NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0767n.06 Filed: Nove mber 1, 2007 No. 04-5884 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.

MY RA D. CO MB S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI S TR I CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : SI L ER, CO OK , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SILE R , Circuit J u d ge. De fenda nt My ra D . Combs (“My

ra” ) wa s convicted of

: (1) c onspiracy

to manufac ture, distribute, and posse ss with intent to di stribute 500 g rams or more of a mixture or su

bs tanc e c on ta ini ngme tha mph e tamin e ; ( 2) po sse ssi on of me tha mph e tamin e wi th intent to dist ribute; (3) posse ssion of equipment and mate rials t o manufa cture methamphetamine; and (4) possession of a fir ear m in furthera

nce of a d ru g t raf

ficking crime. My

ra only appea ls her firea rm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . She contends that a jury instruction was er

roneous a nd that th e re wa s in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt the c on vic tio n. We A F F I RM. BACK GR OUND I n 2002, My

ra’ s husband, Fr ed Combs, propose d a deal wher eby Ry an Malc how would teac h him ho w t o ma

nu fa c tur e me tha

mph e tamin e in e xch ang e fo r liv ing in the ba se me nt of the Com bs ’ residen ce . M alchow w as also to pay “re nt” of a

pproxi mately

three and a ha lf g rams ofNo. 04-5884

U.S. v. Combs

T h i s ref ers to the doc trine that orig inated in Pinkerton v. U nited States w h e r e b y

a p e r s on 1 may be held liable for crimes committed by a co- conspirator

if those cr imes are within the scope of the c on sp ir a c y , c omm itt e d in fu rt he ra nc e of the c on sp ir a c y , a

nd are re a so na

bly fo re se e a ble a s a conseque nce of

the conspira cy . 328 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1946). - 2 - methamphetamine e ach time he produce d a batc h of the drug

. Malchow move d into the basement with hi s gi rlfrie nd, Cry stal J ulian, and built a lab for manufa cturing methamphetamine. My ra

a ssi ste d w iththe manu fa c tur ingpr oc e ss b y or de ri nge qu ipm ent for the l a b a nd purc ha sin g c old tablets, one of the ingr edients for methamphetamine. As ag ree d, Malchow paid the couple a share

o f e a c h b a tc h , u s u a ll y d e li v e r in g it to M y r a . A t s o me p o in t, F r e d an d M y r a a ls o beg an manufa cturing and selling methamphetamine in their home. Eventually , sheriff

’s deputies c ame to the home a nd eff ecte d a conse nsual sear ch. The office rs found items consist en t with the production of methamphetamine in the Combs’ upstairs bedroom. Also in the upstairs portion of the house, they discovere d a pistol on the headboa rd of the Combs’ bed, a saw ed-of

f shotg un in a g un safe , an U z i under a computer ta

ble, and se vera l other firea rms. Most of the wea

pons were loaded, a

nd police found nume rous other f i re ar m s in the ba se me nt. Malchow reg ularly car ried a pistol, and Fre d occa sionally car ried a pistol. My

ra did not

car ry a fire arm, but Jul ian testified that the pistol on the hea dboard be longe d to My ra. DI SCU SSIO N A. Jury I ns tr uc tio ns on

Un anim ity The district c ourt instructed that My ra could be found g uilty under thre e alter native theor ies of liabilit y : (1) a s a principa l, (2) as a n aider and abe ttor, or (3) a s a co- conspirator under the Pinkerton the or

y . T he jur or s w e re giv e n a g e ne ra l un anim ity

ins tr uc tio n, re qu ir ingthe m to 1No. 04-5884

U.S. v. Combs

- 3 - unanimously

ag ree the def

endant c ommitt ed ac ts that constituted eac h element of the offe nse. The instruction did not require the j urors to unanimousl y ag ree upon the theory

by which the g overnme nt proved the elements or upon the specific means by which the defe ndant satisfied e ach e lement. My ra

asser ts it i s possible that the jury rende red its g uilty verdic t with only a fraction of the jurors finding her guilty under e ach a ltern at i v e theory . She argues that such a result does not comport with the Fifth Ame ndment rig ht to due proce ss or the Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by jury

. B e c a us e the de fe nd ant d id no t ra ise thi s ob je c tio n a t tr ia l, we re vie w fo r p la in e rr or . F e d. R. Cr im. P. 5 2( b) ; Un ite d S

tat es v . Ko e be rle in , 161 F.3d 946, 949 ( 6th Cir. 1998). When reviewingjury ins tr uc tio ns fo r p la in e rr or , th e te st i s “ wh e the r t he instru c tio ns , whe n ta

ke n a s a wh ole , w e re so clea rly wrongas to produce a g rave miscarr iag e of justice.” United States v. Sanderson , 966 F.2d 18 4, 18 7 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 2) . As a

g e ne ra l r ule , s pe c if

ic un anim ity

ins tr uc tio ns are no t r e qu ir e d “ un le ss 1) a c ount i s e xtre me ly

c omp le x, 2) the re is v ari anc e be tw e e n th e ind ic tme nt a nd the pr oo f at tr ia l, or 3) ther e is a tang ible risk of jury confusion.” Id. None of these c ircumst ance s is present her e. Ju r o r s ar e n o t r e qu ir e d to a g r e e u p o n th e s p e c if

ic me an s o r a c t b y w h ic h a c r ime was committed. Schad v. A rizona , 5 01 U. S. 624 , 631 (1 99 1) (p lur a lity op ini on ). Mo re ov e r, a sp e c if ic unanimity

instruction is not needed simply beca use the g overnme nt presents m u l tiple fac tual

scena rios and theo ri es of liability to prove the c ommissi on of a sing le offe nse. United States v. W ashington , 127 F.3d 510, 513-14 (6th Cir. 1997) (involving char g e of posse ssion of cra ck coc aine with intent to distri b u t e)

