U.S. v. Rivera, s. 87-8108

Citation884 F.2d 544
Decision Date08 September 1989
Docket Number87-8173,Nos. 87-8108,s. 87-8108
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo RIVERA, Willie J. Burgess, Jessie Davis, Ned Owen Key, Larry Epps, Hubert Goodson, Gail Taylor Davis, Anthony Crowder, Michael King, a/k/a Fat Man, Rudolph Arthur Gates, Ray Eric Lee, Jay Davis, Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman HARRIS, Robert Lee Price, Rudolph Arthur Gates, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Robert L. Barr, U.S. Atty., Lawrence O. Anderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Drug Task Force, Atlanta, Ga., for U.S.

Jay L. Strongwater, Klein & Strongwater, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Lorenzo Rivera.

Thomas E. Spraley, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Willie J. Burgess.

Paul Sloniowskie, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Jessie Davis.

Paul H. Kehir, Snellville, Ga. (court-appointed), for Ned Owen Key.

Mark V. Spix, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Larry Epps.

R.C. Cougill, Lilburn, Ga. (court-appointed), for Hubert Goodson.

Patrick F. McMahon, Marietta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Gail Louise Davis.

Edwin L. Hoffman, Legal Dept., Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co., Duluth, Ga. (court-appointed), for Michael King, a/k/a Fat Man.

James W. Howard, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Rudolph Arthur Gates.

Michael R. Hauptman, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Ray Eric Lee.

Lenny Franco, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for Jay Davis.

Eric G. Kocher, Kocher, Wilson, Korschun & Cobb, Atlanta, Ga., for Norman Harris.

Howard Manchel, Manchel, Johnson, & Wiggins, Atlanta, Ga., for Robert Lee Price

James W. Howard, Howard, Secret & Jones, P.A., Atlanta, Ga., for Norman Harris, Robert Lee Price and Rudolph Arthur Gates.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and PAINE *, District Judge.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

Willie Burgess was convicted in the district court of several offenses involving the trafficking of heroin. In a separate unpublished opinion issued this day, we have affirmed his convictions. In this opinion, which we publish because it adds to this circuit's precedent, we address Burgess' claim that the district court erred in forfeiting to the United States, under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 853 (Supp. IV 1986), 1 twenty-seven quarter horses, which, according to the jury's verdict, Burgess used to "facilitate" his drug trafficking.

The drug trafficking in this case took place near Covington, Georgia, and covered a period of five and one-half years, from January 1980 through September 1985. Lorenzo Rivera, who was convicted with Burgess, was the primary source of the drugs. Operating from his five-acre horse ranch, Rivera provided high purity heroin to two distribution networks. Burgess, a neighbor of Rivera's, also operated a horse ranch where he bred quarter horses. Burgess was at the center of one of the networks. Using his ranch as a front to hide his illicit activity, Burgess sold and distributed high purity heroin to several dealers in the area.

The Government sought forfeiture of Burgess' ranch, including twenty-seven quarter horses, on the theory that Burgess had used these assets to facilitate his sale and distribution of heroin. 2 The jury found for Burgess with respect to the ranch, but held against him with respect to the quarter horses. 3

Burgess contends that his horses could not constitute property used to "facilitate" a drug transaction because the Government offered no proof at trial that his horses played a role in any of his trafficking activities. Drawing on the rule of lenity, see United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 411, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 1015, 35 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973), Burgess urges us to construe strictly the language of the forfeiture statute and to interpret "facilitate" to mean the "physical use" of an asset in carrying out a drug transaction. Because we do not subscribe to such a narrow reading of the word "facilitate," as used in the forfeiture statute, we reject his contention.

The rule of lenity is merely a canon of statutory construction; it is inapplicable, however, when, as here, a clear legislative directive to the contrary exists. See United States v. Littlefield, 821 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1987). Subsection (o ) of the forfeiture statute provides that "[t]he provisions of [21 U.S.C. Sec. 853] shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes." 21 U.S.C. Sec. 853(o )(Supp. IV 1987). The Supreme Court has interpreted identical language to require a broad construction of the forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1963 (1982). See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 27-29, 104 S.Ct. 296, 302-04, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).

We follow the Court's lead and hold that the term "facilitate," as used in section 853(a)(2), encompasses the situation presented here, in which Burgess' horse breeding business and the horses he had on hand were used as a cover for his drug trafficking activities. Burgess used the ranch's telephone to transact most of his drug business. Tape recordings of his telephone conversations, which the Government monitored pursuant to a court-ordered wiretap, revealed that, in buying heroin from Rivera and arranging for its distribution to the dealers, Burgess used, as code words, the same words that he used in conducting his horse business, such as "horses," "halters," "bales of hay," and "lead lines." A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • US v. TWO PARCELS OF PROP. AT 2730 HIGHWAY 31, Civ. A. No. 94-D-608-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • October 10, 1995
    ...construed and should include a situation in which property is used as a cover for drug trafficking." Id. (citing United States v. Rivera, 884 F.2d 544, 546 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1018, 110 S.Ct. 1322, 108 L.Ed.2d 497 (1990)). Further, the court noted that the Eleventh Circu......
  • US v. One Parcel of Real Estate, 88-12082-CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • May 5, 1994
    ...be broadly construed and should include a situation in which property is used as a cover for drug trafficking. United States v. Rivera, 884 F.2d 544, 546 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1018, 110 S.Ct. 1322, 108 L.Ed.2d 497 Property is "intended to be used" for an illegal activity w......
  • US v. Real Property in Mecklenburg County, NC, C-C-89-344-M.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • January 21, 1993
    ...drugs were sold on premises, the money was laundered there, and the assets were involved in the money laundering); United States v. Rivera, 884 F.2d 544 (11th Cir.1989) (drug dealer operated horse ranch, conducted drug business from the ranch, used horse related terms in his code for drug c......
  • U.S. v. Seher
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 26, 2009
    ...and other company property to create a facade of legitimacy, which aided in the concealment of his actions. See United States v. Rivera, 884 F.2d 544, 546 (11th Cir.1989) (deeming defendant's horse breeding business a "front" for his drug trafficking and thus permitting forfeiture of horses......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT