NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0082n.06 No. 09-5261 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. SAMMI E L EE MACL I

N, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : MA RTI

N, NO RRI S, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Sammie Mac lin appeals his conviction for drugchar g es, cha lleng ing the su ff ic ie nc y of the state ’s e vid e nc e and

the su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble nes s of hi s nine ty -s ix-m on th
se nte nc e . We a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g me nt a s to bo th i ssu e s.

I.
I n late 2007, a f

eder al g rand jury

indicted Mac lin on two char g es: possessing a fire arm following a fe lony

conviction and possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. At Ma c lin ’s tr ia l, t

he pa rt ie s d isp ute d o nly

wh e the r M a c lin

po sse sse d th e fi re arm

and the dr ug s.
To pr ov e po sse ssi on , th e pro secu tion r e lie d a lmo st e xclu siv e ly on tw o e y e wi tne sse s: Maclin’s g irlfriend, Cer isa Har tley , and her

daug hter, Jeanne Pilkington. B oth stated that on the dayNo. 09-5261

Un ite d S tates v . M ac lin

- 2 - of Maclin’s offe nse, he was driving them to the groc ery store in his car . Whil e en route, he made
s ev er al p h o n e c al l s , d

u ri n g wh i ch h e d i s cu s s eddru gs an d m o n ey , t h en i n ex p l i cab l y dro v e t h ro u gh
a r e s i d e n t i a l ar e a , w h e r e a

m anf l a g g e d h i m t o w ar d a h o u s e . M a c l i n p ar k e d t h e c ar

i nt h e dr i v e w ay, produce d a small bagof cr ack c ocaine from his person, deposited the ba g in the car ’s console, a nd enter ed the house , leavingthe women in the car. Pilkington c laimed that Mac lin also placed a g un (whic h, a s a ll p art ie s st ipu late d, be lon g e d to Ha rt le y ) i n th e c ar’ s d oo r p ane l.
Soo n a ft e r M a c lin

e nte re d th e ho us e , th e po lic e , w ho no tic e d M a c l i n ’ s d a r k l y t i nt e d w ind ow s, pulled in behind his car . Har tley seized the drugs and tried t o hide t hem i n her pants, but the police stopped her. H artley

admitted that the drug s belong ed to Mac lin a nd surre ndere d them. The police also sear ched Ma clin’s ca r and f ound the pistol. Hartley told the pol ice that she did not know how it go t t h er e, but t hat Mac lin could have take n it from her r esidenc e without her know ledg e. The police ar r e s te d M a c li nan d

H artl e y th a t d ay , b u t e v e n tu a ll y

r e le a s e d th e m b o th

o nb o n d
. U n ite d States Mar s h a ls f

in a ll y a p p r e h e n d e d

M a c li nf r o m H artl e y ’ s a tt ic , w h e r e h e h id f r o m a u th o r it ie s fo llo wi nghis ind ic tme nt. A jury acquitted Ma clin of the fir ear m offense , but convicted him of t h e d ru g o ffense. At Maclin’s sente ncing , the court considere d both the Presentenc e I nvestig ation Report and Ma clin’s position paper to ar

rive at a gu i d el i n es rang e of se venty -seve n to ninety -six months. I t then sentenc ed Mac lin to ninety -six months, voicing conce rns about his long criminal history , sense of impunity , and hig h likelihood of rec idivism
.No. 09-5261

Un ite d S tates v . M ac lin

- 3 - II.
Ma c li n c h a ll e n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e c is io n o n tw o g r o u n d s . F ir s t, h e c la im s that the g overnme nt presente d insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdic t on the drug possession cha rg e. Second, he a lleg es that his sentenc e is unrea sonable.
A.
This court re views suffic iency of the e vidence claims to determine whether “any rationa l tr ier of fa ct could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” and, in doing so, reviews

“ the e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he pr os e c uti on , . . . g ivi ng the g ov e rnme nt t he be ne fi t of all infere nces that could reasonably be dra wn from the te stimony .” United States v. M/G Transp. Servs., I nc. , 1 7 3 F. 3 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 9 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( em p h as i s o m i t t ed ) ( ci t i n g J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “ A def endant c laiming i n s u ff

i ciency of the e vidence bear s a ver y heavy burden.” United St ates v. Vanne rson , 786 F.2d 221, 225 (6th Cir. 1986) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). An appellate court will reve rse the judg ment only if, afte r viewingthe re cord
as a w hole, it determines that “ the judg m en t i s n o t s upported by substantial and compete nt evidenc e.” United States v. Blake ney , 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 ( 6th Cir. 1991).
As g ro un ds fo r h is a

