2009 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 7-15-2009 

# U SA v . T roy P ont on 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 . 08-1781

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_2009

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 2009 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 . T r o y P ont on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1004. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1004H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e N in th C irc u it * C our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 08- 1781 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. TR OYPO NT ON , Appe l 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 A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cr - 00131- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , R O T H and A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udges * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y15, 2009)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A j ur yconvi ct ed TroyPont on of cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e 50 gr ams orm or e ofT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 1 juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, pos s es s i on of 50 gr ams orm or e of c r ack coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and ai di ng and abe t t i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2. H e cha l l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence underFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 29 and the w ei ghtof the evi dence u n d er F ed era l R u le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 3 . F o r th e f o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e a ff irm 1 P on t on ’s con vict i on on al l cou nts . O n O c t o b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , P o n t o n a n d O m a rB r a s w e l l , a c o - d e f e n d a n tw h o p l e d g u i l ty, w er e ca ughti n an under covernar cot i cs s t i ng conduct ed bythe Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m ent . I n a pr earr anged meet i ng, theys ol d t hr ee ounc es of cr ack c ocai ne t o an under coveroffi cer , B r y an Sum t er . B r as w el l w as arr es t ed atthe s cene , butPont on fl ed, lea v in g b e h in d th e p las tic b a g o f c ra c k c o c a in e . O f

f ice rs a rre ste d P o n to n a p p ro x im a tely one mont h l at eratt he addr es s l i s t ed on hi s i dent i fi cat i on car d, w hi ch w as found i n t he ca r he w as dr i vi ng t he ni ghtof the s t i ng. I. T her e i s no ques t i on t hatt her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o convi ctPont on of cons pi r acyand pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. I n r evi ew i ng a j uryver di ctfor s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , w e vi ew the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , and w i l l aff i r m a convi ct i on i f a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he3

d e f e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jenk i ns , 90 F. 3d 814, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . Pr el i m i nar i l y , w e not e thatthi s cl ai m pr ocee ds undera pl ai n err or s t andar d of r evi ew beca us e i tw as notpr es erved bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our tbya mot i on at tr ia l o r p o s t- tr ia l u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 2 9 (a ) o r ( c ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 507 U . S. 725, 732 ( 1993) . “A convi ct i on bas ed on i ns uffi ci entevi dence is plain e rror o n lyif th e v erd ict‘co n sti tutes a f u n d am en tal m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . ’” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thayer , 201 F. 3d 214, 219 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ar el , 9 3 9 F . 2 d 2 6 , 3 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 )). Pont on fi r s tar gues t hatt he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove he w as the man w ho at t empt ed t o s el l cr ack c ocai ne t o t he under coverpol i ce of fi certhe ni ghtof the nar cot i cs s t i ng. T w o of the off

i cer s i nvol ved i n t he s t i ng i dent i fi ed Pont on attr i al . O ffi cerSum t er w a s in th e c a r w ith P o n to n f o r a p p ro x im a tely4 0 m in u tes , w a iti n g f o r th e d ru g s to compl et e the tr ans act i on. O ffi cerI s r ael M or al es w as conduct i ng s ur vei l l ance and t es t i fi ed thathe s aw Pont on r etr i eve the pl as t i c bag of cr ack c ocai ne fr om B r as w el l i n a nearbyal l eyw ay . A s not ed, Pont on’ s i dent i fi cat i on car d, w hi ch i ncl uded hi s pi ctur e and addr es s , w as al s o found i n t he ca rhe had dr i ven t o t he l ocat i on of the s t i ng befor e he f l ed fr om pol i ce. B ot h offi cer s t es t i fi ed thatPont on’ s pi ctur e on the i dent i fi cat i on car d w as t he s ame m an i nvol ved i n t he nar cot i cs tr ans act i on. A r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have det erm i ned thatt hi s evi dence i dent i fi es Pont on as the i ndi vi dual i nvol ved i n t he s t i ng t r ans act i on, and thus t he ver di cti s nota mi s carr i age of j us t i ce on thi s gr ound.4

P o n to n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t su f f icie n t to p ro v e th a t h e e n g a g e d in a cons pi r acyw i t h B r as w el l t o s el l cr ack c ocai ne bec aus e i tw as a mer e buy er - s el l er rel at i on shi p. A gain, t his argum ent fai l s. C on spi racyrequi res “(1) a un i t yof p urpose betw een the al l eged c ons pi r at or s ; ( 2) an i nt entt o achi eve a comm on goal ; ( 3) and an agr eementt o w or k t ogethert ow ar d thatgoal . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P r es s l er , 256 F. 3d 144, 1 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al s uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at ed a c ons pi r acybetw een P o n to n a n d B ra sw e ll— P o n to n a rra n g e d a n d c o m p lete d th e d ru g tra n sa c tio n , w h ile B rasw ell p rep are d an d d eli v ere d the d rug s to the d esig n ated loca ti o n . T h eyw ere co m m u n icati n g b yce ll p h o n e p eriod icall ythro u g h o u t th e c o u rse o f th e tran sac ti o n . In one ca l l , Pont on t ol d B r as w el l t hatt he under coveroffi cer , Sum t er , had the ful l amount of cas h t o payfort he drugs , s t at i ng “I t ol d y ou, i t ’ s al l her e, theygood. ” W hi l e O ffi cer S u m ter w a s w a iti n g f

o r th e d ru g s in th e c a r P o n to n h a d d riv e n to th e lo c a tio n , P o n to n to ld h im th a t th e c ra c k c o c a in e w a s d e layed b e c a u se B ra sw e ll w a s c o o k in g it an d h a d to del i veri tt o t he l ocat i on. L at er , O ffi cerM or al es obs erved Pont on r etr i eve the drugs fr om B r as w el l i n an al l eyw ayneart he ca rw her e O ffi cerSum t erw as w ai t i ng. Pont on di d not e x c h a n g e a n ym o n e yw ith B ra sw e ll at th a t ti m e , an d B ra sw e ll rem a in e d in th e a lleyw h ile P o n to n c o m p le te d th e tr a n s a c tio n w ith O f f ic e r S u m te r. B a s e d o n th is e v id e n c e , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude thatthe G overnm entpr oved the el ement s of cons pi r acy b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor an , 98 4 F . 2d 12 99 , 13 03 (1st5

C i r . 1993) ( “Even a s i ngl e s al e forr es al e, embroi der ed w i t h evi dence s ugges t i ng a j oi nt u n d ertak ing b etw ee n b u y er a n d sell er, co u ld su ff ice” to es tablish a co n sp ir ac y . ). II. T her e i s al s o no ques t i on t hatthe j ury ’ s ver di ctw as s uppor t ed bythe w ei ghtof the ev iden ce . “[ N ]ew tr ial s b ec au se th e v erd ictis ag ains t th e w eigh t of the e v iden ce are pr operonl yw hen the r ecor d s how s t hatthe j ury ’ s ver di ctr es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce orw her e the ver di ct , on t he r ecor d, cr i es outt o be overturned ors hocks our cons ci ence . ” W

i l l i am s on v. C ons ol i dat ed Rai lC or p. , 9 2 6 F . 2 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). P o n to n ’s c laim f o r a n e w trial u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 3 is r evi ew ed forpl ai n err orbeca us e he di d notm ake a m ot i on fora new tr i al befor e the Di s t r i c tCo u r t . He r e l i e s o n t h e s a me a r g u me n t s a s h i s s u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e c l a i m, and thus ourr at i onal e i s t he s ame i n deny i ng i ther e. * * * * * W e t h u s a f

f i r m.