Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01989/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01989-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allan Dimarco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1989

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Allan Dimarco, * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2004

Filed: February 7, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and HOLMES,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Allan Dimarco was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or

more of methamphetamine, knowing and intentional distribution of

methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864214 
2

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

3

An “eightball” is 1/8 ounce.

-2-

I.

Dimarco contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to

support his conspiracy conviction, and thus the district court2

 erred by refusing to

grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Court will reverse a denial of a

motion for acquittal only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the jury’s verdict, and giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences

that may be drawn from the evidence, we find no construction of the evidence will

support the jury’s verdict. United States v. Beltz, 385 F.3d 1158, 1163 (8th Cir.

2004).

To prove a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, the government must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that there was an agreement to distribute

methamphetamine; 2) that Dimarco knew of the agreement; and 3) that Dimarco

knowingly participated in the conspiracy. United States v. Morreno, 373 F.3d 905,

912 (8th Cir. 2004). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the

government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that Dimarco

participated in a conspiracy. On December 18, 2002, Angelina Malfero, a

government informant, went to Tammy Peters’ apartment to purchase an “eightball”3

of methamphetamine. Peters informed Malfero that she had only 1 gram of

methamphetamine on hand, but that if Malfero returned later that evening Peters

would obtain the remaining amount from Dimarco. When Malfero returned to Peters’

apartment, Peters made a telephone call and Dimarco arrived shortly after. Dimarco

sold Malfero two 1/16 ounce packages of methamphetamine for $200. In addition to

those Dimarco sold Peters, Malfero observed Dimarco holding other baggies that

contained a white substance that she believed was also methamphetamine. Shortly

after purchasing the methamphetamine, Malfero met with Officers David Hepperly

Appellate Case: 04-1989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864214 
-3-

and Dave Tyler of the North Central Iowa Narcotics Task Force to relay what had

transpired at Peters' apartment. Malfero was searched by the officers before and after

the controlled buys. According to the officers, Malfero entered the controlled buys

without methamphetamine and returned with methamphetamine. 

On January 8, 2003, Peters arranged for Malfero to purchase another

“eightball” of methamphetamine from Dimarco. During the controlled buy at his

apartment, Dimarco told Malfero that the transaction was Peters’ deal because she

had arranged it.

Approximately a month later, Malfero returned to Dimarco’s apartment to

purchase more methamphetamine. On February 14, 2003, Dimarco sold Malfero 1.14

grams of methamphetamine for $100 and indicated that was all he had but that he

would have more that evening. Based on the December, January, and February

controlled buys, officers applied for a search warrant for Dimarco’s apartment. The

warrant was executed on February 20, 2003. During the search of Dimarco’s home,

the officers discovered 83.15 grams of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

Based on the record, a reasonable jury could have found that Dimarco conspired with

Peters to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine.

Next, Dimarco argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s

determination that he supplied Malfero with the methamphetamine that she provided

to the officers after each controlled buy. To convict Dimarco of distributing

methamphetamine, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that

Dimarco intentionally transferred a controlled substance to Malfero and, second, that,

at the time of the transfer, Dimarco knew that it was a controlled substance.

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); United States v. Pruitt, 487 F.2d 1241, 1243 (8th Cir. 1973).

At the trial, Malfero testified that she had purchased methamphetamine from Dimarco

on December18, 2002, January 8, 2003, and February 14, 2003. As noted above,

officers who conducted surveillance of all three controlled buys testified that Malfero

Appellate Case: 04-1989 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864214 
-4-

entered the controlled buys without methamphetamine, but when she returned, she

possessed methamphetamine, a controlled substance. For various reasons, Dimarco

contends that this testimony is not credible; but the jury found it to be credible. It is

not the role of this Court to judge the credibility of witnesses. United States v.

Dabney, 367 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Hill, 249 F.3d

707, 714 (8th Cir.2001) (“Witness credibility is within the province of the jury, which

we are not allowed to review.”)). Based on the jury’s credibility determinations, there

is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury’s finding that Dimarco was guilty

of distributing methamphetamine. 

Finally, Dimarco contends that the jury erred in finding that he possessed

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dimarco

knowingly possessed and intended to distribute the methamphetamine found in his

home. United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 363 F.3d 788, 796 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing

United States v. Sanchez, 252 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 2001). The evidence supports

the jury’s verdict that Dimarco knowingly possessed methamphetamine and intended

to distribute it: Dimarco lived in the apartment where the Task Force seized a large

amount of methamphetamine and over $10,500 in cash; officers discovered countersurveillance equipment in the apartment including a night vision scope, a “bug”

detector used to determine if someone was wearing a police wire, and a police

scanner; officers also found plastic baggies and other packaging material used for

distribution; and an officer testified that the large amount of methamphetamine seized

was consistent with redistribution. When viewed in the light most favorable to the

verdict, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Dimarco

knowingly possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.

II.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1989 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864214