U.S. v. Bernard, 92-8676
| Decision Date | 17 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-8676,92-8676 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Curtis BERNARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Donald F. Samuel, Garland & Samuel, Atlanta, GA, for appellant.
Samuel A. Wilson, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, GA, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and DYER, Senior Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted the appellant, James Curtis Bernard, of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, which provides, in relevant part:
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by extortion ... shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years....
In order to sustain its burden of proof in a Hobbs Act prosecution, the government must establish an impact on interstate commerce. United States v. Eaves, 877 F.2d 943 (11th Cir.1989).
The issues presented in this case are: (1) whether a prosecutor's solicitation of a bribe from a criminal defendant has the requisite impact on interstate commerce where the defendant is charged with a cocaine offense and no other evidence shows an interstate nexus; and (2) whether the district court erred when it instructed the jury in this case that the distribution of cocaine and marijuana had an impact on interstate commerce. 1
The government urges that we affirm this conviction because it was not required to prove that the cocaine involved in this case had an actual impact on interstate commerce. According to the government, Congress declared that possession of illegal drugs impacts upon interstate commerce when it enacted section 801 of Title 21, United States Code, which provides in pertinent part:
(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Flores, No. 08-10775.
...Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.5 Prudente acknowledges that this argument may have been rejected by this court in United States v. Bernard, 47 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir.1995), where this court held, in light of congressional findings in the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. § 801, th......
-
U.S. v. Peterson
...a potential impact on interstate commerce. United States v. Carcione, 272 F.3d 1297, 1301 n. 5 (11th Cir.2001). In United States v. Bernard, 47 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir.1995), the Eleventh Circuit held that "[a] public official's receipt of a bribe in return for nonenforcement of drug laws, thro......
-
United States v. Gorney
... ... 1996), cert. denied , 519 U.S ... 1060 (1997); United States v. Bernard , 47 F.3d 1101, ... 1102 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Owens , 996 ... F.2d 59, ... ...
-
Williams v. United States
...conduct which, although not committed while on federal property, has an actual impact on interstate commerce. United States v. Bernard, 47 F.3d 1101, 1102 (11th Cir. 1995); see 21 U.S.C. § 801. 6. The government correctly argues (Doc. No. 45 at 3-9) that Williams's Alleyne claim is also tim......