Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Kevin Lamone JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 28, 1990.* Decided Dec. 19, 1990.
Before WILLIAM A. NORRIS, WIGGINS and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
We affirm the defendant's conviction by a jury for violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. We reverse and remand his sentence. Although Jackson does not contest the legality of his sentence on appeal, we note its illegality because the district court included a term of five years special parole, rather than supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A); United States v. Torres, 880 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir. 1989) cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 873 (1990).
Jackson challenges his conviction, asserting the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict against him as to Count II (aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine). Because Jackson failed to move for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, we review his contention for plain error or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir. 1989).
The basis of Jackson's claim of insufficiency is his assertion that the agreement he made with others to obtain cocaine was changed without his knowledge. The change related to the quantity and price of the cocaine.
This argument fails to excuse Jackson's conduct. He agreed to facilitate the sale of a large quantity of cocaine. He actively was involved in bringing the buyer and the seller together. It is not necessary that Jackson was aware of every detail of the deal finally struck between the buying and selling parties. United States v. Smith, 832 F.2d 1167, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1987) (defendant who supplies large shipments of cocaine to buyer presumably does so for purposes of redistribution and need not be aware of details of the distribution ring).
A rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson aided and abetted the underlying substantive offense based upon his extensive participation in the venture. The fact that he may not have known the precise details of the transaction is of no consequence.
The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing.