Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02596/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Townsend
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2596

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Ricardo Townsend, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Freaky, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 22, 2010

Filed: March 29, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Townsend appeals his drug conviction entered by the district court1

following a jury trial. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the conviction was not

supported by the evidence because it consisted primarily of the testimony of

cooperating witnesses who had a motive to lie.

Appellate Case: 09-2596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649084
-2-

After careful review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support

the jury’s verdict finding Townsend guilty of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine base. See United States v. Burdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir.

2008) (this court reviews sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to

government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in government’s favor and accepting all

reasonable inferences that support jury’s verdict). Nine cooperating witnesses

testified about buying cocaine base from Townsend to redistribute to others.

Significantly, the witnesses testified about their prior criminal histories and their

cooperation agreements, and it was up to the jury to determine the credibility of these

witnesses. Further, police officers testified about seizing cocaine base from

Townsend’s mobile home and investigating his drug operations. See United States

v. Hernandez, 569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (to establish conspiracy to distribute

drugs, government must prove there was an agreement to distribute drugs, and

defendant knew of conspiracy and intentionally joined it); United States v. McKay,

431 F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence was sufficient to support defendants’

participation in drug conspiracy where 6 cooperating witnesses testified about buying

drugs from defendants; impeachment evidence was for jury to consider).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649084