NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0230n .06 Fi led : M ay

5, 2008 06- 1306 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. RO NA LD EU GEN E SW IF T, II, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
PER C UR IA M. In th is appe al, de fend antRo nald Eugene Sw if t cont end s thatthere
wa s in s u f

f ic ie n te vid e n c e t o su s t a in t h e s e c o n d o f h is two c o n vic t io n s fo r d is t ri b u t io n o f f ive or more g ra ms of c ocai ne base, in v iol ati on of 21 U. S.C . § 841( a) (1 ), thatw ere bas ed on cont ro ll ed buy s made on F ebr uar y 27, 2004, a n d M a rch 6, 2004, re specti v ely

. He re sts his arg ument on w hat a ppears from the re cord to be a si mple misst a te ment i n the tes ti mony

of the g ov er nment’ s chemi st. Sw ift pos it s t hat b ecaus e the forens icch emis t w ho tes ted t he s ubst ances so ld by Sw ift s tated thathi s l ab recei v ed bot h s amples on Ma rc h 1 and beca use it is unco ntroverted th at the governme nt did notse iz e the se cond samp le unt il Ma rch 6 , th e dist ri ct cour t s houl d hav e g ra nted his R ule 29 mot ion w it h reg ard to the secon d cou nt. Be cause a rationa l trier of fact cou ld conclu de th at th e che mist m istaken ly sta ted t hat t he sec ond sampl e w as re cei v ed on Ma rc h 1, but other w is e c re dithi s t est imony06- 1306

United S tates

v. Swi ft

- 2 - that t h e s u b s t a n c e s e i z e d o n M a r c h 6 w a s c o c a i n e b a s e , t h e re i s s u ffi c i e n t e v ide nce to suppo rtSw ift’ s c onv icti on on counttw o. W e therefore af firm the d is tr ic t c our

t’ s j udg ment.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
Af ter a j urytrial, Sw if

t w as con v icted o f

tw o cou nts of

distribution of

f iv e or mo re gra m s o f

co cai ne bas e, i n v iol ati on of 21 U .S.C . § 841( a) (1 ), ar is ing from tw o s eparate cont ro ll ed buy s made by a g ov er nment i nformant on F ebr u a ry 27 and M ar ch 6, 20 04, re specti v ely

. The g ov er nment i nformant, As hanti Ja ck son, made the controll ed buy s from the d efendant, w hom sh e knew as “R on- Ron ,” i n an attemptto sec ure fav orabl e treatment for her boyfrie nd, w ho had been ar re ste d for dis tr ibu ti ng crack co cai ne. T h e testi mony

at tr ial es tabl is hed t hat o n F ebr uar y 27 – under the super

v is ion of DE A ag ents – J ack son made a controll ed buy from Sw ift of one ounce of crack co cai ne. O n M a r c h 6 , J a c k s o n m a d e a s e c o n d c o n t ro l l e d b u y , t h i s t i me o f tw o ounces o f a subs tanc e that Sw ift re present ed as, and w hic h appeared to Ja ck son and officers t o be, crack cocaine . Although Jackso n atte mp ted to set up a third buy , she w as una ble to reach Sw ift ag ain

. Both buy s occ ur re d at or near Sw ift’ s g ra ndmother ’s hous e, an d J ack son, as w ell as the DEAagents involv ed, ident if ied Swift as th e seller. Th e gov er n me nt also present ed phon e records and an audi o recordin g i n s uppor t of thei r cas e ag ain st Sw ift.
T h e crack cocain e involv ed in th e Febru ary27 bu y w as ad mitt ed int o evidence
w it hout obj ect ion as ex hib it101 and t hat i nv olv ed i n the M a rch 6 b u y w as admitted i nto06- 1306

United S tates

v. Swi ft

- 3 - evidence wi tho ut objection as exhibit 107

. T he DEA agent through w hom the exhibits w ere admitted, Ma rg o Ande rs on, s peci fical ly tes ti fied that ex hib it107 cont ain ed “ the tw o ounc es of crack cocaine w e pu rchase d on March 6.” The g ov er nment’ s forensi c c hemist, Odi estW ashi ng ton, tes ti fied th at he had subj e ct ed bot h ex hib it s 1 01 and 107 t o v ar iou s t est s a nd c oncl uded t hat e x hib it101 cont ain ed 22. 4 g ra ms of 77 perc ent pure co cai ne bas e and that ex hib it107 cont ain ed 44. 4 g ra ms of 73 p er centpure c ocai ne bas e. The g ov er nment did not submi t W ashi ng ton’ s l ab re por t in to e vi dence

. Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , W ashi ng ton t est ified thatboth ex hib it s w ere received by his lab on March 1, 200 4, tha t he ch ecked them out of the lab ’s ev iden ce v aul t on Ma rc h 10, 2004, and that he ran th e tes ts on M ar ch 12, 2 004. D efense c ounse l did no t poin t outthe discrepa ncy be tw een t he March 1 and March 6 date s to the w itness or press hi m to e x pla in further , and g ov er nment c ounse l, w ho appa re ntl y di d notca tch the dis crepanc y , di d notatt empt t o c lar ify the is sue on redi re ct.
At the clo se of the g ov er nment’ s ev ide nce, defense coun sel m ade a Rul e 29 moti on to dism iss counttw o “for the failure of the prose cution to present any labo ratory ana ly sis of anythi ng sei z ed on Ma rc h 6,” stress ing the “p hy si cal impos si bil ity ” that the l ab recei v ed ex hib i t 1 0 7 o n M a r c h 1

. Th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s a t t o r n e y , w h o w a s t a k e n b y s u r p r i se bythe arg ument conc er nin g a di sc re pancy i n the date s, ins is ted t hat a ny di sc re pancy

w ent t o the
w eig ht of the ev ide nce, not it s a dmis si bil ity , and thatthere was o therw is e s uff ic ien t06- 1306

United S tates

v. Swi ft

- 4 - eviden c e t o e stab lish thatex hibit 10 7 w as seized on March 6 an d w as inde ed crack coc ain e. The di str ict c our t ag re ed and deni ed th e moti on, e x pla ini ng : W i th res pe c t to w he th er th e ex hi bi t th atw as o bt ai ne d w as t he s am e o n e th a t was se ized , I su p p o se th a t c o u ld go t o th e ch a in o f cu st o d y alt h o u gh ex hib it107 w as re cei v ed w it hout obj ect ion i n thi s c our t. I do bel iev e tha t t he ex hib iti s p ro per ly before the c our

t, and t he w itness, Mr . W ashin gton, did testif y t hatit w as a con trolled sub stan ce cons is ti ng of 44.4 g ra ms of 73 p er centpure c ocai ne bas e. Con seq uentl y , I do t hin k t he g ov er nment ha s offered ev ide nce from w hic h a j ur

y co uld co ncl ude, if bel iev ed, t he el ements of a c ri me i n c ount 2 bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. And I tend to ag re e w it h the obs er v ati on th at t h e d is c re p a n c y go e s t o t h e we ig h t a n d n o tt h e a d m is s ib il it y; it ’s ce rt a in ly a poi nt for arg ument bu t notone that I bel iev e w oul d precl ude t he jury from maki ng an a ss ess ment and co nsi der ing the count

. After the c our

t den ied hi s R ule 29 mot ion , t he defendant rest ed w it hout off er ing any ev ide nce. I n c los ing arg ument, defense c ounse l focused on th e M ar ch 1 – M arch 6 dis crepanc y , butthe jur y co nv icted o n bo th counts , app arentl y co ncl udi ng thatthe dis crepanc y

i n the date s w as a mi sta ke or mis sta tement on th e par t of the chemi st, but that his tes ti m o ny

thatex hib it107 w as coc ain e bas e w as other w is e c re dib le, as w as And e rson’ s t est imony

thatex hib it107 cons ti tuted the pur por ted c ontraband s old by the def end ant o n Ma r c h 6. Th i s c on c l us i on i s i n l i ne w i th a n i ns tr uc ti on g i v en t o th e j ury re g ardin g co nsi derati on of w it ness es’ testi mony , w hic h read in perti nent part, “[ i] t i s u p to y ou to decide if a wi tne ss’ testimo ny w as be liev able and how mu ch w eigh tyo u t hink it deser v es. Y ou are free to be li ev e ev er ythi ng thata w it ness sa id or onl y par t of i t, or none of it at al l. ” The defendant re cei v ed a sent ence of 180 months

.United S tates v. Swi ft 06- 1306

- 5 - Sw ift now

appeal s t he denial o f

h is Ru le 29 moti on. He cont est s o nly the nar ro w is sue o f w h e t h e r , a s a ma t t e r o f l a w , b e c a u s e o f t h e d i s c re p a n c y i n d a t e s and the pur por ted l ack of a l ab repor

t conc er nin g the sec ond cont ro ll ed buy , t here w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce that the M ar ch 6 subst ance w as coc ain e bas e. He does not o ther w is e q uest ion the s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing ei ther co unt o ne or

the other ele ments of count tw o. DI SC US SION
W e re vie w de nov

o a dis tr ict cour

t’ s deni al of a Rul e 29 moti on. See United S tates
v. Tal ley, 194 F .3d 7 58, 7 64 ( 6th C ir . 199 9)

. The rele v ant i nq uir y i s “ w hether , after

v iew ing the e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p ro sec uti on, any rationa l trier of

fact cou ld have foun d the essen tial elem ent s of the crime beyond a rea sona ble do ubt .” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. Ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce may satisf y the stand ard, an d the ev iden ce ne ed n ot be such tha t it ex clude s ev eryreason able hy pothes is ex ceptthat of g uil t. See United State s v. Hil

l , 142 F. 3d 305, 311 ( 6th C ir . 199 8) (i nter nal q uotat ion mar ks and ci tati on omi tted)

. Sw if t cont end s that“f rom this record w e cann ot kno w the ide ntity of

the sub stan ce pol ic e s eiz ed on Ma rc h 6, 2004.” He c or re ctl y ac know led g es that cas e l aw su ppor ts the conc lus ion thatthe lac k of a la b repor t i s n ot di spos it iv e. See United State s v. Schrock , 855 F.2d 32 7, 33 4 (6th Cir. 198 8) (“To ou r kn o wle d ge , n o cou rt has he ld tha t scientif ic ide nti ficat ion of a s ubst ance is an a bsol ute p re re q uis it e to conviction for a dr ug -rela tedUnited S tates v. Swi ft 06- 1306

- 6 - offense, and w e too a re unw il li ng to announc e s uch a r ule .” ); United S tates v. C ovi ngton , 133 F .3d 6 39, 6 44 (8 th C ir. 1 998) ( “I t i s w ell es tabl is hed t hat t he i denti ty of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e c an . . . be p ro v ed by ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce and opi nio n tes ti mony .” ) (i nter nal q uotat ion m ar ks and ci tati on omi tted) ; United S tates v. Sanap aw , 366 F. 3d 492, 496 ( 7th Ci r. 2004) (“ [N ]ei ther ex per t tes ti mony nor a chemi cal tes t of t he s ubst ance sol d i s req uired to prov e di str ibu ti on of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. ”)

. Sw if t is incorrect, how ever, in his assertion tha t W ashin gton’s testim ony w as “fata lly flaw ed,” a proposi ti on for w hic h he offers n o aut hor ity . Vie w ing the tes ti mony i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the g ov er nment, as w e musti n a s uff ic iency ch all eng e, a log ic al ex pla nati on for the d is crepanc y i n the dates is that W ashi ng ton w as si mply mis tak en abou t
w hen t he s econd sa mple re ached his lab, perhaps confusing the act ual date of recei pt w it h the d ate o n w hic h the first sampl e ar ri v ed, a rati onal co ncl usi on th e tr ier of fact w oul d be enti tl ed to draw

from t he w hol e of

the ev ide nce present ed. See Si xth C ircui t C ri minal Patt er n J ur

y Ins tr uct ion 1.07- Credi bil ity of W it ness es (“ Y ou are free to bel iev e ev er ythi ng tha t a w itness sa id, or o nly part of it, o r no ne of

it at all.

. . . [I]f

you believe tha t the w itness
w as inc onsi ste nt .

. . [a]s k y oursel f if its eemed l ik e an inn ocentmis tak e. . . .” ). An d, desp ite Swi f

t’s assertion thatW a s h in gt o n ’s misstate me nt left the jury w ith no ev iden ce upo n w hich to conclud e tha t exhibit 107 was the subst ance seized on March 6 an d tha t it wa s in d e e d cr a c kco c a in e , A n d e rs o n ’s t e s t im o n y t h a te xh ib it1 0 7 c o n t a in e d “t h e two oun ces of

crack cocaine w e pu rchase d on March 6, ” comb ined w ith W ashin gton’s testim ony that exhibit 10 7 w as 73 percen t pure c ra c kc o c a in e ba se, provided th e juryUnited S tates v. Swi ft 06- 1306

- 7 - suffici ent ev ide nce from w hic h to conc lud e that the s ubst ance in q uest ion w as sei z ed on Ma rc h 6 a nd w as crack co cai ne, a s a ll eg ed i n the i ndi ctment

.

CO NC LU SION
For the rea sons se t outabo v e, w e con clude thatthe district cou rt did noterr i n deny ing the defendant’ s R ule 29 mot ion and, therefore, w e AF FI RM the ju dg ment of conv icti on.