placed the court counsel my name is heather clerk and i represent the defendant and williams after a jury trial mr williams was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana hobb nine twenty four c f s and being a felon in possession of a firearm on appeal mr williams raises two related challenges to his convictions first he asserts and sufficient evidence exists to support all of his convictions with count one the government failed to establish a conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and in these cases traditionally there's similar kind of evidence presented when trying to establish intent to distribute a lot of times you see testimony on the weight a law enforcement officer will that explain that this weight is not consistent with personal use but in fact is consistent with distribution you'll see other testimony about other indicators and it's explanation by law enforcement that these indicators also establish an intent to distribute all of that additional evidence was not presented in this case first there was no conclusive evidence of weight the only evidence to even point to a in this case was the canisters and there was stickers on the canisters that indicated weight but all that indicates is the weight that it was when it was purchased in colorado am i right that the actual canisters were not but only the photographs that's my understanding your honor first off these pictures and there's no testimony to clarify doesn't indicate that weight includes the canisters or simply the marijuana but more importantly there's evidence that mr boyd was telling marijuana to other people he traveled all the way from colorado to iowa so there was lots of opportunity for even if that weight was correct initially as i understand it the shooting was one that indicate he was actively conversing with other people and other people were trying to purchase marijuana from him so there is an indication of what about on balance all of the text messages on balance or are all of the text messages bad for you are not great for us i would acknowledge that but the question is whether they're not great and that they established an intent to distribute and they simply do not in this case at most the evidence discusses that mr williams is trying to purchase marijuana what could the jury viewing the verdict evidence favorably when that seven more what could that mean other than a distribution quantity seven more at work when what he said when he says and i want  seven more and boyd still has seventeen fifty which is almost certainly a price i think it's too vague for the later to really understand what is happening now but that's were we got to view it as to what they evidence in the record of the the the wholesale street price for marijuana there absolutely is not and the seven hundred fifty again i think we have attorneys who are familiar with some of this evidence and maybe could jump to that conclusion that that is a lot of money and might be indicating the large purses of marijuana but the question here is what could the jury reach what did the jury now we can assume that jurors might have knowledge that attorneys who deal with these situations all the time  car yes and there was bags in the car but what the baggies warrant what we generally see when it's evidence of distribution is that maybe a defendant has multiple bags that they pull out of their pocket and there's cocaine in each bag the bag used in the car only contained residue so this isn't a situation where the bag there was individual bags of marijuana that might support that there was an intent to distribute was or at testimony as to what it was residue of marijuana ok was that an  as mr williams possessed with intent to distribute this was a challenge that they're charged and that he conspired with mr shah to possess with intent to distribute the fact that there might be evidence that mr williams himself in a separate location indicative of drug trafficking doesn't mean that him and mr shah had this agreement to possess with intent to distribute together but turning to the bags even in the car there was not that connecting evidence between what was presented and the explanation to the jury and every single case that i've seen with these possession with intent to distribute the law enforcement officer will then explain they're in individual  that the defendant had the intent to sell it to other people when they're bagged like this it's not for personal use again there is absolutely no evidence on that presented to the jury and we can assume that juries know the in outs of the drug trade turning to count two the government also failed to establish a hobbs act robbery when analyzing this claim it's important to keep in mind that the government did not present this or charge this or submit it to the jury they didn't pursue pinkerton liability it was not charged as an attack the theory that the government pursued was that mr williams committed the taking by use of force the general theory was that mr williams  marijuana the biggest weakness on this count is that there is no evidence of a taking by mr williams at most the evidence of stablish that there was one what witnesses who testified that an individual with a firearm generally was the individual that left the scene with the marijuana so even if the government could prove that mr williams was the shooter which our position is that they can't that still does not establish that he is the one that took the marijuana all indicators point to m the individual that took marijuana and again because he is charged as the principal as the person who committed the offense that is what the government is required