NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 07a0031n.06 Filed: January

9, 2007 No. 05-6483 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CECI LANDREW HARTMAN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

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

Be for e : S ILER , M OORE, a nd G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. RONALD L EE G I LM A N , C ir c ui t J ud g e. A fe dera l jury

convicted Ce cil Andre w Har tman of manufa cturing marijuana , possessing ma rijuana w ith the intent to d i s t ri b u te, and possessing
coca ine hy drochlor i d e wi t h t he intent to distribute. On appea l, Hartman c halleng es the district court’s de nial of (1) his pretrial motion to suppress the evide nce se ized from and a round his house, and (2) his moti on for judg ment of ac quittal or for a new trial based on the alleg ed insuffic iency of the evidenc e, eve n if lawfully seized. For the rea sons set forth below, w e AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al b ac kgr oundNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 2 - The ke y fac ts in thi s appea l conce rn the e vents of Oc tober 7, 2002, the da y that the Hamilton County Sheriff’ s Offic e rece ived an anony mous tip indicating that marijuana plants, visible from the roadw ay , wer e g rowing at 5205 McDona ld Road in McDona ld, Tenne ssee. Ne ither par ty disputes that Hamilton County

mag istrate Robert M ee k s issued a valid sea rch w arr ant at 7:10 p.m. that evening , authorizing the p o li c e to s e a r c h th e residenc e, outbuildings, motor vehic les, and a ny persons located at 5205 McDonald Roa d. The pa rties also do not dispute that the sea rch of the house a

nd its im mediate surr oundings unc overe d substantial quantities of drug s and drugpara pherna lia. What is i n d isp ute is the tim ingof the se arc h v is- a -v is the iss ua nc e of the wa rr ant. 1. The gove rnm ent’s evide nce At the hea

ring held on Har

tman’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidenc e aga inst him , the g overnme nt first called D etec tive Marty Dunn of the H amilton Count y Sheriff’ s Offic e. Dunn te st i f i e d t h a t a t a

p p r o xi m a t e l y 1 0 : 3 0 a . m . o n O c t o b e r 7 , 2 0 0 2 , h e r e c e i v e d a c a l l fr om C ri me Stoppers notify ing him that mar ijuana plants we re gr owing at 5205 McDona ld Road. L ater that afte rnoon, Dunn and several other law e nforc ement off icer s drove out to the re sidence to investigate. Fr om the road, D u n n o b s er ved a f our-f oot tall marijuana plant g rowing in plain view nea r an outbuilding (de scribed a s a chicken coop) on the prope rty . The off icer s took severa l photogr aphs of the plant. Dunn a lso noticed elec trical c ords running from the outbuilding to the house

. The off icer s proce eded to drive up to the house a nd knock on the door

to see if a

ny one wa s there . As the off

icer s were walking toward the house, they noticed on the g round t h e stem of a marijuana plant that still had a leaf attache d. They photogr aphed this plant as we ll. On the porch, Dunn observe d a surve illance c amer a with a micr ophone that wa s attache d to the house.No. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 3 - Dunn e sti ma te d th a t so me tim e a ft e r 5 :00 p. m., he le ft the pr e mis e s to dr ive do wn tow n to apply for a sear ch wa

rran t
. Af t er a local mag istrate judg e issued the wa rra nt at 7:10 p.m., Dunn drove ba ck to the McDona ld Road house wher e his fellow of fice rs wer e wa iting outside. Dunn kn oc ke d a

nd ann ounc e d h is p re se nc e a t th e fro nt do or of the ho us e a t a pp ro xima te ly

8:0 0 p .m. Rece iving no r esponse, he and the of fice rs forc ed the f

ront door open a

nd enter ed. The subseque nt searc h of the house lasted approximately three to f our hours a

nd y ielded a
wea lth of drug s and drugpara pherna lia. Among the items that the office rs seized wer e multiple clear b a g s c o n t a i n i n g m ar i

j u an a , a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e p o u n d s o f m ar i j u an a t h a th a d b e e nl a i d o u tt o dr y,
a sma ll c le a r b a g c on ta ini ng an o ff -w hit e po wd e ry

su bs tanc e , tw o c on ta ine rs ho ldi ngc le ar p la sti c bag s of coc aine hy drochloride , larg e amounts of g ree n plant stems and marijuana seeds, a clea r bag containing multipl e unknown tablets unacc ompanied by presc riptions, two marijuana plants located insid e the r esidenc e and six marijuana plants located outside the re sidence , a lar g e assor tment of drug para pherna lia, three sets of digital scale s, one triple-be am sca le, numerous plastic ba g s, two mortaran d

