The Honor able St ephen J . Murphy , I I I , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 14a0467n.06
No. 13-1879 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee , ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED v. ) STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MARCUS DEL ANE Z OL I COFF ER, ) MI CHI GAN ) De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

_________________________________________ ) BE FO R E : R OG E R S an d

C OO K, C i rc u i tJ u d ges ; M UR P HY , Di s t ri ct J u d ge * PER C URI AM. Def

endant- Appellant Mar cus De lane Z olicoffe r wa s convicted of conspirac y to distribute 280 gr ams or m ore of coca ine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1) a nd (b)( 1)(A) (iii). He now bring s this ti mely

appe al, ar g uing: ( 1) the e vidence was insuffic ient to convict him; (2) there was prose cutorial vindictivene ss in the filing of a 21 U.S.C. § 8 5 1 i n fo rm ation reg ardinga prior felony drugconviction; and (3) the district court e rre d by consideringthe ea rlier c onviction without havingfound the fa ct of the conviction beyond a re asonable doubt. For the following rea sons, we
a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ' s ju dg me nt i n f ull
. Z ol i co ff er wa s i n d i ct edfo r e n gagi n g i na c o n s p i ra cy wi t hJ erry

Bo s s t o d i s t ri b u t e c ra ckco caine in and around Trave rse Ci ty , Michig an, from ear ly 2008 to ear ly 2009. Boss testified at trial that he first met Z olicoffe r in 2008 and, shortly there afte r, met with him to disc uss the possibili ty of dea ling-2-

cra ck coc aine in Trave rse City . Boss testified that he was to travel to Trave rse City with "may

be"
on e -h a lf to o ne ounc e of

c ra c k a nd de liv e r t he crack to Zolic of fe r, wh o w ou ld t

he n s e ll i t to customers in Tra

verse City . (R. 65, Trial Tra nscript Vol. I , 124-27, I D 440-43.) B oss started mee ting regularly with Z olicoffe r, roug hly

twice a month, from 2008 to 2009. Gene rally , Boss would de liver only enoug h cra ck for

Z olicoffe r to meet his or ders. I f Z olicoffe r ran out, he would contac t Boss and
arr ang e to purc hase more . The trips re sulted in the movement and sale s of a t least five hundr ed g rams of c rac k. Severa l of Z olicoffe r' s associate s an d cra ck coc aine c ustomers also testified. Connie L owe testified that she he lped Z olicoffe r distribute d ru gs fr o m h er house and vehic le, and that she saw Z olicoffe r mee t freque ntly with Boss at he r house. ( Id. at 93-98, I D 40 9 -1 4
. ) Ashley Br aden testified that, while staying a t L owe' s house in 2008 and 2009, she wi tnessed B oss and Z olicoffe r in the house tog ether

while Z olicoffe r sold cra ck. (R. 66, Trial Transcript Vol. I I , 205-06, I D 523- 24.) Randall Be mbenec k testified that he witnessed Z olicoffe r, B oss, and L owe se lling cr ack out of L owe' s house in Dec ember of 2008. (

Id. at 195-96, I D 513-14) Rache l Oblinsky testified t hat she
was a sked t o d ri v e Bo s s , Z olicoffe r, and a third person to Gra

nd Rapids for the pur

pose of purcha sing c rac k. At their re quest, she per sonally car ried possibly

more than f

ifty g rams of c rac k on her body

during the trip bac k. (

Id . at 222-27, I D 540-45). After plea ne g otiations ended, but befor e trial, the pr osecutor f iled an information un der 21 U.S.C. § 851, g iving notice of Zolicoff er' s 1994 felony

drugconviction for violatingMich. Comp. L aws § 333.7401(2) (a) (iv). (R. 39, § 851 Information, I D 158-59.) D uring the t rial, af ter the g overnme nt rested, Z olicoffe r moved for a judgme nt of acquittal under Criminal Rul e 29, and the district court denie d the motion. (R. 66, Trial Tr. I Iat 249-53, I D 567-71.) T h e j u ry convicted-3-

