The opinion
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2006
USA v. Shaheed
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2895
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Shaheed" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1031.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1031
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2895
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
OMAR SHAHEED,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00071-6)
District Judge: Honorable Joy F. Conti
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 16, 2006
Before: RENDELL, VAN ANTWERPEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 31, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Omar Shaheed was charged, in an indictment, with a single count of conspiracy to
distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute, 1 kilogram or more of heroin. He was
convicted, after a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute, and possess with the intent to
distribute, less than 100 grams of heroin. He now appeals his conviction,1 arguing that
the District Court improperly admitted evidence of a prior drug conviction and of his
parole status, that his indictment was improper because it was based solely on hearsay
evidence, and that the jury effectively acquitted him of the charged offense when it found
him guilty of a conspiracy involving less than 100 grams of heroin, rather than the
charged drug amount. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm Shaheed’s conviction.
Because Shaheed was sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines system, however, we
will vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
I.
A.
We address each of Shaheed’s three challenges to his conviction in turn, beginning
with his claim that his parole status and his 1994 Pennsylvania state conviction for
delivery and possession with intent to deliver controlled substances were improperly
admitted at trial in the government’s case-in-chief. We review a district court’s
determination to admit evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Cruz, 326 F.3d 392, 394 (3d Cir. 2003).
We adhere to a four-part test for the admission of prior bad act evidence under
Rule 404(b): “(1) the evidence must have a proper purpose . . . ; (2) it must be relevant . .
. ; (3) its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect . . . ; and (4) the trial court
1
We have jurisdiction to consider Shaheed’s appeal from his final judgment of
conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
must charge the jury to consider the evidence only for the limited purpose for which it is
admitted.” United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883, 886 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)). To “show a proper
evidentiary purpose, the government must ‘clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a
chain of logical inferences without adverting to a mere propensity to commit crime now
based on the commission of a crime then.’” Cruz, 326 F.3d at 395 (quoting United States
v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288, 295 (3d Cir. 1999)).
“There is no question that, given a proper purpose and reasoning, drug convictions
are admissible in a trial where the defendant is charged with a drug offense.” Sampson,
980 F.2d at 887. We have also applied the four-part test to uphold a trial court’s decision
to admit evidence of a defendant’s parole status. See Cruz, 326 F.3d at 395-97.
We are satisfied that the four-part test was met in this case with respect to the
evidence of Shaheed’s parole status and his previous conviction. The government’s case
against Shaheed was based primarily on testimony from Tennille Chaffin, the alleged
ring leader of the conspiracy, regarding Shaheed’s involvement in the drug trafficking
organization. A significant aspect of Chaffin’s testimony involved recorded phone
conversations in which Shaheed and Chaffin discussed “scratched CDs.” Chaffin
testified that “scratched CDs” was code for bad heroin that Shaheed had received through
Chaffin’s organization. Shaheed defended by arguing that he was a legitimate employee
of Chaffin’s company, No Slippin’ Records, and that he was innocently associated with
3
Chaffin and other members of the conspiracy for that purpose. Thus, he claimed that,
when he spoke about “scratched CDs” with Chaffin over the phone, he was actually
referring to defective CDs, not bad heroin.
In this context, the government argued that Shaheed’s prior drug conviction was
relevant to establish Shaheed’s knowledge, intent and familiarity with drugs and drug
trafficking practices and to rebut Shaheed’s anticipated defense that he did not know that
the real subject of his phone conversations with Chaffin was heroin, not CDs. Shaheed’s
parole status was relevant, the government argued, to rebut Shaheed’s claim that he was a
legitimate employee of No Slippin’ Records. At the hearing on Shaheed’s motion in
limine, the government explained that Chaffin was prepared to testify that he agreed to
pretend that Shaheed was an employee to help Shaheed fulfill the conditions of his
parole. Chaffin issued checks to Shaheed from No Slippin’ Records; Shaheed would
show his parole officer the check stubs as proof that he was employed, but would then
cash the checks and give the money back to Chaffin.
