2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-30-2008 

# U SA v . B arnes P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4680

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B arne s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1667. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1667NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 4680 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D A R R Y L K . B A R N E S , A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00134) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary29, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, and R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udges

and TH O M PSO N , *D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: J anuary30, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . D a rry l K . B a rn e s a p p e a ls f ro m h is c o n v ictio n f

o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se (“ c ra c k ” ) a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug t r a f f i c k i n g c r i m e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l onyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . H e al s o appea l s hi s s ent ence of 25 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . Fort he r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m B arnes ’ convi ct i on and th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . B arnes appea l s hi s convi ct i on bas ed on the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al s of hi s pr e- and pos t - t r i al s uppr es s i on m ot i ons . H e cl ai m s thathi s pos s es s i on of the nar cot i cs w as not s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s hed, r ai s i ng t hr ee a r gum ent s : ( 1) thatther e w as no evi dence that B arnes occupi ed and/ orhad exc l us i ve contr ol of the pr oper t yw her e the i t ems w er e found; ( 2) t hatt her e w as no evi dence t hatB arnes w as i n actual orcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the n arc o ti cs; an d (3) tha t th e e v iden ce o n lyestab li sh ed B arn es’ p rese n ce at th e sc en e. In revi ew i ng t he suf

fi ci encyof the evidence, “[w ]e m ustview the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he G overnm entand s us t ai n t he ver di cti f anyr at i onal j ur orcoul d have f ound t he el ement s of a c r i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar tw r ight , 359 F .3 d 2 8 1 , 2 8 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T o s how t hatB arnes ’ cons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed the nar cot i cs , the governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove “both ‘ dom i ni on and contr ol ’ overan obj ectand know l edge of that3

obj ect ’ s exi s t ence . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jenk i ns , 90 F. 3d 814, 817- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t h a v e s h o w n th a t B a rn e s h a d e x c lu s iv e a c c e s s to th e d ru g s . U ni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 461 F. 2d 1026, 1035 ( 3d C i r . 1972) . I n t hi s cas e, ther e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence adduce d att r i al t o es t abl i s h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. B arnes w as obs erved pus hi ng hi s hand i nt o a cr ack i n t he couc h fr om w hi ch a pa cketof cr ack w as r ecove r ed, he admi t t ed t o r es i di ng i n t he home, cr ack w as r ecove r ed i n pl ai n vi ew i n t he ki t chen, B a rn e s s ta te d th a t h e h a d ju s t f in is h e d “ c o o k in g m o re p ro d u c t u p s ta ir s in th e k itc h e n .” a n d a k e yto a sa f

e c o n tain in g d ru g s, m o n e y , an d a f ire a rm w a s f

o u n d in a m a n ’s s h irt at a t i m e w hen B arnes w as t he onl ym al e on the pr emi s es . A ttr i al , B arnes had the oppor tuni t yt o ar gue thatot her s had ac ces s t o and coul d have be en r es pons i bl e forthe drugs; t he juryho w ever r ej ect ed thi s ar gu m ent. V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he governm ent , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on w as not es t abl i s hed. B a rn e s f u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g h is s tate m e n t to t he pol i ce thathe had j us tfi ni s hed “c ooki ng m or e pr oductups t ai r s i n t he ki t chen” as t he pol i ce f ai l ed t o pr ovi de Mi r anda w arni ngs . H ow ever , B arnes ’ s t at ementw as notthe pr oductof pol i ce i nt err ogat i on and w as vol unt eer ed af t erthe pol i ce ha d r ecove r ed coca i ne, cas h, and a f

i r earm fr om a s afe w i t houtanypol i ce que s t i oni ng ori t s funct i onal e q u iv a le n t. R h o d e Isla n d v . In n is , 446 U . S. 291, 299- 302 ( 1980) . B arnes does notal l ege anypol i ce c oer ci on, nori s t her e anyon t he r ecor d. T he s t at ement , ther efor e, w as4

pr oper l yadmi t t ed, even a bs enta Mi r anda w a rn in g . Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 384 U . S. 436, 4 7 8 (19 6 6 ). L as t , B arnes appea l s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe di s par i t yi n t he G ui del i ne r ange betw een c r ack a nd coca i ne off ens es r es ul t ed i n an unr eas onabl e s ent ence and vi ol at ed the S i xth A m end m ent. T his cl ai m i s w i t ho ut m eri t . B arnes’ sent ence o f 25 y ears ’ im p riso n m e n t w a s th e re su lt, n o t o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e c a lcu late d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, bu tof the m i nim um sent ence set bythe st atutes of co nv i ct i on . B ecause B arnes has a p re v io u s c o n v ictio n f

o r a f e lo n yn a rc o tics o f

f e n se a n d th e p re se n t o f

f e n se in v o lv e s in exce s s of 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) m andat es a mi ni m um se n ten c e o f

2 0 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. B a rn e s’ c o n v ictio n f o r p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in fur t her ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e ca r r i es a mandat orycons ecut i ve s ent ence of fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) . C ons equent l y , the mi ni m um s ent ence t he D is tr ic t C o u rt c o u ld h a v e im p o s e d w a s 2 5 y e a rs . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e im p o se d in th e Ju d g m e n t an d C o m m itm e n t O rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt.