts
or plans, so long as those acts or plans were
reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The reason
for this is simply that a co-conspirator is deemed to
be the agent of all other members of the conspiracy.
Therefore, all of the co-conspirators bear criminal
responsibility for acts or plans that are undertaken
to further the goals of the conspiracy.
As I said a moment ago, your findings about the
quantity of controlled substances attributable to the
defendant will be noted on the verdict form, and I
will send you that form shortly.
(J.A. 288-90.)
20
These instructions, unlike those given in Collins, Foster,
and Brooks, clearly direct the jury to make an individualized
finding of the amount of crack cocaine involved in the
conspiracy attributable to Savoy, either because he personally
distributed it or possessed it with intent to distribute or
because it was reasonably foreseeable to Savoy that his co-
conspirators distributed it or possessed it with intent to
distribute. Accordingly, there is no Collins error here. The
jury’s special verdict that 50 grams or more of crack cocaine
were involved in the conspiracy is an individualized finding
specific to Savoy and the district court properly relied on it
to impose the mandatory minimum life sentence required by §
841(b)(1)(A).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
district court as to Count One, and vacate the judgment as to
Count Four and dismiss that count of the indictment.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND
VACATED AND DISMISSED IN PART
21
