FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEB 18, 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 10 94 1 D. C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 00 30 -RS- AK-8 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us AMY COOPER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHOWARD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Honora ble Marc ia Morales Howar d, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.App el la ntAm y Co op er ap pe al s h er co nv ic ti onforus in g atel ep ho ne to faci li ta te th e co m

mis si on of t he fel on y

of d is tri bu ti on of c oc ai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 43 (b ). Co op er ar gu es sh e was a “pr in ci pa l” inth e p ur ch as e o f th e co cai ne an d s he can no t b e fo un d t o h av e fac il it at edth e d is tri bu ti on inli gh t o f Abu elha wa v. Uni te d Sta tes , – U.S. – , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 10 2 (2 00 9) . Becau se th e fac ts supp ort Co op er u si ng a te le ph on e to faci li ta te th e d is tri bu ti on of c oc ai ne , th e jury ve rd ic t i s af

firm ed . I. BACKGROUND Am y Co op er l iv edwith h er b oyfrien d, Dr. Mi ch ael Reed . Twelv e to ei gh te enm on th s b efo re s he was a rres te d, Co op er i nt ro du cedReedto a drug de al er, Hect orMel ara. Co op er was alr eady a co cai ne cu st om er o f Mel ara, an d R eedso on be cam e a cu st om er as well . Mel ara t es ti fie d a t tria l tha t h e b eg anto sel l Re ed co cai ne bo th when Reedwas wi th Co op er an d wh enReedwas a lo ne inhi s o ffi ce. Inearl y May 200 9, Re edco nt act edMel ara a ndne go ti at edforth e p ur ch as e o f on e ki lo gr am of c oc ai ne for$3 0,0 00 . Reedpl an ne d t o p ay forth e k il og ram

ou t o f hi s own ba nkacco un t b ecau se he was t ry in g t o “ ke ep [Co op er] ou t o f it ” an d h e in te nd edto tel l Co op er h e was on ly buyin g 7 1⁄2 o r 10 gra m s o f co cai ne . Mel ara te st ifi edth atitwas h is im pr es si on Reedwas l y in g t o C oo pe r an d c on ti nu edto li e to Co op er u nt il th e d ay

th e d eal was t o o ccu r.

2Mel ara’s s up pl ie r de li ve redth e co cai ne to Mel ara t he same day Mel ara was supp os edto de li ve r th e co cai ne to Reed , bu t the supp li er arriv edlat er tha n ex pe ct ed . Mel ara c al le d R eedan d s ai d h e was run ni ng lat e. Reedto ldMel ara h e ha d t o g o t o wo rk , bu t M el ara c ou ldst il l co m e to Reed ’s ho us e an d C oo pe r wou ld

“ do th e d eal ” fo r hi m . Reedex pl ai ne d t ha t Co op er was un aware of t he qu an ti ty of co cai ne Mel ara was bri ng in g t o t he ho us e, an d t ha t h e was go in g t o t el l Co op er h e was “ jus t g oi ng to pa ss itonto so m eo ne els e,” ref erri ng to th e co cai ne . On h is way

to de li ve r th e co cai ne to Reed ’s res id en ce, Co op er ca ll edMel ara an d t ol d h im

sh e h advi si to rs an d M el ara s ho ul d g iv e h er t enm in ut es be fo re h e cam e o ve r. Mel ara s ai d t ha t was fin e, as he was c urren tl y dri vi ng by a bu si ne ss he kn ew to be m or e th antenm in ut es away fro m Reed ’s res id en ce. Thi s was th e fi rs t co nv ers at io n M el ara h adwith C oo pe r reg ard in g t he de al . Fift een m in ut es lat er, Co op er ca ll edMel ara a ga in an d t ol d h im th e g ue st s wer e g on e an d t o c om e o ve r. Mel ara a rri ve d a t Re ed ’s res id en ce an d C oo pe r gr eet edhi m at t he do or . Co op er es co rte d M el ara t hr ou gh th e g arag e to a st ai rwel l l ead in g t o t he m as te r be dr oo m clo se t. Sh e to ldMel ara t o l oo k i n the clo se t atth e ri gh t-h an d d es k dr awer wh ere h e wou ldfin d t he m on ey . Mel ara f ou ndth e m on ey , cou nt ed $3 0,0 00 , andCo op er d oubl e co un te d i t t o e ns ur e th e acc ur acy of th e p aym en t. Mel ara the n h an de d t he co cai ne to Co op er, wh o fe ltan d s m el le d i t. Aft er the 3ex ch an ge , Mel ara l eftth e h ou se , fol lo wedsh ortl y th erea fte r by Coo pe r who was acco m pani edby ano th er fe m al e th ou gh t t o b e th e m ai d. Co op er re tu rn edto th e ho us e ap pr ox im at el y

