## Facts

- Hadi and Mehdi Zandi arranged with their brother in Pakistan to send a “box of presents” to the United States and agreed to pay him $3,000 for items to be sold in the United States.
- The shipment was sent using false shipping information to an address connected to a post office box provided by Mehdi.
- After learning the package arrived and was held in a bonded customs warehouse at Dulles International Airport, the brothers obtained the airway bill and carrier’s certificate, paid storage fees, and attempted to retrieve the package.
- When Mehdi saw that a customs inspector was present during an attempted pickup, he abruptly left; warehouse staff notified customs.
- Customs inspected the package and found opium concealed within cloth labeled “gift cloth.”
- The next day, the brothers returned; the package was handed to Hadi, who opened it for inspection at a customs official’s request; the opium was revealed and both men were arrested.
- Initial criminal complaints were filed in 1983; charges against Mehdi were dismissed for lack of probable cause and charges against Hadi were later dismissed without prejudice.
- In 1984, a grand jury indicted both brothers for importation and for possession with intent to distribute (and aiding and abetting); the district court denied their Speedy Trial Act motions.
- A jury acquitted both defendants of importation but convicted them of possession with intent to distribute; each received a one-year sentence and a special parole term.

## Issues

1. Whether the time between indictment and trial violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove “possession” of opium under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), including constructive possession.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendants knew opium was concealed in the package.
4. Whether the government’s use of conspiracy-related evidence and argument, despite no conspiracy charge, improperly deprived defendants of notice or altered the indictment’s theory.
5. Whether admission of evidence concerning the $3,000 payment and other challenged proof was unfairly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions for possession with intent to distribute.
- The Speedy Trial Act was not violated because trial commenced within the statutory period measured from arraignment (and the prior dismissals and reindictment did not require counting time from the earlier proceedings).
- The evidence permitted a finding of constructive possession based on defendants’ dominion and control over the shipment (documents, fees, repeated efforts to claim the package, and receipt of the package at the warehouse).
- The evidence permitted an inference of knowledge from circumstantial proof, including cryptic communications, the $3,000 payment, false shipping information, and suspicious conduct in the presence of customs.
- The government could use conspiracy-related evidence to prove knowledge and intent for the substantive drug offense without charging a separate conspiracy count, and the evidentiary rulings did not amount to undue prejudice or denial of due process.

## Legal Principles

- Speedy Trial Act time is generally measured from the later of indictment or the defendant’s first appearance/arraignment, and a dismissal without prejudice followed by reindictment restarts the operative clock under the statute’s framework.
- Constructive possession is sufficient for 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and may be shown by dominion and control over contraband or the container holding it, including control exercised through shipping documents and payment of fees.
- Knowledge of concealed drugs may be proven by circumstantial evidence; a jury may infer knowledge from false documentation, unusual payments, evasive behavior, and inconsistent statements.
- Evidence of coordinated conduct with others may be introduced to establish elements such as intent and knowledge for a charged substantive offense even when conspiracy is not separately charged, so long as it does not improperly amend the indictment.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over relevance and prejudice determinations; evidentiary error warrants reversal only when unfair prejudice substantially affects the trial’s fairness.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the Zandis’ convictions for possession of opium with intent to distribute, finding the prosecution timely under the Speedy Trial Act and the evidence sufficient to show constructive possession and knowledge through defendants’ control over the shipment and surrounding suspicious circumstances, with no reversible error from conspiracy-related proof or the challenged evidentiary rulings.


United States v. Zandi, 769 F.2d 229 (4th Cir. 1985)