- p e s tl e s e ts , s e v e r a l p u b li c a ti o n s r e late d to ma

r ij u an a , f o u r s ma ll s u r

v e il la n c e c a me r a s and an
acc ompanying r ece iver, a fre quency counter used to de tect listening device s, four 12-g aug e shotg un shells, and one pair of e ar pr otectors f or use dur ing shooting . The off icer s also discovere d, but were
un a ble to r e mov e a t th e tim e , s e ve ra l pa rt s f ro m a stolen c ar. F ina lly , th e of fi c e rs se ize d mu lti ple it ems bear ing Ha

rtman’ s n a me . T he se inc lud e d a pr e sc ri pti on -d

ru g bo ttl e , ma il a dd

re sse d to Har tman, a Te nnessee Depa rtmen t of Corre ction inmate I D ca rd, a business c ard listing 5205 Mc Do na ld R oa d a s H artman’ s a dd re ss, sto re re c e ipt s a

mon th o r mor e old , ba

nk c he c ks , a

nd de po sit slips.No. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 4 - Two day s later, on Oc tober 9, 2002, Dunn a nd sever al ot h er l aw enforc ement off icer s returne d to the McDona ld Road residenc e in a f latbed truc k to seize and haul awa y the parts of the stolen car that their sea

rch ha d uncover ed. The office rs had rente d the truck f rom a loca l wrec ker service , and the g overnme nt introduced at the suppression he ar i n g a co py of the re ntal invoice. October 9, 2002, was the date printed on the i nvoice. At oral argument, Har tman’s counse l conce ded t h a th e h a d

n o p r o o f , n o r h a d an y r e a s o nt o b e l i e v e , t h a tt h e i n v o i c e h a d b e e n“ d o c t o r e d ” i n an y w a y. 2. Hartm an’s contrary evidence Hart m an ’s witnesses re counted a differ ent cha in of eve nts. Shi rley Young , Har

tman’s

n eighbor, testified that sometime betwee n 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. on October 7, 2002, she saw a

J eep Cherokee speed pa st her house. She y elled at t h e d ri ver a nd told him t o slow down. The dr iver stopped, backe d up to speak with her, showed her his police badg e, and told her that he wa s g oing to ge t a s e ar c h w ar

r an t. T h is mu c h w a s c o n s is te n t w it h th e te s ti mo n y o f D e te c ti v e Dunn, who
rec alled havinghad a br ief c onversation with Young on Oc tober 7. Acc ording to Young , a flatbed truck a lso arrive d at Har tman’s house at approxim ately 3:00 p.m. that same day . Young then ca lled Har tman’s mother, Ve ta Watkins, and informed he r that the police we re at her son’s home. A t approxim ately 4:30 p.m., while Young was ag ain on t he phone, she saw the flatbed truc k coming down the drive way from Ha rtman’s house with “a bunc h of junk” on it. She further te stified that by 6:30 p.m., all of the police off icer s had left the a

rea . L ater that night, at approxim ately 7:00 p.m., Young a

nd Watkins cla im that they walked up to Hartman’ s house wher e they saw that the door

had bee n forc ed open. Y oung testified that the house had be en ra

nsacke d. She stated that she wa s inside for about 3 0 o r 4 0 m i n u tes befor eNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 5 - returninghome. She did not see a ny one re turn to Ha rt m an ’s h o me or the sur rounding are a that
ev en i n g. Watkin s a lso te sti fi e d o n h e r s on’s beh a lf . Sh e sa id t

hat w he n s he e nte re d th e ho us e wi th Young on October 7, she observe d numerous paper s on the pool ta ble including a

list of every

thing that ha d be e n ta

ke n f ro m th e re sid e nc e . B ut s he a lso re c a lle d th a t a tta c he d to thi s in ve nto ry wa s a copy of a se arc h war

rant. B. P r oc e dur al b ac kgr ound A f e de ral gr and

jur y ind ic te d H artman o n f

our c ounts : ( 1) po sse ssi nga fi re arm a s a convicted f

elon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) ; ( 2) manufa cturing marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)( 1)(D) ; ( 3) possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) a nd (b)( 1)(D) ; and (4) posse ssing c ocaine hy drochloride with the intent to distribute, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and ( b)(1) (c)