to show and they fail to do so as i noted i we also assert that the insufficient evidence that he took it by force because they had to witness testimony was unclear and equivocal and also not oblique the witness the victim in this case mr boyd did not testify for similar reasons i got from the brief and correct me have misinterpreted that if the three witnesses descriptions of different aspects of the the aftermath were consistent other words one said there was a a man jumping out of a window which of course corresponded with the broken window of burns's apartment and the gun with the fingerprints another one said a man drove away in a car which would have been shot so i didn't see any from the jury standpoint troubling in consistencies with the with the eye witnesses even though none you know could say from a to z right and that is our point your honor is that there is some testimony for the jury to reach the conclusion that mr williams was there but hobbs that robbery is not established and that he's at the scene of the shooting pots that are obvious the stablished when the government can prove that mr williams was the individual that shot mr boyd which was the theory in this case and took that marijuana there is no witness testimony that he was the shooter and there is no witness testimony that he took the marijuana if there are no further questions at this time i wish to preserve the remainder for  court to do two things one it wants the court to view each piece of evidence by itself ignore the totality of the circumstances and to it once the court to discount circumstantial evidence i want to turn and of course the cases in smith and adams cited in our brief but we did prove explicit agreement here i would argue these text messages that are out while i'm thinking about the agree that no law enforcement officer gave the kind of testimony we often see identifying what seven more and seventeen fifty would have meant in street talk i agree with that test that specific decimal did not exist yes and there's also no testimony that this amount of marijuana as a distribution conclusive evidence of weight and i think if if the court takes a look at the record it will see that the marijuana itself was introduced at trial the actual drugs were in evidence in bags able to go back to the jury if it if it wanted transcript news is what happened my recollection of trying the case is that we did move canisters we didn't move we didn't admit all the canisters i recall a couple of answers that didn't get admitted but i remember putting the stickers on the canisters and trying to move them so i guess i would just have to of the exhibits was you know for example the government ten would be a photograph of the canister with the label and then photograph ten a or eleven would be a photograph of that canister opened and if one looks at the exhibits you can see that the cancer is full of marijuana of wrong era want this was a couple of course with the the video evidence of the jury saw of leonard boyd just a day or two before buying some of that very marijuana in colorado and of course there was testimony from someone from colorado from the marijuana culture marijuana board there the talked about the pattern and practice of these dispensaries educating the jury as to how the bud tenders measured the marijuana out and how they dispensed it and then you have a couple of days later you have some of that very marijuana that we tied to some of that very surveillance video where leonard board is wearing the same black t shirt in which he was shot coming back into the district i think the text messages here and i guess i would make the point too we don't have to show we don't have to assume that the jury knows the ins and outs of the drug trade we have to ask whether any reasonable juror taken all this evidence and drawing all inferences in the government's favor could find a conspiracy i would submit that they could these text messages i've got seven more well seven were seized from the truck so i don't think it takes a great deal it doesn't take any speculation to know what we're talking about when you take the texts plus the evidence again not just looking at one text in isolation but looking at the totality here you see the circumstance  very clearly set up a drug deal and the drug deal was communicated about in detail is there any context for the seventy fifth is it just the we're just the numbers i guess ninety words one seven five zero one seven five zero is is was admitted in the text that context right yes it's just one text you yes yeah i and i were so we're talking a lot about drug weight and drug quantity the case of the cases in the circuit of course say that if all you do is show a lot of drugs that alone is sufficient but it doesn't say the case law doesn't say that that's the only way you can prove intent to distribute indeed in this case we have multiple other indicia of intent to distribute notably the star purchase of the very gun that shot the victim just eleven days before he shot him and we have the coat the companion gun that was purchased at that same time seized from angie bird's apartment from his girlfriend's apartment who lives in the very called the sac where the robbery occurred where the shooting occurred we also have the ammunition that was purchased at that tyson store just eleven days before the robbery in the park with williams fingerprints on it we also have a third gun they're found in and uber department with williams fingerprint on we also have additional marijuana in a in a big bag label shad and additional baggies there that do show despite counsel's argument they do show that was in burns's apartment