gditor - Voice For The Defense Online

that the right of allocution was an absolute right under the Rule andremanded the case.NOTE: The right to allocution at the probation revocation would nothave been available if the District Court had not suspended the impositionof sentencing. If he had previously sentenced D but suspended the executionof sentence, no right of allocution would have been available. Cf.Rule 32.lta) (2) (c) , F.R.C.P.U.S. V. NICHOLS, No. 83-3511, Aff'd in part, Rev'd in part, Judge Politz,9/17/84 (Slip Op. 56572DOUBLE JEOPARDY: D, a pilot, was involved in four different incidents ofsmuggling or attempted smuggling of cocaine fr~m Columbia into Louisiana.Four different indictments were returned against D (and various otheractors in the four incidents).Indictment #1, based on a July 1982 smuggle, charged conspiracy toimport, conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver, importation andpossession with intent to distribute. Each count encompassed the timeperiod of June 1, 1982, through June 24, 1983, and referred to 100 kilogramsof cocaine.Indictment #2, based on an August 1982 smuggle, charged conspiracy toimport, conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver, importaion andpossession with intent to distribute. Each count encompassed the timeperiod of June 1, 1982, through June 24, 1983, and referred to 250 kilogramsof cocaine.Indictment #3, based on an October 1982 smuggle, charged conspiracy toattempt to import and to import, conspiracy to attempt to possess and topossess with intent to distribute, and an attempt to import [this indictmentis not directly involved in the appeal].Indictment #4, based solely on a planned but unexecuted smuggle afterOctober 1982, charged conspiracy to import cocaine and conspiracy topossess cocaine with intent to distribute. Both counts encompassed theperiod of time after October 1, 1982.D was tried and convicted of both counts in indictment #4.Although the opinion is not at all clear as to the procedural historyafter D's trial on indictment #4, it appears as if D was scheduled to beput to trial on indictment #1 and #2 when he flled motions to dismiss dueto double jeopardy, for the Court stated the issues as follows:"(1) do prior convictions of conspiracy to importcocaine, 21 U.S:C. §§ 963, 952, and conspiracy topossess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.§§ 846, 881 (a) (1), based upon one shipment ofcocaine, bar the pending prosecution for the substantiveoffenses of importing and possessingcocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§841(a) (l), 846; 18 U.S.C. 2; and (2) do thoseSDR-4 VOICE for theDefensejNovember 1954