. I n W ashington , the g overnme nt offer ed proof of two sepa

rate drug tr ans a c tio ns a nd

pr e se nte d a lte rn a tiv e the or ie s a s to th e de fe nd ant’ s p art ic ipatio n in the tr ans a c tio ns , including the ories of liability as a pr incipal and a s an aide r and a bettor. Id. a t 513 n .3 . A s in thi sNo. 04-5884

U.S. v. Combs

- 4 - case , the trial cour

t ga ve only a g ener al unanimity

instruction, and we review ed for plain err or. Id. at 513. We reje cted the de fenda nt’s argumen t t h at a specific instruction wa s neede d due to jury

c on fu sio n a

nd ru le d th a t it

wa s n ot p la in e rr or

to c ha rg e the jur

y wi th o nly

a g e ne ra l un anim ity instruction. Id. at 514. I n th i s c a s e , M y

r a d o e s n o tar g u e j u r

y c o n f u s i o n ; i n s t e a d , s h e ar g u e s i ti s f u n d a m e nta lly unfair not to re quire a

spec i fi c unanimity

instruction where the g overnme nt presents a lternative the or ie s o f l ia

bil ity . In sup po rt of he r ar g ume nt, sh e po int s to thi s c ourt ’s fi nd ingof pla in e rr or

in United States v. He nning , 286 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2002)

. Ho we v er , Henning is e nti re ly distinguishable be cause it i n v o lved a situation wher e the district cour t reve rsed the de fenda

nt’s conviction for c onspiracy but failed t o co n s ider that the jury may have r elied on a Pinkerton instruction to convict the def endant of other c ounts. Id. at 920. F a ilure to g ive jur or s a sp e c if ic un anim ity ins tr

uc tio n do e s no t c on sti tut e pla in e rr or sim ply b ec au s e t h e go v ern m en tad v an ce s m u l t i p l e t h eo ri es o f l i ab i l i t y . See W ashington , 127 F.3d at 513-14. There fore , the abse nce of an instruction re quiring unanimity as t o the theory of convic tion does not mandate a

reve rsal of My

ra’ s conviction. B. Suff iciency of the Evidenc e When a def

endant a lleg es insufficie nt evidence , we must dec ide “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the g overnme nt, any rational trier

of fact could have f

ound the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” United States v. Gardne r , 488 F.3d 700, 710 (6th Cir. 2007). As pre viously stated, the jury

was instructe d t h at M y

ra co uld be convicte d under thre e alter

native theor ies. To convict My ra a s a principal, the gover nment had to prove thatNo. 04-5884

U.S. v. Combs

- 5 - she possessed a

firea rm and that it was use d “in fu rt h er an ce o f” a drug traff

icking crime. A conviction under

§ 924(c) for a iding a

nd abetting can be sustained if the g overnme nt proved that “ the defe ndant both knew that the pr incipal was arme d and acted with the intent to assist or influence the commission of the underlying pr edicate cr ime.” Id. at 712. Under Pinkerton , My ra c ould have be en

c on vic te d f

or the c ri me of

a c o- c on sp ir a tor

if the c ri min a l a c t w a s f

or e se e a ble an d c omm itt e d in further ance of the c onspiracy

. See U nited States v. W

ade , 318 F.3d 698, 701 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Possession of a fire arm is in further ance of a dr ug traf fi ck ing c rime if it “promotes or fac ilitates” the cr ime. United States v. Miller , 227 F. App’ x 446, 456 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. de nied , No. 07-5001, 2007 WL 2004447 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2007). To satisfy the “in further ance ” ele ment, the

wea pon must be “strate g ically l o ca t ed so t hat it is quickly and ea sily

available for use .” United States v. Mac key , 265 F.3d 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2001)

. Her e, the g un found on the he adboar d of the bed satisfies this requir ement, since it was fou nd in the room wher e F red a nd My ra ma nufac tured methamphetamine. I n Miller , we a ddresse d a very simil ar challeng e to a conviction for possession of a fire arm in further ance of a drug traff icking offe nse. W e stated, “ the ong oing me thamphetamine ope ration and the strateg ic place ment of the guns . . . is sufficient to per mit a rational juror to c onclude that the g un s se rv e d a de fe ns ive purp os e in pr ote c tin g the la b a nd its c on tr a ba nd fr om t hie ve s, c omp e tit or s, or police.” Miller , 227 F. App’ x at 456. Viewingthe evi d en ce i n the light most favor able to the g overnme nt, it is sufficie nt to support the jury ’s conc lusi o n b ey ond a re asonable doubt that My ra possessed a f

irea rm in further ance of her

drug traff

icking crime. AFF I RMED.No. 04-5884

U.S. v. Combs

- 6 -