## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Anthony Rhynes and several co-defendants in North Carolina with participating in a large drug-distribution conspiracy.
- The conspiracy count alleged multiple possible drug objects—powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, and marijuana—each carrying different statutory penalty ranges under federal law.
- The district court instructed the jury that it could convict on the conspiracy count if it found an agreement involving any of the charged controlled substances, and the jury returned a general verdict of guilty on the conspiracy count without specifying which drug (or drugs) it unanimously found.
- At sentencing, the district court applied penalty provisions tied to higher-maximum drugs and imposed sentences that exceeded the lowest statutory maximum that would have applied if the conspiracy involved only marijuana.
- Defendants appealed, arguing that the general verdict left uncertainty about which drug object the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, making it improper to sentence them above the lowest applicable statutory maximum.

## Issues

1. When a single conspiracy count alleges multiple drug objects with materially different statutory maximums, and the jury returns a general guilty verdict without specifying the drug object, may the district court sentence defendants under a higher statutory maximum tied to one of the possible drug objects?
2. If not, what is the proper remedy on appeal?

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held that when a conspiracy charge lists multiple possible drug objects with different statutory maximum penalties and the jury returns only a general verdict, the sentencing court may not impose a sentence above the lowest statutory maximum tied to the possible objects unless the verdict (through proper instructions/special verdict) establishes the higher-penalty object.
- Because the verdict did not reveal which controlled substance the jury unanimously found as the conspiracy’s object, the court vacated the sentences imposed on the conspiracy count to the extent they exceeded the lowest applicable statutory maximum.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with this rule, allowing resentencing within the lowest statutory maximum unless the government chose to pursue a new trial structured to obtain a verdict resolving the drug object for penalty purposes.

## Legal Principles

- When a single count presents alternative factual objects that carry different statutory maximum penalties, a general verdict that does not identify the object found by the jury cannot support sentencing under the higher-penalty alternative.
- In that situation, the defendant may be sentenced only up to the lowest statutory maximum that would apply to any of the charged alternatives, unless the jury’s findings (via instructions and verdict form) establish the higher-penalty alternative beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Where a verdict’s ambiguity creates uncertainty about the basis for conviction relevant to punishment, appellate courts may require resentencing under the lowest maximum or permit retrial with procedures that produce a clear jury finding on the object tied to punishment.

## Conclusion

United States v. Rhynes holds that a general verdict on a single multi-drug conspiracy count cannot support sentencing under higher statutory maximums tied to particular drugs when the verdict does not show which drug object the jury unanimously found; the Fourth Circuit therefore vacated the conspiracy sentences and remanded for resentencing within the lowest applicable statutory maximum (or for retrial if the government elected to seek a verdict that resolves the drug object for penalty purposes).


United States v. Rhynes, 218 F.3d 310 (2000)