United States v. Daryl Van Hawkins, United States of America v. Andre Pierre Brown

Andre Brown and Daryl Hawkins appeal their jury convictions of a number of cocaine related offenses. We affirm.

PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In April 1988, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Brown and Hawkins with conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, distribution of cocaine base, and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 .

On August 9, 1988, Brown and Hawkins moved to strike the term “cocaine base” from the indictment as unconstitutionally vague. The district court rejected that motion. Later, a jury convicted Brown and Hawkins on all counts. Brown and Hawkins filed timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Brown and Hawkins contend that both 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(iii) and (b)(l)(B)(iii) are unconstitutionally vague because neither these sections (which penalize the trafficking of cocaine base) nor Schedule II (the listing of controlled substances) defines “cocaine base.” We disagree.

We review de novo a challenge that a statute is unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Stansell, 847 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1988).

Analysis under the void-for-vagueness doctrine…