The District Court determined that the evidence of Shaheed’s parole status was
relevant in light of Shaheed’s proposed defense and offered for a purpose other than to
establish propensity, i.e., to rebut Shaheed’s claim that he was legitimately employed by,
and innocently associated with, No Slippin’ Records. The Court also properly considered
the probative value of the evidence against its likely prejudicial effect: “looking at the
prejudice that can result from [testimony regarding Shaheed’s parole status], if there’s
4
going to be a challenge as to whether or not it was a real employment as opposed to some
fake employment, I think in weighing the prejudice, that the probative nature of it would
outweigh it.” Finally, the District Court correctly instructed the jury to consider
Shaheed’s parole status for the “very limited purpose” for which it was admitted: “to
permit Tennille Chaffin’s explanation of the paychecks received by Defendant Shaheed
from No Slippin’ Records.”2
The District Court’s decision to admit the evidence of Shaheed’s 1994 conviction
was similarly thoughtful and thorough. The Court expressed concern, at the pretrial
hearing on Shaheed’s motion in limine to exclude the conviction, that the 1994
2
The District Court gave a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of Shaheed’s
parole status, as follows:
You have heard evidence that Defendant Shaheed was on parole during the
time period at issue. The Court permitted the introduction of Defendant
Shaheed’s parole status for a very limited purpose. That purpose is to permit
Tennille Chaffin’s explanation of the paychecks received by Defendant
Shaheed from No Slippin’ Records.
This evidence may not be considered by this jury for any other reason.
You may not consider it as evidence that Defendant Shaheed was more likely
to have been involved in the alleged crime. You also may not consider it as
evidence that Defendant Shaheed has any propensity for criminal behavior or
bad character.
Defendant Shaheed’s parole status was admitted for one limited purpose
and may only be considered for that purpose. Attaching any further
significance to Defendant Shaheed’s parole status by this jury would be
absolutely inappropriate, and the Court charges you to limit your consideration
as I have instructed.
5
conviction for delivery or possession with intent to deliver a small amount of crack
cocaine was too minor to shed light on Shaheed’s involvement in a major drug
conspiracy. At trial, however, the Court determined that Shaheed’s guilty plea to the
1994 possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance charge was “indicative of
drug trafficking, although not a conspiracy.” Relying on our statement, in United States
v. Sampson, that the government’s burden to show a proper purpose for Rule 404(b)
testimony “is not onerous,” 980 F.2d at 888, the Court concluded:
[T]he government has met the burden in terms of showing a proper relevance
in terms of the chain of logical inferences relating to the defendant Omar
Shaheed’s knowledge of drugs, and this would have the relevance on that type
of knowledge and intent as well as going to the question of whether or not he
was just merely innocently involved in an employment relationship with Mr.
Chaffin during the time frame at issue.
We find no error in the District Court’s proper purpose analysis and, further, note that its
conclusion is consistent with our prior decisions “upholding the admission of prior drug
involvement for the purpose of rebutting defense claims of innocent association, and to
prove criminal intent.” United States v. Lopez, 340 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
cases).
The District Court also fulfilled the third and fourth prongs of the Rule 404(b) test
with respect to Shaheed’s prior conviction. It carefully weighed the probative value of
the conviction against the likelihood of prejudice, and concluded that introducing the
record of the conviction itself would be overly prejudicial. It therefore limited the
government’s introduction of the evidence as follows:
6
[T]he Court will permit the government to state that Mr. Shaheed has a prior
conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, state
the amount of grams and the nature of the drug, but I also have to require that
the government say that the conviction did not involve any conspiracy.
The Court issued extensive limiting instructions at the time that the evidence was
introduced,3 and gave a similar instruction at the end of the trial.
3
Before the government offered evidence of Shaheed’s conviction, the District Court
instructed the jury as follows:
In this case, the government will offer evidence of prior conduct
committed by one of the defendants Omar Shaheed other than that charged in
the indictment.
This evidence concerns Defendant Shaheed pleading guilty to
possession with intent to deliver controlled substances. The conduct for which
Defendant Shaheed pled guilty occurred on May 15, 1993. The crime to which
Defendant Shaheed pled guilty did not include a conspiracy, and the amount
and type of drug involved in that crime were 2.61 grams of crack cocaine.
Let me remind you, however, that Defendant Shaheed is not on trial for
his prior conduct in 1993. Accordingly, you may not consider the evidence of
Defendant Shaheed’s pleading guilty to drug possession with intent to deliver
controlled substances as a substitute for proof that he committed the crimes
charged in the current case, nor may you consider this prior conduct as proof
that Defendant Shaheed has a criminal personality or bad character.
The evidence of Defendant Shaheed’s prior conduct in 1993 was
admitted for a much more limited purpose, and you may consider it only for
that limited purpose. This evidence may be considered by you as proof that
Defendant Shaheed had knowledge of drug trafficking activity or for the
absence of mistake or accident with regard to the events which are the subject
of this indictment.
Defendant Shaheed is not on trial for any acts or crimes not alleged in
the indictment. He may not be convicted of the crime charged in the
indictment simply as a result of your finding that he committed other earlier
crimes, even crimes similar to the one charged in this indictment.
7
In light of the foregoing, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion
in admitting evidence of Shaheed’s parole status or his prior conviction.
B.