. Har tman sub s eq u en t l y moved to suppress the e vidence seized from his proper ty . After revie wi n g th e c o n f licting testimony

prese nted at the suppre ssion hearing , the district court c oncluded that “the testimony

of Youngand Wat kins is unreliable and not c redible.” Specifica lly , the cour t de te rm ine d th a t “ Yo un g and Watkin s e ith e r are no t te lli ng the tr uth or the y are c on fu sin g the e ve nts of Oc tober 7, 2002 (e x ecution of se arc h war rant) with the events of October 9, 2002 (police r eturn to Hartman’ s residenc e with flat b ed truc k to haul awa y stolen automobile parts).” The c ourt
rea soned that bec ause t h e go vernme nt had prove d that the flatbe d truck wa s used on Octobe r 9, “common sense and log ic dictate that Young and W atkins wer e together inside Hartman’ s house onNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 6 - Oc tob e r 9 , 2 00 2. ” Ac c or din g ly , th e c ourt he ld t hat th e e vid e nc e se ize d f

ro m and aro un d th e ho us e should not be suppressed be cause it was obtained a fter a valid sear ch wa

rra nt had bee n issued. Har tman’s ca se then proc eede d to trial, where sever al of the police office rs who we re inv ol v e d i nt h e s e ar c h o f

t h e h o u s e t e s t i f

i e d

. D e p u t y

V anH i n t o nf

r o m t h e H a m i l t o nC o u n ty Sheriff’ s Offic e desc ribed his par ticipation in the searc h. When asked by H a r tm a n’s counse l whether he had a rrived at the scene at or a fter 8:00 p.m., Van Hinton responde d, “I don’t think it was that late. I t was late in the e vening , but I don’t think it was that late. . . . Roug hly afte r six , somewher e in there I ’m thinking.” But Va n Hinton also stated that he was at t he re sidence only afte r the wa

rra nt had bee n procur ed. Detec tive Manka al s o t estified at tria l. Reg ardingthe eve nts of October 7, 2002, he wa s assig ned to “se cure the ar ea [around H artman’ s house] to where nobody can c ome in and g o out of the home” w hile Detec tive Dunn was a pply ing f or the sea rch w arr ant. M anka te stified that befor e Dunn re tur ne d w iththe wa

rr ant, Mank a too k pho tog ra ph s of se ve ra l mar iju ana

pla nts and loo ke d in the c h ic k e nc o o p “ to ma

k e s u r e th e r e w a s n o th in g e ls e o r n o b o dy in th e r e . ” Wh il e in

th e c hicken coop, Manka

seized sever al items of drug paraphe rnalia, inc luding multiple smoking pipes. B ased
on Ma nk a ’s te sti mony , H artman o ra lly re ne we d h is m oti on to supp re ss t he e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m. I t was ag ain denied. The jury ultimately convicted Har

tman of all but the first count of the indictment ( the fire arm char g e). H e ther eaf

ter filed a motion for judgme nt of ac quittal or , alternatively , for a new trial. The district court denie d the m otion and sentenced Hartman to 33 months in prison, to be followed by 3 y e ars of su pe rv ise d r e le a se . H artman ti me ly a pp e a le d, c la imi ngtha

t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d inNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 7 - denying the motion to s uppress be cause the offic ers a lleg edly conducte d their se ar ch prior to the iss u an c e o f th e w ar

r an t. H e f

u rth e r c la im s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r r e d in d e n y in g his moti on for jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l or fo r a ne w tri a l be c a

us e the e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his convictions.
II. AN AL YSI S A. M ot ion to suppr e ss 1. Stan dard of rev iew Wit h re gard to Ha

rtman’s motion to suppress, we w ill not s et aside the district court’s finding s of fac t unle ss w e find them to be clea rly err oneous. United St ates v. Foster , 376 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2004). We view the e vidence in the light most favor able to the g overnme nt, finding clea r er ror only “whe n, althoug h there may be evide nce to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left wit h the def inite and firm convic tion that a mistake has bee n committed.” Id. As lon g a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a c c ount o f t he e vid e nc e is p la

us ibl e , ho wev er, we wi ll n ot r e ve rs e simply beca

use we would have w eig hed the e vidence differ ently

. Anderson v. City of Bessemer , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). “Where ther e ar e two per missibl e views of

the evidenc e, the f

actf inder’s choice betwee n them cannot be clea rly err oneous.” Id. 2. Discussion As an in it ia l matt e r , H artm an ’ s c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d a t o r a l ar g u me n t th a t e v e n if Offic er Manka’ s sear ch of the chicke n coop had in fact oc curr ed bef ore the issuance of

the war rant, a nd thus in violation of the Fourth Ame ndment, the district court’s e rrone ous admission of the small amountNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 8 - of evide nce obta ined from that se arc h was ha rmless. See U

nited States v. Je nkins , 124 F.3d 768, 774 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that the admission o f unconstitutionally seized evidenc e fr om J enkins’s backyard was harmless err or wher e the police had lawfully seized approximately 8 6 2 m arijuana plants and other drug -re lated paraphe rnalia)

. We acc ording ly need consider only whether the more extensive subsequent sear ch of the house also violated Ha rtman’s F ourth Amendment rig hts. Har tman’s basic c ontention is that the se arc h of his home, and the subse quent seizure of the
va ri ou s d ru g -r e la te d it e ms the re in, oc c ur re d b e fo re De te c tiv e Dunn re tur ne d to the re sid e nc e wi th the war rant. See United States v. Taylor , 248 F.3d 506, 513 (6th Cir. 2001) (“ Once an off icer has probable cause to believe c ontraba nd is p re s ent, he must obtain a sea rch w arr ant bef

ore he can proce ed to sea

rch the premises.” ). To support this a rg ument, Har

tman cites the testimony

of Young and Watkins from the suppre ssion hearingas we ll as the trial testimony of De puty

Van Hinton. Reg ardingthe testimony of Young and Watkins, the district court re jected the ir versions of th e even ts of Oc tob e r 7 , 2 00 2, fi nd ingbo th w itn e sse s to be “ un re lia ble and no t c re dib le .” Th e ir
asser tions clearly

contra dicted those of the police off icer s. Ba sed on Watkins’s testimony that she had see n the sea

rch w arr ant while at Hartman’s house at appr ox imately 7:00 p.m. on October 7, a s well as the g overnme nt’s proof that the of fice rs had use d the flatbe d truck only on October

9, the district court re asonably

believed the office rs’ ve rsion of the e vents. Be cause the district court simply chose be tween two conflicting views of the evidenc e, it could not have c ommitt ed cle ar e rror in doing so. See A nderson v. City of Bessem er , 470 U.S. at 574. De pu ty Va n H int on ’s te sti mony

a dd s li ttl e to H artman’ s c a se . To be sure , Va n H int on did estimate that he ha d arr ived at the house some time a round 6:00 p.m. on October 7, or more tha

n anNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 9 - hour bef ore the war

rant wa s in fact issued. B ut his ex act wor ds were “[r]oughly afte r six , somewher e i nt h e r e I’ m t h i n k i n g , ” a n d h e a l s o s t a t e d

t h a th e w a s a tt h e r e s i d e n c e o n l y aft e r the war rant ha d alre ady been p ro cu red. This testim ony hardly provides suff

icient evidenc e to conc lude that the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t w e re c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. B. Motion for judgme nt of acqu ittal or new trial Har tman argues in the alter

native that even i f the e vidence obtained fr om the sear ch of the house wa s proper ly

admitted, it was insufficient to support his sever al convictions. Specific ally , he

argue s th a t th e e vid e nc e fa ile d to e sta bli shhis c on str

uc tiv e po sse ssi on

of the pr e mis e s and ite ms i n question. He ther efor e conte nds that the district court erred in denying his motion for judg ment of acquittal or f

or a ne w trial. 1. Stan dard of rev iew I n ar gu i ng that the evidenc e wa s insufficient, Ha rtman bea rs “a very heavy burden.” S

ee United States v. Spe arman , 18 6 F .3 d 74 3, 74 6 (6 th Cir

. 19 99 ). Ev ide nc e in a c ri min a l c ase is deeme d sufficie nt to support a conviction if we deter mine that, “af

ter view ing the evidenc e i n the light most favor able to the pr o s ec ution, anyrational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” United States v. Paige , — F
. 3 d — , — , 2 0 0 6 WL 3 5 8 9 7 8 7 , at * 3 (6 t h C i r. De c. 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 3 1 9 (1 9 79)) ( e mp h a s is in

o r ig in a l)

