Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02527/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02527-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony A. Gastineau
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2527

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Tony A. Gastineau, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 23, 2007

Filed: February 28, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Tony Gastineau guilty of possessing ephedrine with knowledge

or reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). The district court1

 sentenced him to 78 months in

prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

raising two issues: (1) whether the jury returned inconsistent verdicts, and (2) whether

there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Gastineau knew or

Appellate Case: 05-2527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282827
-2-

had reasonable cause to believe the ephedrine he possessed would be used to

manufacture methamphetamine.

We conclude that the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent because the

conspiracy offenses on which Gastineau was found not guilty required proof of

elements that the possession count did not. See, e.g., United States v. Masters, 840

F.2d 587, 589-90 (8th Cir. 1988) (reasoning that verdicts were not inconsistent

because “guilty knowledge is only one of the many elements of a conspiracy, proof

of any one of which the jury might have found wanting in considering the conspiracy

charge”). In any event, “it is well established that inconsistent verdicts on the same

indictment as to the same defendant are unobjectionable.” United States v. Fuller, 374

F.3d 617, 623 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Whatley, 133 F.3d 601, 606

(8th Cir. 1998) (jury may acquit as to one or more charges for any number of reasons,

including inclination to be merciful, and yet reach reasonable guilty verdict on related

charges). 

We further conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty

verdict in light of Gastineau’s own testimony indicating that he knew ephedrine was

used to manufacture methamphetamine. See United States v. Jansen, 470 F.3d 762,

767 (8th Cir. 2006) (court should not overturn jury verdict if it is supported by any

reasonable inference from record).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2007 Entry ID: 3282827