# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 21 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ri ch ard Lee Eng li sh

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 16
Fil ed : J an ua ry

10 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d EBI NGER, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

The Hon or ab le Reb ecca Goo dg am e Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 1

th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.Ri ch ard Lee Eng li sh ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on fo ll owi ng a jury tri al of co ns pi racy

to di st rib ut e h ero in , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( a)(1 ), an d p os se ss io n

of he ro in wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). The di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced Eng li sh to 15 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Eng li sh as se rts 2

th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s an d th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

in de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al . W e aff irm.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en c y of th e ev id en ce to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d acce p ti ng al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es su pp or ti ng th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Co lt on , 74 2 F.3 d 34 5,

34 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cu e v a s

- A r ren do nd o, 46 9

F.3 d 71 2, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). “ W he n rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to

su pp or t a co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on , we wil l affi rm if th e reco rd

, vi ewed m os t fav or ab ly

to th e go ve rn m en t, co nt ai ns su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, whi ch

m ean s ev id en ce su ffi ci en t t o pr ov e th e el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 44 3 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ti ng
Uni te d S ta te s v . Cren sh aw, 35 9 F .3d 97 7, 9 87 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) ).

In or de r to co nv ic t Eng li sh of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e he ro in

, th e go ve rn m en t

w a s r e qu ire d to pr ov e: (1 ) Eng li sh an d at le as t on e ot he r pe rs on reac he d a n

ag reem en t to di st rib ut e he r o i n ; (2 ) Eng li sh vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y joi ne d th e

ag reem en t; an d (3 ) at th e ti m e he joi ne d th e ag reem en t, Eng li sh k n e w i t s es se nt ia l

pu rp os e. See Uni te d St at es v. Bo wie, 61 8 F.3 d 80 2, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In or de r to

co nv ic t Eng li sh of po ss es si on of he ro in wit h in te nt to de li ve r th e go ve rn m en t was

req ui red to pr ov e “ ei th er actu al or co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on an d i nt en t t o d is tri bu te .”

Uni te d St at es v. Lewis , 3 F.3 d 25 2, 25 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Br et t, 8 72 F.2d 13 65 , 13 69 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9) ).

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 2

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-At t ria l th e Uni te d St at es pr es en te d e vi de nc e th at fro m 20 12 to 20 14 Eng li sh

was on e of th e he ad s of a he ro in di st rib ut io n or ga ni zat io n kn own as “ th e Crew” th at

op erat ed in no rth Mi nn eap ol is

, Mi nn es ot a. The in ve s t i g at io n be ga n whe n of fic ers

arre st ed a reg ul ar cu st om er o f th e Cre w in po ss es si on of a sm al l am ou nt of h ero in

. Offi cers us ed th is in di vi du al to m ak e co nt ro ll ed bu y s fro m m em be rs of th e Crew, an d

th is in fo rm an t pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n t ha t en ab le d un de rco ve r of fic ers to m ak e bu y s

f r o m Crew m em

be rs

. Offi cers le arn ed th at two te le ph on e nu m be rs were reg ul a r l y

us ed by th e Crew in rece iv in g or de rs fro m pr os pe ct iv e he ro i n p u rch as ers

. Afte r

fu rth er in ve st ig at io n, whi ch in cl ud ed in te rv ie ws wit h Crew m em be rs , an in di ct m en t

was r e t u rn ed an d fil ed on Sep te m be r 16

, 20 14

, ch arg in g Eng li sh an d se ve n ot he rs
wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e he ro in

. A warra nt fo r Eng li sh ’s arre st was is su ed bu t
Eng li sh was n ot im

m ed ia te ly arres te d.

It was de te rm in ed th at Eng li sh tra ve le d to Ch ic ag o ev ery 10 to 14 da y s in or de r

to ob ta in a ne w su pp ly of he ro in an d th at Eng li sh reg ul arl y us ed a ho m e in Ch ic ag o.
Usi ng a co ur t or de r p e r m it ti ng la w en fo rcem en t to tra ck th e cel l ph on es as so ci at ed

wit h th e te le ph on e nu m

be rs pr ev io us ly ob ta in ed by la w en fo rcem en t, of fic ers tra ck ed

bo th c e l l p h o n es to th e Ch ic ag o ho m e on th e week en d of Sep te m be r 27

, 20 14

. By

tra ck in g th es e cel l ph on es , o ffi cers de te rm in ed th at a ve hi cl e in whi ch En gl is h was

a pa ss en ge r was ret ur ni ng to Mi nn eap ol is on Sep te m be r 30

, 20 14

. On th at da te

, la w

en fo rcem en t o f

f ic ers st op pe d th e ve hi cl e as it en te red Mi nn eap ol is

. Eng li sh was

arre st ed on th e ou ts t a n d i ng warra nt an d $5 ,44 0 in cas h was fo un d in hi s po ck et s.

Sear ch es of th e ve hi cl e ev en tu al ly un co ve red m ari juan a hi dd en in th e cei li ng ab ov e

a vi so r an d 19 6 gr am s of he ro in wrap pe d in cel lo ph an e an d st uf fed in a so ck

co nc eal ed in th e ba c k o f t h e dr iv er’s se at

. Fo ur cel lu la r ph on es were fo un d in th e

ve hi cl e, two of whi ch were as si gn ed th e n u mb e r s u s e d by th e Crew in rece iv in g
he ro in ord ers

.