. We v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t m o s t f

a v o r a b le to th e g o v e r

n me n t by d ra wi n g all rea sonable infe renc es fr om the testimony in its favor. United States v. Abdullah , 162 F.3d 897, 903 ( 6th Cir. 1998).No. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 1 0 - Ha rtman alt e rn a tiv e ly mov e d for a ne w tri a l pur su ant to Rule 33 of the F e de ra l Rule s o f C ivi l Procedur e. We apply the abuse-of-disc retion st andar d of review to motions for a newtrial. United States v. Pierc e , 62 F.3d 818, 823 ( 6th Cir. 1995). Unlike i n a sufficiency claim, we ma

y “conside r t h e c re d i b i l i t y

o f t h e w i t n es s es an d

t h e w ei gh to f t h e e v i d en ce t o i n s u re t h at t h er e i s n o ta m i s ca rr i age of justice.” Un ite d S

tat es v . S olo rio , 337 F.3d 580, 589 n.6 ( 6th Cir. 2003). 2. Discussion Har tm anp o in ts o u t t

h a t t h e p o li c e n e v e r

a c tu a ll y s aw h im o nth e p r e mi s e s . I n d e e d , the g overnme nt did not present a ny witnesses who testified to e ver ha ving se en Ha

rtman in possession
o f e i t h er m ar i j u an a o r c o ca i n e. M o re o v er , n o i n d i v i d u al s we re i d en t i fi ed as b ei n g i n v o l v edi ndru grelated ac t i v i t ies with Hartman. H artman a lso emphasizes that there wa s no evidenc e that he ha d
re c e ntl y re sid e d at th e pr e mis e . H is a rgume nt, ho we ve r, is w ith ou t me ri t. To convict Hartman on Count Two, t he jury had to find bey ond a reasonable doubt that he knowing ly

manufa cture d marijuana . Reg ardingCounts Three and Four , the jury had to find beyond

a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a tH art m ankn o w i n g l y p o s s e s s e d t h e m ar i j u an a an d t h e c o c a i n e , r e s p e c t i v e l y, with the intent to dist ribute. The g overnme nt was not requir ed to introduce direc t ev i d ence that Har tman actua lly

dis trib ute d marijuana

and coc aine to anothe r per son; circumstantial evide nce a lone can be sufficie nt. See U

nited States v. Mac key , 265 F.3d 457, 460 ( 6th Cir. 2001). During t h ei r s ear ch, the police uncover ed lar g e quantities of both mar ijuana and c ocaine hydr oc hlo ri de , a s w e ll a s o the r i te ms a sso c ia te d w ithdr ugtr a ff ic kin g . T he g ov ernmen t a lso prese nted a sig nificant amount of evidenc e demonstrating that Ha rt m an l i ved at the r esidenc e. Multipl e it em s i n the house ha d Har tman’s name on the m, including a n officia l I D ca

rd, aNo. 05-6483

United States v. Hartman

- 1 1 - presc ription-drug bottle, severa l pieces of mail, bank che cks an d d ep o s it sli ps, and miscellane ous sto re re c e ipt s. Al tho ug h n on e of the re c e ipt s w e re le ss t ha n a month ol d, Ha

rtman h ims e lf
un de rm ine d w hate ve r e xcu lpator y va lue thi s o bs ole sc e nc e mig ht have ha d by lis tin g the ve ry

same
a dd re ss a s h is p ri mary

re sid e nc e a t th e tim e of

his arr e st. Nor wa s there any evidenc e, either discovere d by the pol ice or introduced by Har tman, that

any pe rs on oth e r t ha n H artman r e sid e d in

or oth e rw ise ha d c on tr ol ov e r t he re sid e nc e . V ie wi ngthe se fac ts in the light most favora ble to the prosec ution, a rational juror could have found that the evidenc e wa s more than suff icient to establish bey ond a re asonable doubt Hartman’ s constructive possession of the items and pre mis es i n question. See P aige , 2006 WL 3589787, at *3. Acc ording ly , the district court did not e rr in de ny ing Har tman’s motion for judg ment of ac quittal or, in t he a lte rn a tiv e , f

or a ne w tri a l.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.