United States v. Amezquita ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50275
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICK AMEZQUITA, also known as Fat Pat,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Consolidated with
No. 00-50277
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARDO SALAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CR-264-13-SS
- - - - - - - - - -
June 28, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-50275
No. 00-50277
-2-
Patrick Amezquita pleaded guilty to and was convicted of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana and
cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and being
a felon in possession of a firearm. Bernardo Salas pleaded
guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute marihuana and cocaine and
telephone facilitation. They appeal their conspiracy convictions
for violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. Appellants contend
that the indictment was deficient because it did not allege a
specific quantity of drugs.
Appellants did not raise this issue before the district
court. Therefore, we read the indictment “with maximum
liberality and find it sufficient unless it is so defective that
by any reasonable construction, it fails to charge the offense
for which the defendant is convicted.” United States v.
Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 569 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citation
and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1119 (2000).
No quantity of drugs is specified in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) or
846. Therefore, it was not necessary to charge a quantity of
drugs in the indictment, and the appellants’ indictment was
sufficient. See United States v. Salazar-Flores, 238 F.3d 672,
673-74 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160,
165 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001).
AFFIRMED.