Shaheed’s second claim is that he was improperly indicted solely on the basis of
hearsay testimony. The evidence that prosecutors presented to the grand jury involving
Shaheed came in the form of the testimony of DEA Agent Mauricio Jimenez as to the
substance of phone calls, intercepted by DEA Agents, between Shaheed and Chaffin on
the night of January 12-13. Jimenez also summarized the events of that evening, as seen
and heard by other members of a surveillance team.
We need not consider this claim in any depth, as Shaheed raises it before us for the
first time. Although Shaheed attempted to recall Jimenez at trial to challenge the basis
for his hearsay testimony before the grand jury, he never moved for dismissal of the
The government must prove the crime charged in the indictment beyond
a reasonable doubt. If you determine that Defendant Shaheed committed the
acts charged in the indictment and the similar acts as well, then you may, but
you need not, draw an inference that in doing the acts charged in the
indictment, Defendant Shaheed acted knowingly and intelligently and not
because of some mistake, accident or other innocent reasons.
Evidence of Defendant Shaheed’s pleading guilty to possession with
intent to deliver a controlled substance may not be considered by you for any
other purpose.
Specifically, you may not use this evidence to conclude that because he
committed the previous conduct, he must also have committed the acts charged
in the indictment.
8
indictment or for an acquittal on that basis. “Having neither the benefit of a lower court
opinion on this subject, nor a specific motion to review, we do not consider the issue to
have been properly preserved for review.” United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 164
(3d Cir. 1987).
Moreover, we note that
[t]here is no prohibition on the use of hearsay by a grand jury, unless (1) non-
hearsay was readily available; and unless (2) the grand jury was also misled
into believing it was hearing direct testimony rather than hearsay; and unless
(3) there is also a high probability that had the jury heard the eye-witness
testimony it would not have indicted the defendant.
Id. (citations omitted). In this case, Shaheed has not explained how Jimenez’s testimony
misled the jury. Upon review of that testimony, we are satisfied that Jimenez made it
sufficiently clear that he was not testifying as to his own observations. We will not grant
Shaheed a new trial on this basis.
C.
Finally, Shaheed argues that the jury effectively acquitted him of the charged
offense, conspiracy to distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute, 1 kilogram or
more of heroin, when it convicted him instead of a different offense: conspiracy to
distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute, less than 100 grams of heroin. This
challenge is unavailing.
The District Court gave the jury a verdict slip requiring them to decide drug
quantity, essentially submitting the issue to the jury in accordance with the Supreme
9
Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See id. at 490 (“Other
than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond
the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.”). The relevant statutory maxima for offenses involving conspiracies
to distribute or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances are set forth in 21
U.S.C. § 841(b).4 Taking Shaheed’s prior felony drug convictions into account, that
subsection prescribes a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for offenses involving
less than 100 grams of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).5 For offenses involving one
kilogram or more of heroin or 100 grams or more of heroin, however, the statute
prescribes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in cases where the defendant has a
prior felony drug conviction. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(i) (1 kilogram or more); 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(i) (100 grams or more). In this case, then, the relevant drug
amount qualified as a “fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory
maximum,” i.e., from 30 years to life, and was required to be “submitted to a jury.”
Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. See also United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98 (3d Cir.
2001) (en banc).
4
The statute under which Shaheed was charged, 21 U.S.C. § 846, provides that the
penalty for a drug conspiracy offense is the same as that “prescribed for the offense, the
commission of which was the object of the . . . conspiracy.” Section 841(b) of title21
prescribes the penalties for distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, controlled
substances.
5
Heroin is a schedule I controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 812, sched. I(b)(10).
10
Because drug amount in this case had the effect of increasing Shaheed’s maximum
sentencing exposure, it serves as the “functional equivalent” of an element of the offense.
See United States v. Lacy, – F.3d –, 2006 WL 1194575, at *4 (3d Cir. May 5, 2006)
(quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494 n.19). Shaheed is therefore correct that the offense of
which he was convicted differs from that with which he was charged. However, this
alone does not provide a basis for reversal of his conviction. As we have previously
opined, a conviction involving a smaller quantity of drugs than that charged in the
indictment is properly upheld as a lesser included offense of the charged offense. See
Vazquez, 271 F.3d at 105. Thus, Shaheed’s conviction of a drug conspiracy involving
less than 100 grams of heroin was proper even though his indictment charged the offense
of a conspiracy involving more than a kilogram of heroin.
II.
Shaheed also challenges the legality of his sentence under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). The final judgment of conviction and sentence in this case was
entered on June 17, 2004, seven months before the Supreme Court’s Booker decision.
We will vacate Shaheed’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with
United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc).
III.
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm Shaheed’s conviction. We will
vacate Shaheed’s sentence and remand to the District Court for resentencing.
11