FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1223 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00156 -CR- ORL -22-KR S UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICKY J EROME REDDICK, JR ., JEFF LEW IS HOUSTON, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 11, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dants -Appe llants Ri cky Je ro m e Re ddi ck , Jr . and J ef f L ew is H oust on ap pe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s a ft er

aj ur y tr ia l f or c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o2

dis tr ibute 50 g ram s or

m or e of c oc ai ne ba se , 21 U . S. C. § 84 6, and p oss es sio n w ith intent to distribu te 50 gram s or m ore of coca ine base, 21 U .S .C. § 841(a)(1), ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) an d1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. D ur ing the ir

j oin t tri al , Re ddi ck

and H oust on e ac h m ove d f or aj udgm en t of ac qui tta l at the c los e of

the gov er

nm en t’ s c as e. R ed dic k’ s law y er m ove d “ fo r j udgm en t of

a cquitta l on[ Fe d. R. Cr im . P. ] 29. ” Whe n H oust on’ s law y er m ove d f or a j udgm en t of

a cquitta l, he arg ue d th at

H oust on w as onl y

aspe ct at or

in the dr ug s al e b et we en Re d d i ckan da c o n fi d en t i al i n fo rman t(“CI ”) an dth atHo u s t o n ’s part ic ipatio n ( fo r w hic h he w as “pa id $ 40 o f cr ac k c oc ai ne ”) w as li m ite d to dr ivi ng R ed dic k onthe day of the dr ug s al e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d bo th m oti ons. H oust on the n pr es en te d ac as e in h is d ef en se ; R ed dic k di d no t. H oust on did no t renewhis m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal after all evidence w as pr es en te d. On appeal, Reddick asserts that the governm ent did no t prove that he joined a co nspi ra cy

w ithH oust on b ec au se the gov er nm en t di d no t pr es en t su ff ic ie nt ev ide nc e of

an a gr ee m en t be tw ee n R ed dic k and H oust on t o po sse ss w ithint en t t o dis tr ibute ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce . H oust on arg ue s th at he w as aspe ct at or

to Re ddi ck ’ s dr

ug transa ct ionw iththe CI and tha t he w as not inv olv ed in a co nspi ra cy

w ithRe ddi ck .3

We f i rs tad dre s s th e s t an d ar du s edt o re v i ew Re d d i ck ’s an dHo u s t o n ’s claim s. B ecause H ousto n did n ot renewhis m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal after pr es en tin g hi s c as e at

tr ia l, w e w ill r ev er se his c onvi ct iononl y f or m an if es t inj ust ic e. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Jon es , 32 F . 3d 1 512, 151 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) (e xpl ai nin g th at

w he n de fe ndant “ fa ile d to r en ewhis m oti on f or j udgm en t of ac qui tta l at the e nd o f al l of the e vid en ce , his c onvi ct ionm ust be a ff irm ed unl es s a m an if es t m isc ar

ri ag e of j ust ic e w oul d r es ult ” be ca use “ a de fe ndant’ s de ci sio n to pr es en t hi s c as e af

te r de nia l of

am oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l op er at es a s a wa iver of his objec tion to the denial of his m otion for ac quitt al”). “ This standard re qui re s [ us t o de te rmine ] that the e vid en ce on a ke y e le m en t of

the of fe nse is so te nuou s th at

ac onvi ct ionw oul d be sho ck ing . ” U nit ed S tate s v. G re er , 440 F . 3d 1267 , 1271 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation om itted). About Re ddi ck , the gov er

nm en t arg ue s th at

- - ins te ad

of appl y ing de nov o re vie w , a s w e w oul d do f or apr es er ve d c ha lle nge to the de nia l of am oti on f

or jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al -- we s ho ul d re vi ew Red di ck ’s cla im on ly for p la in erro r. The governm ent asserts that Reddick’ s failure to offe r re asons to the district court in sup port of his m otion did no t preserve his argum ent for a j udgm ent of acquittal ba se d onins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce . E ve n a ssum ing that R ed dic k pr es er ve d hi s ar gum en t, w e de ci de , f

or the r ea sons that w ill be dis cu sse d, that hi s c la im f ai ls.4

Whe n w e re vie wthe suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e dr awa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t. U nit ed