rgume nt, Ma c lin

a sse rt s th a t th e g ov e rnme nt p res ented “ ide nti c a l” evidenc e with re spect to the drugand fire arm c harg es (namely , the testimony of Hart l ey

and Pilki ng ton), and that the jury inexpl icably

convicted on the former

but acquitted on the latter . HeNo. 09-5261

Un ite d S tates v . M ac lin

- 4 - c o n c l u d e s t h a tt h e j u r y ’ s c o n v i c t i o ni s t h e r e f o r e l o g i c a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n tan d , c o n s e qu e n t l y, constitutio n al l y i n sufficie nt. Even if we acc ept Mac lin’s argument, inconsistent verdicts ar e g e n e r a l l y not

revie wable. United States v. Lawrence , 5 5 5 F
. 3 d 2 5 4 , 2 6 2 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ). I n such
case s, this court defe rs to the jury , which “is as likely to have e rre d in acquitting [the def endant] of the one [char g e] as in convicting him of the other.” Id . at 261–62 (intern al q u o tation marks and citation omitted).
F or t hi s cou rt to re ve rs e Ma c lin ’s dr ugc on vic tio n, Ma c lin , r a the r t ha n p oin t to inconsistencies in the ve rdict, must demonstrate that “no rational trier of f act c ould have f

ound the element of possession be y ond a re asonable doubt.” United St ates v. Hunter , 5 58 F .3 d 4 95 , 5 03 (6 th Cir. 2009). I n t h i s ca s e, however, the evidenc e ag ainst Maclin is particular ly inculpating . Two witnesses testified that he discussed drug deals on his cell phone prior to being “fla g g ed down” by what appe are d to be a dr

ug buy er. Tw o individu als testified that Mac lin produced a bagof cr ack
coca ine from his per son and plac ed it in hi s car . Acc ording to Hartley , Maclin admitted that the dr ug s w e re his . M or e ov e r, a s e vid e nc e of his guil ty

c on sc ie nc e , M a c lin

a c tiv e ly e lud e d o ff

ic e rs , knowing that they had an outstanding war rant for his a

rre st. Considering this evidence in the light most fav o rable to the g overnme nt, and dra wing all infere nces in the g overnme nt’s favor , we de te rm ine that a

ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld find proof bey ond a reasonable doubt to support the jury ’s g uil ty ve rd ic t.No. 09-5261

Un ite d S tates v . M ac lin

- 5 - B.
As a lte rn a te g ro un ds fo r r e ve rs a l, M a c lin c on te nd s th a t hi s se nten c e is s ub sta nti ve ly
unrea sonable. “ A sentenc e may be conside red substantively u n re as o n ab le when the district court selec ts a sentenc e ar

bitrarily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider r eleva nt sentenc ing f

actor s, or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008)
. This court re views such c laims “under a defe rential abuse- of-discr etion standard.” United States v. Stephe ns , 549 F.3d 459, 464 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted).
Th e on ly ob

je c tio n M a c lin

ra ise s to his se nte nc e is that th e c ourt “ [se nte nc e d] Mr . M a c lin to the high- end [sic] of the ra ng e while those that the district c ourt felt wer e equally g uilty rec eived
n o p u n i s h m e n t
. ” In s u

p p o rt o f t h i s ar g u m e n t , M a c l i n c i t e s a s t a t e m e n tf

r o mt h e s e n t e n c i n g c o l l o qu y, wh e re the c ourt

e xpressed do ub t a

bo ut H art le y ’s and

Pilk ing ton ’s inv olv e me nt a nd state d th a t it “d[id] n’t think that there [we]re a ny innocenc e [sic] in this cas e. ” We do not ex amine the f actua l
acc urac y of Mac lin’s alleg ations. I nstead, we note that Maclin fa ils to attack his sentence on any of the g rounds that t his court recog nizes. I ndeed, nothing in the sente ncingrec ord sug g ests the cour t’s arbitra riness or use of i mpermissible fac tors. I n announcing Maclin’s sentence, the court a ddresse d bo th p art ie s’ re c omm e nd a tio ns and e xplic itl y we ig he d sev e ra l § 3 55 3( a ) e le me nts . T he fa c t th a t it did not punish Ha rt l ey o r Pilkington—neither of whom fac ed fe dera l char g es—has no be aringon the re asonable ness of Mac lin’s sentence
.No. 09-5261

Un ite d S tates v . M ac lin

- 6 - III
. For these reasons, we aff

irm the district court’s judg ment as to both Maclin’s convic tion and his sentence
.