All of Eng li sh ’s co -d efen da nt s en te red gu il ty p l e a s p ur su an t to pl ea

ag reem en ts

. A su pe rced in g in di ct m en t was ret ur ne d ad di ng th e ch arg e of po ss es si on

-3

-of he ro in wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e ag ai ns t Eng li sh

. At tri al

, go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es ,

in cl ud in g th ree of Eng li sh ’s co -d efen da nt s, te st ifi ed th at th ey were pa rti ci pa nt s in th e

Crew’s cri m in al op erat io ns

. The y st at ed th at Eng li sh was a le ad er of the Crew who

co -o rd in at ed th e en te rp ris e by giv in g i ns tru ct io ns wit h re sp ect to th e Crew’s hero in

di st rib ut io n ne two rk

, m ak in g reg ul ar tri ps to Ch ic ag o to rep le ni sh th e or ga ni zat io n’s

su pp ly of he ro in

, di vi di ng th e bu lk qu an ti ti es of he ro in so o b t a i n e d in to sm al le r

am ou nt s fo r di st rib ut io n to th e ul ti m at e co ns um ers , se tt in g th e pr ic e f o r t h e he ro in

sa le s, an d re cei vi ng m on ey fro m th e st reet sal e o f he ro in

.

O n ap pe al Eng li sh as se rts th at

, al th ou gh he was a pa ss en ge r in a ve hi cl e i n
whi ch dr ug s were hi dd en , ne it he r hi s fin ge rp rin ts no r hi s D N A w a s f ou nd on th e

pa ck ag in g of th e he ro in di sc ov ered in th e ve hi cl e; th e ve hi cl e was no t li cen se d in hi s

na m e no r d id he ha ve ex cl us iv e co nt ro l ov er th e ve hi cl e; he was ne ve r ob se rv ed

se ll in g he ro i n ; t h e two cel lu la r ph on es us ed to rece iv e he ro in or de rs whi ch were

fo un d in th e ve hi cl e were no t li st ed in hi s na m e; he was no t in po ss es si on of dr ug

pa rap he rn al ia ; and he di d no t liv e a li fes tyle typic al ly as so ci at ed wit h th at of a dr ug

tra ffi ck er. The refo re, acco rd in g to Eng li sh , t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se res te d so le ly o n

th e te st im on y of co -d efen da nt s who we r e t h e be ne fic ia rie s of pl ea ag reem en ts

pr ov id in g th em wit h se nt en ci ng co nc es si on s, an d he ro in ad di ct s who te st ifi ed ag ai ns t
Eng li sh in ex ch an ge fo r fav or ab le ch arg in g or se nt en ci ng de ci si on s. He arg ue s th at

th es e wit ne ss es la ck cred i b i l i ty an d th us th ei r te st im on y can no t su pp or t th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t.

In co ns id eri ng Eng li sh ’s co nt en ti on we are co gn iz an t of ou r o b l i g a ti on to

ev a l u a t e t h e ev id en ce to en su re th at th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pr ov e al l th e
el em en ts of th e cri m e ch arg ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. See Ja ck so n v. Virg in ia

, 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 31 3- 20 (1 97 9)

. And we ha ve do ne so

. Afte r cl os e ex am in at io n of th e

tri al reco rd

, we co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.

-4

-In co nd uc ti ng an a p p e l l a t e rev ie w, “ [t]hi s co ur t do es no t weig h th e ev id en ce

or th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es .” Uni te d St at es v. Wies t, 59 6 F.3 d 90 6, 91 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ) ( c i t i ng Uni te d St at es v. Hon arv ar, 47 7 F.3 d 99 9, 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )).

F u r t h e r , “ it is wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e jury to m ak e cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts a n d

res ol ve co nf

li ct in g te st im on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Bo wer, 48 4 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 26 (8 th

Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A n d

, a l t h o ug h Eng li sh po in ts to a la ck of ev id en ce

co rro bo rat in g th e te st im on y of th e go ve rnm en t’s co op erat in g wit ne ss es , a jury ve rd ic t

m ay be ba se d so le ly on th e te st im on y of co op erat in g wit ne ss es

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Sm it h, 63 2 F.3 d 10 43

, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ W e ha ve r ep eat ed ly up he ld jury

ve rd ic ts ba se d so le ly on th e te st im on y of co op erat in g witn es se s.”) ; Unit ed Sta te s v.
Tho m ps on , 5 33 F.3 d 9 6 4

, 9 7 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (The “ te st im on y of an acco m pl ic e is

su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on un le ss it is in cred ib le or in su bs ta nt ia l on

it s face .” (ci ta ti on an d al te rat io ns om it te d) ); Uni te d St at es v. W hi rlwi nd So ld ie r, 49 9

F.3 d 86 2, 87 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ [A] co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on m ay be ba se d on in di rect

or ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, in cl ud in g so le ly te st im on y fro m co -co ns pi r a t or s.”)

. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d t ha t t he ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-