1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3187

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Jermaine T. Bryson, also known as JD, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 2010 Filed: May 7, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Bryson appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute in vi olation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Bryson argues that the eviden ce was insufficient to support the jury verdict and that he was therefore entitled to a judgment of ac quittal. We affirm the district court’s 1 judgment.-2- On December 18, 2004, Fort Dodge, Iowa, Police Officer Laura Myers, recognized Bryson and arrested him for operating a vehicle with a suspended license. Bryson denied his true identity and gaveMyers a false name. Officer Dan Steck arrived at the scene and confirmed Bryson’ s identity. When Bryson was asked to exit the vehicle, he attempted to flee and wa s apprehended a short distance away. Steck and Webster County Sheriff’s Deputy Jayson Heesch conducted a search incident to arrest, which led to the di scovery and seizure of $618 a nd a plastic baggie containing 7.87 grams of crack cocaine from Bryson’s pe rson. No paraphernalia associated with drug use was found on Bryson or in the vehicle. Following his arrest, Bryson told Myers that the substance was cocaine, thatit was intended for pe rsonal use, and that Myers should dispose of it.
At trial, a Sioux City police officer expe rienced with drug trafficking testified that crack cocaine users typically have user paraphernalia on their person and that users typically spend all money available to them on purchasing drugs. The officer testified that possession of more than 3.5 grams of crack cocaine is consistent with distribution. He also explained that some distributors of crack cocaine do not package the drugs and instead simply hand out individual portions by “eyeballing” the quantity.

We will reverse a conviction for insu fficient evidence only if, accepting all reasonable inferences that support the ve rdict, no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Spears , 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006). Based on the evidence that Bryson possessed a quantity of drugs consistent with distribution and some $618 in cash, and did not possess user paraphernalia, the jury could reasonably in fer Bryson’s intent to distribute. See United States v. Bell , 477 F.3d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 2007) (evidence sufficient to prove possession with intent to distribute wher e officers found about seven grams of crack cocaine, which testimony indicated was great er than personal-use amount, and where-3- there was no indicia of persona l use of crack cocaine, such as pipes). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Bryson’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________