in burke's apartment and with williams his fingerprints on the baggies that shows contrary to argument this morning that does show that when williams and shah are texting back and forth about getting marijuana they're not texting back and forth about smoking that much of it they're talk they're texting back and forth about selling it and it it when they say i got seven and seven or cs and they're all different kinds so you don't have all the same thing it is reasonable to infer that the reason one cares about not having all the same thing is so that they can market that in the drug trade we don't have to assume that the jury found that it is  as the district court found when it denied the defendant's motion for a new trial think it's a docket one twenty six the jury is not required to find it to believe that when a body is shot and bleeding in the street a drug deal has gone smoothly the fact that the victim is bleeding out on the street with one of the victims applying pressure minutes after texting about a drug deal including the location including the hundred fifteen including the i've got seven more and we see seven that it a very reasonable inference is that the defendant shot him and he stole the marijuana and the marijuana got into shot into the car it's not shah's karts the car that williams and shot drove together to the drug deal in and then the evidence shows that the very gun that shot leonard boyd again is that f x t thirty twenty handgun that was purchased  myself when i jumped out that window and as as your honor pointed out the eyewitness testimony is consistent as to an african american male with long hair jumping out the window and african american male with long hair being the shooter and after or at least holding a gun and yes the witness says i'm not sure but i would argue that goes to her credibility she she can only say what she can say it was a long time ago but she testified to the best of her recollection and it is consistent with williams being the shooter and in addition to that you've got the the i think it is minute mr hanssen was on the scene right after the shooting any video of it with with his i phone not the shooting but the aftermath and and he also he's the one who reported to five this is the license plate i just saw an african american male with like no hair drive away which is of course corroborated by the traffic stop moments later where we find the gun and we've that shot boyd mashed by with ballistics we find the marijuana the seven canisters that corroborated by the hey i've got seven more texts and during that traffic stop of course williams is calling shots at that very moment in addition we've got the geolocation dead of that pings williams phone close to the shooting at the time of the shooting and we have we have additional so pavements by williams that that angel bird and his girlfriend friend whose apartment he's jumping out of can't testify because he's been feeding her cocaine taken together the evidence in this case is sufficient  support the verdict of the court in viewing the record light most favorable to the government should affirm the defense convictions thank you thank you not a question of disregarding our discounting circumstantial evidence this is the fact that the circumstantial evidence doesn't support the specific elements of the offense this is just speculation turning to the arguments of quantity and what was introduced i would acknowledge i wasn't the trial attorney so i wasn't there my reading of the transcript in the record was that it was just the pictures but i just want to be clear that i wasn't actually the trial attorney but again all there is even if it comes in the physical form or in a picture all there is is an indication of weight as it might have been in colorado the testimony of what it weighed and what that meant was not presented to the jury also to the argument of firearm again there is a firearm found in the truck but there is no testimony explaining to the jury yes firearms generally indicate that someone is distributing that someone is part of the drug trade but they aren't just possessing or using the marijuana again we don't have that evidence and the jury did not have that evidence the problem is this court can't analyze this evidence as it was presented as individuals as we do that deal with these kind of offenses day in and day out jurors don't can't eyeball canisters of marijuana and say yeah that looks like a lot doesn't seem like there's actually amount that seems like a distribution and now that's why this expert testimony explaining quantities explaining circumstances to the jurors is necessary turning to the hobbs act robbery what the government points to is evidence that this seems like mr williams was involved the seems like he was there and maybe he was doing something that he wasn't supposed to do but a conviction can't be upheld because it seems like mr williams is involved and maybe he was doing something bad convictions must be upheld because the government met its burden to establish every element of the offense and when looking at the specific elements of the that the government simply failed to do that the circumstantial evidence does not support a conclusion that mr williams in fact took the marijuana from mr boyd by the use of force are no further questions we would ask i do have one i have one of those coincidence situations and this is the second case raising the sentencing packaging issue in this year and they're not that common because you have identical but they're both thank you thank you counsel of the case has been very very well argued on the facts and the law and will take it under advisement