30 m in ut es lat er an d was co nf ro nt edby law en fo rcem en t. Co op er was ch arg edan d fo un d g ui lt y of u si ng a te le ph on e to faci li ta te th e co m m is si on of afel on y , 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , th atbe in g t he di st rib ut io n o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 43 (b ). The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C oo pe r’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al at t he clo se of t he Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce. It al so de ni edhe r po st -v erd ic t m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Cri m . P. 29 (c). Co op er n ow ap pe al s h er co nv ic ti on . II. DISCUS SION Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws “ th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce d e n ov o, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ All reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il ity ch oi ces m

us t b e m ad e infav orof the go ve rn m en t an d t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Id . Co op er m ak es two m ai n a rg um en ts . Firs t, Co op er ar gu es sh e was a

“pr in ci pa l” inth e tr an sa ct io n b ecau se sh e was st an di ng inth e p la ce o f Ree d a s the bu y er. Thu s, s he co nc lu de s, s he can no t b e fo un d t o h av e fac il it at edth e di st rib ut io n o f co cai ne inli gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in Abu elha wa , – U.S. –, 1 29 S. Ct. 2 10 2, 2 10 7 (h ol di ng th ata bu y er u si ng a te le ph on e to m ak e a 4m is de m ean ordru g p ur ch as e d oe s n ot“ faci li ta te ” fel on y dru g d is tri bu ti on be cau se th e te rm “ faci li ta te ” is li m it edto so m eo ne ot he r th ana pr in ci pa l o r ne ces sa ry act or ). Co op er was no t a “ pr in ci pa l” as ast an d- in bu y er i n t hi s tran sa ct io n. Th e ev id en ce s ho weditwas R eed , no t Co op er, wh o was th e p ur ch as er: (1) Reed in it ia te d t he pu rch as e b y

cal li ng Mel ara a ndask in g t o p ur ch as e a k il og ram of co cai ne ; (2 ) Ree d a ndMel ara h adm ul ti pl e co nv ers at io ns to “ne go ti at e” the sal e; an d (3 ) Ree d s up pl ie d the m on ey to pu rch as e th e co cai ne . In co nt ras t, Co op er was on ly enl is te d a t the las t m in ut e to he lp co m pl et e th e fi na l s ta ge s o f th e tr an sa ct io n. It wa s i n thi s capa ci ty tha t s he pl acedcal ls to Mel ara. In fact , Coo pe r on ly learn ed th e d eal in vo lv edon e k il og ram of c oc ai ne th e d ay

of t he tra ns act io n be cau se Reed ha d p rev io us ly liedan d t ol d C oo pe r he was o nl y ge tt in g 7 1⁄2 o r 10 gra m s o f co cai ne . Und oubt ab ly, Co op er ai de d R eedth ro ug h h er ac ti on s; ho wev er, h er act io ns als o a id edMel ara. Co op er ca nn otbe ch arac te riz edas t he pu rch as er o f th e co cai ne when he r ro le inth e tr an sa ct io n was to aid bo th Ree d andMel ara. In th is reg ard , Abu elha wa is no t ap pl ic ab le . Seco nd , Coo pe r arg ue s t he Gov ern m en t fa il edto pre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce th athe r ph on e cal ls faci li ta te d M el ara’s ac ti on s. Sh e co nt en ds he r ph on e cal ls di d no th in g t o h el p M el ara a s h e was alr eady on hi s way ov er t o R eed ’s ho us e. 5Viewi ng all th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, thi s

arg um en t i s u np ers ua si ve . Mel ara t es ti fie d C oo pe r’s cal ls ass is te d h im be cau se it was “ ve ry

im po rta nt ” fo r hi m

to kn ow n o o ne els e was at t he ho us e, an d “ ve ry im po rta nt ” to kn ow tha t the ho us e wou ldbe cle ar i f he wait edth e ti m e sp eci fie d by Coo pe r. Co op er’s cal ls all owe d M el ara t o ju dg e h is ti min g t o e ns ur e h e an d Co op er wo ul d b e al on e whe n M el ara d el iv eredth e co cai ne . Mel ara c la im s h e wou ldha ve be enco nc ern edif o th er p eo pl e were a t the ho us e b ecau se ot he rs co ul d in fo rm law en fo rcem en t ab ou t the de al . The refo re, the Gov ern m en t p res en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt afin di ng th atCo op er u se d atel ep ho ne to faci li ta te Mel ara’s d is tri bu ti on of the co cai ne . III. CONCLUSI ON Inco nc lu si on , Coo pe r was no t a “ pr in ci pa l” inth e tr an sa ct io n a ndth e ev id en ce s uf

fic ie nt ly sup po rte d t he jury’ s v erd ic t tha t s he us eda te le ph on e to faci li ta te th e d is tri bu ti on of c oc ai ne . 1 AFFIRMED.

In light of this opinion, Cooper’s motion for re lease pendingappeal is now moot. 1 6