FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11617 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 4 4 8 - C R - T - 2 3 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O B E R T R E Y N O L D S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 4, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R obe r tR e y nol ds appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orc ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846,Be causeRey nolds moved for judgment of ac quittal at the close of theGover nment’s 1 caseand within seven da

ys after the guilty

verdic t he pre serve d his right of appellatereview. See United States v. Allison 616 F.2d 779, 784 ( 5th Cir. 1980) (holding a Rule 29(c) motion made within s even days a fter t

heguilty verdic t issu ff

ic ient to p re serv ean a

pp e lla nt’ s right to a

pp e llate review). 2 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . R e y n o ld s a s s e r ts th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t h is c o n v ic tio n . W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. W e r e v ie w th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e d e n o v o , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d d r a w in g a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s in f a v o ro f th e v e r d ic t. U

ni ted Stat es v. H

erna nd ez , 43 3 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 1 2 0 0 5 ). S ect i o n 8 4 6 o f T i t l e 2 1 o f th e U n i t ed S t at es C o d e p ro v i d es: A ny pers on w ho att em pt s or c on spi re s t o com m i tany off ense defi ned i n th i s su b ch ap t er sh al l b e su b j ectt o th e sam e p en al t i es as th o se pr e s c r i be d f

orthe of f e ns e , the c om m i s s i on of w hi c h w a s the obj e c tof th e att em p to r co n sp i racy. S p e c if ic a lly , R e y n o ld s w a s c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d i s tr i b u t e f

i v e k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f c o c a i n e ; i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A )( i i ). T o s u s ta in ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s c o c a in e w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e, the go vernm entm ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt : (1) thatan agre em entexi st ed betw ee n the defendantand o ne or m ore pers on s; (2) the obj ec t o f w h ic h is to d o e ith e ra n u n la w f u l a c t o rala w f

u l a c t b y u n la w f

u l m e a n s . U

ni ted Stat es v. Mer ce r , 165 F . 3d 1331, 1333 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . “ P a r t i c i pa t i on i n a3

c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y ne e d notbe pr ove d by di r e c te vi de nc e ; ac om m on purpos e a nd pl an m aybe i nferre d from a devel op m entand col l ocat i on of ci rc um st ance s. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . P e r ez - T

o s ta , 36 F . 3d 1552, 1557 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ G ui l tm a y e xi s te ve n w he n the de f e nda ntpl a y s onl y am i nor rol e a nd do es no tkn ow al l the det ai l s of the conspi ra cy . ” I d. W e h a v e h e ld

“ unc orr obor a t e d t e s t i m ony of a n a c c om pl i c e i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor tac onvi c t i on

. . . i f i ti s noton i t s f

ac e i ncre di bl e or otherw i se i nsub st ant i al . ” U ni ted Stat es v. L eQ u i re , 9 4 3 F .2 d 1 5 5 4 , 1 5 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . M i c ha e l A r l i ne , apr i nc i pa l of f e nde ri n the drug di s tr i but i on or ga ni z a t i on w i th w hi ch R ey no l ds al l egedl y c on spi re d, prov i ded u ncon tra di ct ed t es t i m on y a t tr i a l tha tbe tw e e n 1999 a nd J ul y 2003, he f r ont e d appr oxi m a t e l y t e n ki l ogr a m s of co cai n e t o R eyn o l d s, an d th e d ru g s w ere fo r resal e, n o tt o b e u sed fo r R eyn o l d s’ pe r s ona l c ons um pt i on. J e r e m i e M a l voi s i n, a nothe rof f e nde ri n the drug di s tr i but i on or ga ni z a t i on w i th w hi c h R e y nol ds a l l e ge dl y c ons pi r e d, t e s t i f i e d he w e n t to R e y n o ld s ’ b a rb e r s h o p w ith A r lin e tw ic e to d e liv e rc o c a in e . B a s e d o n th is e vi de nc e , aj ury c oul d r e a s onabl y i nf e rthe r e w a s a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n A r l i ne a nd R e y nol ds , the obj e c tof

w hi c h w a s t o s e l l ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e i n vi ol a t i on of f e d e r a l la w .4

B e c a u s e e a c h o f

th e e le m e n ts o f

th e c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e s w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly pr ove n, R e y nol ds f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e ar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d notha ve f ound b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t h e c o m m itte d th e o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f irm R e y n o ld s ’ c o n v ic tio n . A F F I R M E D .