Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06150/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenya LaSale Nicholson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 9, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

V. 

KENYA LASALE NICHOLSON, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 04-6150 

(D.C. No. 03-CR-145-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-Appellant Kenya Nicholson was convicted by a jury of one 

count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine 

base, cocaine, and marijuana in violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 84l(a)(l); eight 

counts of knowingly using a telephone in furtherance of the conspiracy in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; one count of possession with 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 04-6150 Document: 010110666479 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Page: 1
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l); and one count of 

attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 

846. With respect to his conspiracy conviction, Mr. Nicholson was sentenced to 

life imprisonment under the mandatory sentencing provisions of 21 U .S.C. § 

841 (b ). On appeal, Mr. Nicholson argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy conviction. 1 Exercising jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

The parties are familiar with the facts in this case, and we need not repeat 

them here. We review de novo whether the government presented sufficient 

evidence to support a conviction. United States v. Dunmire, 403 F .3d 722, 724 

(10th Cir. 2005). In so doing, we view the facts in evidence "in the light most 

favorable to the government." Id. We will not weigh conflicting evidence or 

second-guess the fact-finding decisions of the jury. Van Nattan v. United States, 

357 F.2d 161, 162 (10th Cir. 1966). Rather, our role is limited to determining 

1

Mr. Nicholson also seeks "to preserve his rights under the still-evolving 

sentencing procedure to be laid down by the United States Supreme Court under 

the Blakely decision ... and its progeny." Aplt. Br. at 4. Beyond this statement, 

Mr. Nicholson fails to identify just what "rights" are at issw~ and provides no 

cogent argument. The evolving nature of the law does not relieve Mr. Nicholson 

of his duty to raise issues with sufficient specificity when seeking appellate 

review. See United States v. Bardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1492 (10th Cir. 1996) 

(holding that in the absence of reasoned argument or legal authority, an 

unsupported issue is waived). We will not construct an argument for Mr. 

Nicholson. Accordingly, whatever the import of the above-quoted statement, the 

issue is deemed waived. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-6150 Document: 010110666479 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Page: 2
"whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on 

the direct and circumstantial evidence, together with the reasonable inferences to 

be drawn therefrom." United States v. Smith, 133 F.3d 737, 741-42 (10th Cir. 

1997). 

To support a conviction of conspiracy in this case, the government is 

required to present sufficient evidence of the following elements: (1) an 

agreement between the defendant and at least one other person to possess with 

intent to distribute or to distribute marijuana and more than fifty grams of crack 

cocaine; (2) the defendant knew of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) 

knowing and voluntary involvement in the conspiracy; and ( 4) interdependence 

among the coconspirators. Dunmire, 403 F .3d at 724. Mr. Nicholson argues that 

mere knowledge of the illegal activities of others is insufficient to support a 

guilty verdict and that the witnesses presented at trial do not support the existence 

of a conspiracy. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we have little difficulty in 

concluding that sufficient evidence exists to support Mr. Nicholson's conspiracy 

conviction. Mr. Nicholson's attempts to cast doubt on the jury's verdict through 

citations to isolated statements in the record are unpersuasive. The record is in 

fact replete with testimony from various witness that, if credited by the jury, 

would establish an agreement between the Appellant and coconspirator Kenny 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 04-6150 Document: 010110666479 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Page: 3
Brown to pool money to purchase and distribute narcotics, VII R. at 126, Mr. 

Nicholson's knowledge of the objectives of and active participation in the 

conspiracy, Id. at 126, 429, and the interdependence of the coconspirators in 

purchasing cocaine together and sharing a house to "cook up" the crack and store 

proceeds from drug sales. Id. at 154-64, 186. Under these circumstances, it was 

well within the province of a reasonable jury to reach the verdict at issue here. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 04-6150 Document: 010110666479 Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Page: 4