2004 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
4-19-2004 

# U SA v . W or rel l s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 01-2399

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . W or r e l l s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 819. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/819NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 01-2399 No. 03-3290

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. DAVID W ORRELLS, a/k/aKERNEL David W orrells, Appellant

ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE

EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA (Dist. Court No. 00-CR-313-02) Distri ct Court J

udge: Honorable J. Curt is Joy ner Argued March 29, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, F ISH ER , and AL DI SE RT , Circuit Judges. Hope C. Lefeber Suite 1000 1420 Walnut Stre et Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for

Appellant2 Kathy A. St ark (Argued) Suite 1250 Office of the United State s Attorney 615 Chestnut St

reet Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for

Appellee (Opinion Fi led: Apri l 19, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
PER CU RIA M : This is an ap peal f

rom a judg men t in a crim inal ca se. W e find Wo rrells’ claim s to be wi th out

mer it andth er efo re aff

ir m. First , we reje ct Worrel ls’ argument that he is entitled to a new trialon the basi s of
new ly discove red ev idenc e. W e hold that W orrells ca nno t satisfy the se cond and fifth pro ngs of th e ne w tr ial tes t. See Un ited Sta tes v. Jas in , 280 F.3 d 35 5, 36 1 (3 d C ir. 20 02)
. First , even i f we believe t hat Worrel ls onl y di scovered after the t rialthat hi s cellular phone number was disconnec ted befor e the Agent’ s testimony, he has put for th no evid enc e to s ugg est th at he use d di ligen ce d urin g an d be for e the trial to asc ertai n th is fa ct. See Un ited Sta tes v. Jas in , 280 F.3d 355, 361 (3d Cir. 2002). Si mply put , Worrel ls had the s am e ac ces s to th e ph one reco rds a fter trial a s he had bot h du ring and before trial. Using proper di ligenc e, Worrel ls coul d have contact ed the phone company and3

discover ed that

the cel lular

phone number in question had been di sconnecte d prior to the time t he Agent clai med that he ca lled t he number. Second, the government provided oth er ev iden ce o f the num ber , inclu din g W orre lls’ g irlfrie nd’ s ad dre ss b ook , see Supp. Ap p. 22 3-2 24; 231 -23 4; 2 38, w hich reco rde d hi s na me nex t to th e ce ll ph one num ber
. This identific ation, combined with ot her evide nce at t

rial , means that we cannot conc lude that “ the newly

discover ed evidence would probably produce an acqui ttal .” Jasin , 280 F.3d at 361
. On this bas is, we also reject W orrells’ c onten tion tha t the D istrict Co urt abu sed its discre tion in a llow ing into evide nce v arious charts show ing the electro nic communicati ons between the conspir ators . In addition to adequately es tabli shing that the cell phone and othe r phone s were link ed to W orrells, the charts and ex hibits were accurately explained by a governm ent witness so as not to con fuse the jury
. See Supp. App. 266-267; 294- 297. Thus, t he District Court

did not abus e its discr etion in finding them mo re p rob ative than prejud icial. See Federal Rul es of Evidence 403 and 1006; United States v. Ser afini , 233 F.3d 758, 768 fn. 14 (3d Cir. 2000 ). Second, we hold that the re w as sufficien t evide nce for the ju ry to conv ict W orrells of conspir acy to dist

ribut e drugs and unl awful possess ion of a weapon bya felon. When the rec ord is vi ewed in “the l ight most favorabl e to the government, ” there was “substantialevidence from which any rationaltri er of fact could fi nd guilt

beyond a reasonabl e doubt. ” See United States v. Fr orup , 963 F.2d 41, 42 (3d Cir. 1992 ). In4

additio n to the testimo ny of n um erou s coo peratin g w itnesse s that pla ced W orrells w ithin the c ons pira cy as a ma nag er, se ller, a nd s upp lier o f cra ck, see , e.g. , Supp. App. 11; 21-25; 29-3 2; 33 -34; 3 7-40 ; 41-4 2; 55 -56; 6 1-63 ; 70; 77 -81; 8 6-87 , the po lice linke d W orrells to other c onsp irators v ia volu mino us ph one r ecord s and record ed dr ug d ealers g oing into and out of his mother’s house (which, according to testimony, Worrells used as a st as hho use .) Thi s was suf fi ci ent to convi ctWorr el ls of t he c ons pi ra cy . As to th e fire arms conviction, a p olice officer testified that he caugh t Worrells riding in a car with a firearm und ern eath the r ug i n fr ont of h im. See App . 182a-18 6a. The o fficer testified that there was an obvious bul ge in the rug. Thi s was suffici ent evi dence for a j uryto infe r that Worrells (and not t

he owner/dri ver of the car) was i n possessi on of the gun. Third, the Dist

rict Court properly

determi ned Worrell s’ maximum sente nce under the statute. Contrary to W orrells’ argume nt, the District Cou rt properly instructed the jury as to i ts duty t o find the quantit y of dr ugs reasona

bly foreseeabl e to each defe ndant in t he conspiracy. The jury found that the quantit y for Worrells was at leas t 1.5 kilograms,
eno ugh to p lace him in th e sta tuto ry ma xim um of life im priso nm ent. See 21 U. S. C. 841(b)(1)(A ). As such , there was n o error und er A pp re nd i v . N ew Je rse y, 530 U.S. 466 (200 0). M oreo ver, the Distric t Cou rt prop erly determ ined th at W orrells w as resp onsib le fo r m or e th an 1.5 ki lo s o f c ra ck (e no ug h t o p lac e h im in th e h ig he st g ui de lin es ca teg or y) bas ed o n th e ev iden ce m entio ned abo ve. See United States v. Coll ado , 975 F.2d 985 ( 3d Cir. 1992 ).1 The jury specifi cally found t

hat Worrel ls was in pos sessi on of this gun. The fact that it later refus ed to convi ct him of poss ession of this gun did not pr event the District Court from consi dering t he gun possess ion in i ts sentence. 2 Worrells ’ argument t

hat the government fai led to l ink the gun to the conspiracy sim pl y fa ils to sta te t he fa cts ac cu ra tel y. 5 Fourth, the Distri ct Court did not commit clear error when it increas ed Wo rrells ’ sentence based upon it s factua l findings that he was in posses sion of a gun during the crime and t

hat he pl ayed amanagerialrole in the conspiracy . The poli ce found a loaded firearm locate d nex t to W orrells at th e time of h is arrest. 1 Further more, as ment ioned supra, the poli ce also c aught Worrel ls with a differ ent loa ded fire arm while he was driving with a co-conspirator. This provided alternati ve evidence for increasing Worrells’ sentence . 2 The gov ernm ent also prese nted s uffic ient ev idenc e, aga in me ntione d sup ra, to sh ow th at W or re lls pl aye d a m an ag er ial ro le i n t he co ns pi ra cy.

For th e ab ove re as ons , we aff ir m.