United States v. Amaro, No. 24148.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMERRILL, WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit
Citation422 F.2d 1078
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pedro Venegas AMARO, Appellant.
Decision Date17 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 24148.

422 F.2d 1078 (1970)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Pedro Venegas AMARO, Appellant.

No. 24148.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 17, 1970.


Bernard T. Winsberg (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Darrell W. MacIntyre (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before MERRILL, WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, of five narcotic offenses in violation

422 F.2d 1079
of 21 U.S.C. § 174. Three of the counts charged appellant with receiving, concealing and transporting heroin and two of the counts charged him with unlawful sale of the same narcotic. Two counts charging violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) were dismissed prior to trial. Appellant was sentenced to five years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently

In September, 1968, Moran, an undercover informant of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, met appellant's co-defendant, Marron, when informant and others went to Marron's residence to purchase heroin. At this meeting, Marron was unable to furnish the narcotic because, as he said, his main connection was out of town. Arrangements were made at that time for a heroin sale on October 2nd. On that day, Agent Coonce of the bureau met with the informant and furnished him with $100.00 to purchase heroin. The informant, under surveillance, went to Marron's residence. Marron drove the informant to another residence, which Marron entered. He returned a few minutes later with a packet of heroin. Marron then drove the informant to the former's residence. Within a few minutes, the informant left Marron's home and provided Agent Coonce with one-half ounce of heroin, which, the informant stated, he had purchased from Marron. Later, on October 7th, the informant met with Agents Coonce and Barnes. The informant was again provided with $100.00 to purchase heroin. Again, he proceeded to Marron's residence. The informant and Marron then entered the residence and after about 20 minutes, the informant left and forthwith provided Agent Coonce with a quarter ounce of heroin, which, he said, he had purchased from Marron. On October 8th, the informant again met with Agent Barnes, at which time informant received $200.00 in marked currency. The informant was driven to Marron's residence. From there, Marron drove the informant to 3015 Darwin Street. Upon arrival, Marron entered the residence and returned a few minutes later with a packet of heroin. They then drove to Marron's residence. Within a few minutes, the informant left and delivered to Agent Barnes one ounce of heroin which, he said, he had purchased from Marron. Two days later, informant again met with Agent Coonce, who again gave informant $200.00 in bills, the serial numbers of which had been previously recorded, the bills having been dusted with a fluorescent orange powder. Informant met Marron at the latter's residence and then drove to the same address on Darwin Street. Upon arrival, Marron entered the residence and returned in a few minutes with a packet of heroin. They then left what turned out to be the appellant's residence in Marron's automobile. After driving about a block, informant gave the surveillance agents a hand signal, the vehicle was stopped and Marron was arrested. At that time, informant provided Agent Barnes with one ounce of heroin, which he said he had purchased from co-defendant Marron. Agents Coonce and Barnes entered the residence on Darwin Street and informed appellant that they were federal agents and were there to execute a search warrant. After admitting the agents, appellant stated that it was his home, or words to that effect. The agents then proceeded to search the home. In a chest of drawers in the living room, Barnes found the $200.00 in marked currency which Coonce had given the informant earlier in the evening. On the sidewalk, immediately outside the rear entrance to the residence, Agent Barnes found a glass olive bottle filled with seven rubber contraceptives containing heroin. When subjected to an ultra-violet lamp, the glass bottle revealed traces of fluorescent orange powder, similar to the powder which Agent Coonce had placed on the bills prior to giving them to informant earlier that evening. The agents then subjected the hands of all four men in the residence to an ultra-violet ray lamp test. Only the hands of appellant revealed traces of the fluorescent powder. Appellant was then placed under

422 F.2d 1080
arrest. After arrest, $100.00, a part of the marked money which Barnes had given informant to purchase heroin on October 8th, was found in appellant's shirt pocket. In appellant's wallet was a Greyhound bus bill which read: "Shipper, P. L. Camacho, 3015 North Darwin." At the trial, appellant denied that he sold narcotics to Marron or that he resided at 3015 Darwin Street, but did admit that he had in the past used the name Camacho

At the outset, we hold that there was ample evidence to find the residence located at 3015 Darwin Street was the home of appellant. Beyond doubt, this residence was the fountainhead of Marron's narcotic supply. Appellant told Agents Coonce and Barnes that the residence was his. While denying this statement on the witness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Disla, No. 85-5256
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 8, 1986
    ...possess a controlled substance even though the substance is not on his person at the time of arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir.1970) (constructive possession means the exercise of "dominion and control"); Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603, 606 (9......
  • U.S. v. White, No. 77-5180
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 8, 1978
    ...that marked bills supplied by the government were found in Phillip's possession after the sale. Compare United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078 (9 Cir. 1970). Nonetheless, Leeper's testimony supplies the missing link in the chain, since he testified that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. L......
  • U.S. v. Batimana, No. 79-1269
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 22, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 157, 62 L.Ed.2d 102 (1979). Actual possession connotes physical custody or actual personal dominion. Cf. United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 1970) ("physical The record is devoid of evidence that appellants had actual possession of the heroin. A DEA agent delivered t......
  • United States v. Bagby, No. 71-1577
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 15, 1971
    ...narcotics but whose dominion or control over them is sufficient to give him the power of disposal. United States v. Amaro, 9 Cir., 1970, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080; Hernandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 300 F.2d 114, 117, 118 n. 9; Rodella v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 306, 311-312,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • U.S. v. Disla, No. 85-5256
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 8, 1986
    ...possess a controlled substance even though the substance is not on his person at the time of arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir.1970) (constructive possession means the exercise of "dominion and control"); Arellanes v. United States, 302 F.2d 603, 606 (9......
  • U.S. v. White, No. 77-5180
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 8, 1978
    ...that marked bills supplied by the government were found in Phillip's possession after the sale. Compare United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078 (9 Cir. 1970). Nonetheless, Leeper's testimony supplies the missing link in the chain, since he testified that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. L......
  • U.S. v. Batimana, No. 79-1269
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 22, 1980
    ...S.Ct. 157, 62 L.Ed.2d 102 (1979). Actual possession connotes physical custody or actual personal dominion. Cf. United States v. Amaro, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 1970) ("physical The record is devoid of evidence that appellants had actual possession of the heroin. A DEA agent delivered t......
  • United States v. Bagby, No. 71-1577
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 15, 1971
    ...narcotics but whose dominion or control over them is sufficient to give him the power of disposal. United States v. Amaro, 9 Cir., 1970, 422 F.2d 1078, 1080; Hernandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 300 F.2d 114, 117, 118 n. 9; Rodella v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 306, 311-312,......
  • 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