S tate s v. Bo w m an , 302 F . 3d 1 228, 123 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . “ T o su sta in a c onvi ct ionf

or co nspi ra cy

to poss es s c oc ai ne w ithint en t t o di str ibute , the gov er nm en t m ust pr ove be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t ( 1) an il le ga l a gr ee m en t e xis te d; ( 2) the de fe ndant knew of it; and (3) the def endant, w ith kn owledge, volu ntarily j oined it.” United St at es v. H er

nande z, 433 F . 3d 1 328, 133 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , c er t. de nie d, 126 S . Ct . 1635 ( 2006 ) (quot at ionom itt ed ). D ir ec t e vid en ce of ac onsp ir ac y

is not r equir ed ; and the gov ernm ent “ need prove onlythat [D efendant] knew the genera l nature an d sc ope of

the c onsp ir ac y . ” U nit ed S tate s v. P ine ir o, 389 F . 3d 1 359, 136 8 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . P ar

tic ipatio n inac onsp ir ac y c anbe inf

er re d f ro m “ a de ve lop m en t and co llo catio n of

c ir cum stanc es . ” U nit ed

S tate s v. Mc D ow el l, 250 F . 3d 1 354, 136 5 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations om itted). “ Although m ere presence at the scene of a cr im e is i nsuf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ion , pr es en ce non ethe le ss i s a pr obativ e fa ct or

w hic h th e j ur

y m ay c onsi de r in d et er

m ini ng whe the r a de fe ndant w as akno w ing and i nte nti ona l part ic ipant i n ac ri m ina l sc he m e. ” I d. In this case, the governm ent showed that a conspiracy existed between Re ddi ck and H oust on t o po sse ss 5 0 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne ba se w ithint en t t o distribu te. In his own car , H ousto n drove Reddick to pi ck up the CI (who had5

o ff er edt o b u y cr ac kco ca i n e f ro m Re d d i ck ), t o o kRe d d i ckan dth e C I t o Re d d i ck ’s hom e (f ro m w he re Re ddi ck

le ft to obt ai n c oc ai ne hy dr oc hlo ri de ), and dro ve Reddick and the CI to the apartm ent wher e cr ack cocaine “ cookies” wer e produced. In the apar

tm ent’ s kitchen, Reddick prepare d a boilin g m ixture co nta ini ng c oc ai ne hy dr oc hlo ri de ; he e ve ntu al ly r em ove d th e m ixt

ur e fr om it s po t an d a llo w ed

it to hard en . H oust on l at er c am e int o th e kit ch en ; and R ed dic k to ld him , “ got tw o m or e, Je ff

, ” w hic h H oust on a cknow le dge d. H oust on o bse rv ed a co oki e that R ed dic k ha d la id o ut t o dr y ; and H oust on g athe re d pl as tic ba gs t o pr ep ar e to p ac ka ge the c ooki es . Whil e in the apartm en t, H oust on p ut a c ooki e int o his c lothe s; and h e ar gue d w ithRe ddi ck about the c ra ck c oc ai ne H oust on w oul d rece iv e. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, we co nc lud e that a

r ea sona ble j ur y c oul d f ind Re ddi ck and H oust on g uil ty

of co nspi ra cy

to poss es s c oc ai ne ba se w ithint ent t o di str ibute . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d not e rr in de ny ing Re ddi ck ’ s and H oust on’ s m oti ons fo r j udgm en t of a cquitta l on thi s ba sis . Reddick next argues that the gov ernm ent offer ed insufficient evidence that he co ns pi redto , andactua ll y di d, p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne ba se .6

H e co nte nds that, a t be st, the gov er nm en t pr ove d th at

he m anuf

ac tur ed c oc ai ne base.

“ T o su sta in a

c onvi ct ionf

or pos se ssi on o f a co ntr oll ed sub stanc e w ithint en t to d istri but e, the gov er

nm en t m ust sho wthat a

de fe ndant k

now ing ly pos se sse d th e co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e w iththe int en t t o di str ibute it . ” H er nande z, 433 F . 3d at 13 33 (quot at ionom itt ed ). “ In te nt t o di str ibute m ay be inf er re d f ro m the am ount

of [ the drug ] in vo lv ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sarm ie nt o, 7 44 F.2d75 5, 7 61 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). H er e, Re ddi ck

pr oduc ed

65 g ram s of

c oc ai ne ba se , w hic h ha d apur ch as e pr ic e of $2, 000. S pe ci al A ge nt R uss el l B ae r of

the D ru g E nf

or ce m en t Adm in is tra ti on tes ti fie d t ha t a “ typic al us er am ou nt ” o f co cai ne ba se wou ldbe .1 to . 2 gr am s, se lli ng i n $1 0 to $20 inc re m en ts. W e co nc lud e that su ff ic ie nt ev ide nc e w as pr es en te d at tri al to supp ort a f ind ing of Re ddi ck ’ s po sse ssi on w ith intent to distribu te cocaine base. W e af fi rm Re ddi ck ’ s and H oust on’ s c onvi ct ion s. AFFIRMED.