Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01835/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01835-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anna Maria Dungy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1835

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Anna Maria Dungy, also known as *

Anna Maria Davis; also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Anna Marie Duncan, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2005

Filed: September 20, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Anna Marie Dungy guilty of possession with intent to distribute

five grams or more of cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

The district court*

 denied Dungy’s motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for

a new trial. Dungy appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on both

counts. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953682
-2-

To convict Dungy of possession with intent to distribute on each count, the

government had to show she possessed the relevant drug and did so with intent to

distribute. United States v. Ramirez, 362 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2004). Dungy

contends there is no evidence she intended to distribute the cocaine base or cocaine.

We disagree. Officer Ortman testified that during the search, Dungy told him she had

sold cocaine base to others in the previous two weeks. Davis contends she did not

make the statement, but it was the jury’s perogative to believe Officer Ortman.

United States v. Velazquez, 410 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, ample

evidence supports the officer’s testimony. During the search of the Davis residence,

officers found three packages of cocaine base packaged in a manner consistent with

resale in a woman’s coat located in the southeast bedroom, two bags of cocaine

weighing a total of twenty grams in a woman’s jacket located in the northeast

bedroom, and about .7 grams of cocaine base in a man’s shirt located in the southeast

bedroom. Officers also found $620 in a woman’s coat located in the northeast

bedroom and a digital scale. Officer Ortman also testified that based on his

knowledge of drug cases, the sheer weight of drugs found in the Davis residence was

inconsistent with personal use. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the verdict, we conclude a reasonable jury could have found the government proved

the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. United

States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2002).

Because there is ample evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, the district court

properly denied Dungy’s motion for judgment of acquittal, United States v. Monnier,

412 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 2005), and did not abuse its discretion in denying Dungy’s

motion for a new trial, Ramirez, 362 F.3d at 525 (no abuse of discretion in denying

new trial when factual circumstances do not point to a serious miscarriage of justice).

We thus affirm Dungy’s convictions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953682