Zo l i co ff er o nFe b ru ary

5 , 2 0 1 2
. T h e s en t en ci n g gu i d el i n es , wh i ch t o o k i n t o ac co u n tZo l i co ff

er 's prior felony drug conviction, rec ommended a minimum of 240 months in prison. The district court sentenc ed Z olicoffe r to 240 months in prison. (R. 67, Trial Transc ript Vol. I I I 6, 15, I D 641, 650.) I
. Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e Z olicoffe r cha lleng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to c onvict him of the conspira cy char g e. He a rgues that, while the e vidence admittedly shows that h e b o u ght and sold a larg e amount of
coca ine, there was not enoug h evidenc e to prove a conspira cy betwee n him and Bos s . Z olicoffe r submits t hat the evide nce show s that the two maintained a mere ly transac tional relationship. We reviewa district cour t's de termination for the suffi ci en cy o f evide nce at trial de novo. United States v. Carson , 560 F .3 d 5 66 , 5 79 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) . T o s ho w i ns uf fi c ie nc y of e vid e nc e is a " very heavy burden" for a defe ndant to bear
. United States v. Gardne r , 488 F.3d 700, 710 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S

tates v . Ch av is , 296 F.3d 450 , 455 (6th Cir. 2002)). On r eview, " a cour t must decide whether , viewing the evidenc e in a light most favor able to the g overnme nt, any rational tr ier o f factcou ldhav e fou ndth e ess ent ial ele men ts of t he cr im e bey on d a re aso nab le d oubt ." Id. (c i t i n g United States v. Humphre y , 279 F .3 d 3 72 , 3 78 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) ; J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 30 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )
. T h e r e v ie w in g c o u rt ma y n o t " w e igh th e e v id e n c e , c o n s id e r th e c r e dibilit y of wi tn ess es, or subs ti tu te [ it s] ju dgmen t f or t hat of t he j ury ." United States v. J ackson , 470 F.3d 299, 3 0 9 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tates v . D av is , 177 F.3d 552, 558 ( 6th Cir. 1999)). To pr ov e a

c on sp ir a c y

un de r § 84 6, the g ov e rnme nt mus t show" (1 ) a n a g re e me nt t o v iol a te druglaws, (2) knowledg e and intent to join the conspira cy , and (3) participation in the conspiracy ." United States v. Gibbs , 1 8 2 F. 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 2 0 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g United St ates v. W elch , 97 F.3d 142, 148 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. de nied , 519 U.S. 1134 (1997)) . "[A] defenda nt's know ledg e of a

nd-4-

participation in a conspirac y may be infe rre d fr o m h i s co nduct and e stablished by circ umstantial evi den ce." Un i t ed St a tes v. W arman , 5 7 8 F. 3 d

3 2 0 , 3 3 3 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Martinez , 430 F.3d 317, 331 ( 6th Cir. 2005)) (interna l quotation marks omitted). When proving a conspira cy to distribute drug s, "a

buy er- seller r e la

ti o n s h ip alone is insufficie nt to tie a buy er to a

conspirac y

beca use mere sales do not prove the exist ence of the agr ee m ent t hat
mu st ex is t f

or t here to be a con sp ir acy ." Un ite d S tates v . D e itz , 577 F.3d 672, 680 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omitted). But a jur y may infer the exis tence of a c onspiracy based on "addi ti on al e vi den ce, b ey on d t he m ere p urch ase o r sa le. " Id . For example, "' evidenc e of r epeat p u rc h as es p ro v i d es ev i d en ce o f m o re t h an a m er e b u y er -s el l er re l at i o n s h i p , ' an d

t h e q u an t i t y

o f d ru gs may als o sup po rt an inf

eren ce of con sp ir acy ." Martinez , 4 3 0 F. 3 d at 3 3 3 (q u o t i n g United States v. Br own , 332 F.3d 363, 373 ( alteration omit ted) (6th Cir. 2003))
. T h e e v i d e n c e a tt r i a l w a s s u f f i c i e n tt o p r o v e a

c o n s p i r a c y

b e t w e e nZ o l i c o f

f e r an d B o s s . It sh ow e d th a t Z oli c of

fe r, a t a min imum, m e t w ithB os s multi ple tim e s for mor e tha n a y e ar t o p ur c ha se dr ug s f ro m B os s to re se ll i n th e Tr ave rs e City are a , h a d a re g ula

r and lon g -s tand ingarr ang e me nt w ith B os s to purc ha se c ra c k c oc a ine in l arg e qu anti tie s, so ld c ra c k out of Connie L ow e ' s h ou se wi th B os s at least onc e, and went on at l east one trip with Boss to Grand Ra pids for the purpose of purc hasing
cra ck coc aine. The long- standing arr ang ement with B oss to purchase an d re s el l coca ine on a schedule d basis, alongwith the fac t that he and Boss sold and purchase d drug s toge ther, is suffic ient fo r a ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t to c on c lud e that Z oli c of fe r a nd B os s had a mut

ua l ag re e me nt to s e ll d

ru g s. See, e .g. , Un ite d S

tates v . Pritc he tt , 749 F.3d 417, 431 ( 6th Cir. 2014) (def endant r egularly

purcha sed and tra ded drug s for ove r a year wi th co-c onspirators and othe rs); Martinez , 430 F.3d at 333 (def endant r eg

u la r ly p u r c h a s e d c o c a in e f r o m c o-conspirator and traveled with anothe r co- conspiratorThe gove rnment arg ues t hat by ag ree ing in court with t he sente ncingg uideline ca lculation, 1 Z olicoffe r wa ived any

sentenc ing- related ar g ument, including the propriety of the § 851 in f

o r mation. See United States v. Aparc o-Centeno , 280 F.3d 1084, 1088 (6th Cir. 2002) (wa iver is the " intentional re l i n qu i s h m en to r ab an d o n m en to f a kn o wn ri gh t ") (q u o t i n g United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732–33 (1993))
. We ne ed not rea ch the que stion because , even unde r plain er ror a naly sis, Zolicof

fer has not shown er

ror. -5- to purcha se drug s). Zo l i coffer a lso argues the e vidence was insuffic ient to show that he had e ng ag ed in a
c on sp ir a c y

to d istri bute 28 0 g ra

ms o r m or e . Take n in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to t he g ov e rnme nt, Bo s s ' s testimony

shows that Z olicoffe r and B oss themselves exchang ed more than 500 g rams of
coca ine. Ther e wa s sufficient e vidence for the jur y to convict Z olicoffe r of the c harg e. I I
. Pr os e c uto ri a l V ind ic tiv e ne ss Z olicoffe r ar gu es t h e p rosecutor' s filing of the § 851 information re g ardinghis prior felony drug conviction was an act of prosecutorial vindictiveness to " punish" him for not a cce pting the ple a barg ain. He a dmits t he issue wa s not raised be fore the district court (A ppellant B r. at 17), but a

rg ues that the filing of

the information constitutes plain er ror. See U

nited States v. Cline , 362 F.3d 343, 348 (6th Cir. 2004) (re view of a n issue not raised f

irst before the district court is for pla in error ). 1 The " Due Proc ess Clause is not offende d by all possibili ties of incre ased punishment . . . but
on ly by th os e th at p os e a r e a l i s t i c l i k e li ho odof v in di cti ven ess ." Un ite d S tates v . P oo le , 407 F.3d 7 6 7 , 7 7 4 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Blac k le dge v . P e rry , 417 U.S. 21, 27 ( 1974)) (interna l quotation marks omitted). To show " actua l vindictiveness," a defendant must show " objective e vidence that a pro secu to r act ed i n o rder to pu ni sh th e def

end ant for

st and in g on h is legal ri ghts ," id . (quoting United States v. Dupre e , 323 F.3d 480, 489 (6th Cir. 2003)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted), or pr e se nt suf

fi c ie nt ev ide nc e to c re a te a " pr e sumpt ion

of vin dic tiv e ne ss" by

e xami nin g the " re a lis tic-6-

likelihood of vindictiveness" and foc using " on the prosec utor' s ' stake' in deterr ing the exercise of a protec ted rig ht and the unre asonable ness of his ac tions," id. (q u o t i n g Dupree , 323 F.3d at 489). Z olicoffe r has made a ba

re a lleg ation of prose cutorial vindictivene ss. He has not pre sented any direc t or objective e vidence to show the prosec utor ac ted vi n dictively . Nor ha s he pre sented evidenc e suff

icient to raise a

presumption of vindictiveness. F irst, he has n o t s hown how the prosec utor had a

ny special s t ak e in t he proc eedingbeyond g etting Z olicoffe r to plead guilty
. See Dupree , 3 23 F .3 d at 48 9 ( " [T]he [Sup re me ] C ou rt has ne c e ssa ri ly a c c e pte d a s c on sti tut ion a lly leg itimate the simple reality that the prosec utor' s interest at the barg aining table is to persua de the d ef en d an t t o fo re go h i s ri gh tt o p l ea d n o tgu i l t y . ") (q u o t i n g Bordenkirc her v. H ayes , 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978))
. Second, he has not shown how the pr osecutor a cted unr easona bly in filing the § 851 information. Z olicoffe r ar g ues that the U.S. Attorney ' s Offic e for the Western District of Michig an do e s n ot f ile an § 85 1 inf

or matio n in e ve ry dr

ug c a se . (A

pp e lla nt B r. a t 21 .) B ut thi s do e s no t r a ise
an in fe re nc e of mis c on du c t. Th e statut e do e s not co mpe l the g ov e rnme nt to fil e the inf or matio n in
ever y case , and indee d, the passag e of § 851 " c r e a ted pro secu to ri al d is cret io n. " United States v. Branham , 9 7 F .3 d 8 35 , 8 48 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) (i tal ics a dd e d) ; se e ge ne ra lly United States v. Suarez , 263 F.3d 468, 479 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (" [I ]f the [additional] charg es ar e broug ht simpl y as the re sult of fai lu re of th e pl ea bar gaini ng pro cess , t hey are n otvi nd ict iv e.") (c i t i n g Bragan , 249 F.3d at 481-82). Th e pr os e c uto r a lso tim e ly fi le d th e § 8 51 inf

or matio n: t he statut e on ly

re qu ir e s f

ili ng" be fo re tr ia l,
o r b e f o r e ent ry of a p leaof gui lt y ," see 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) , an d th e p r o s e c u to r

d id th a t h e r e. Acc ording ly , there was no plain e rror in the filing of

the § 851 information.-7-

I I I
. Consideration of Prior Dr ug Conviction Z olicoffe r ar g ues the district cour t err ed when it considere d his prior felony drugconviction in its sentencing g uideline calc ulations w ithout having found the fa ct of the pr ior conviction beyond
a re asonable doubt. He ar g ues t h e fa ct of prior conviction incre ased his sente ncingg uideline calc ulation and, under

the rule in Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), it should have be en pr ov e n b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. H e a c kn ow led ges, a s h e mus t, t hat Apprendisp e c if

ic a lly exempted fac ts of prior cr iminal convictions under the rule in Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Apprendi , 5 30 U.S
. at 49 0 ( " [W]e n e e d n ot r e vis it [ Almendarez- Torres ] for purp os e s of our de c isi on

tod ay ." ); see also Alleyne v . United States , 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (stating the same) . He state s he ra ises the issue " to preser ve it for f urther r eview." (Appe llant Br. at 24.) The district c ourt did not err by following the law as set forth by the Supreme Court whe n consideringthe prior f

elony drugconviction. Acc ording ly , the district court' s judgme nt is affirmed.