1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0471n.06 F iled: August 6, 2008 No. 06-1737 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UN ITED STA TES, ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE P lai nt iff-A ppe lle e , ) UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T ) COURT F OR THE WE STE RN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) THOM AS B EA RD , ) O P I N I O N ) De fend ant s- App e lla nt s. ) ____________________________________)
BEFORE: M ARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Jud ges, and S TAMP , Senior DistrictJudge.* FREDERI CK P. S TAMP, J R
. , Senior District J udg e. Thomas B ear d was c harg ed in a F ourt h Su pe rs e din g Ind ic tme nt o n v ari ous cou nt s rel a tin g to h is i nv olv e me nt i n a c on sp ir a c y

to dis tr ibute he ro in an d co c a ine in L ans ing , Mic hig an. Mr . B e ard ple a de d n ot guil ty

and pr oc e e de d to a jury trial. Followingprese ntation of the g overnme nt’s case and ag ain at the c lose of all evide nce,
c ouns e l f or T ho mas Be ard

mov e d f or a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l on Cou nt 1 , c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss and/or distribute her oin, and Count 2, possession with i ntent to distribute heroin. The motion was ult ima te ly g ra

n t e d a s t o C o un t1 , b u td e n i e d a s t o C o un t2
. T h e r e a f

t e r , th e j ur

y r e tur n e d a g u i l ty verdic t on numerous counts, includingCount 2
. At sentenc ing, T homas Be ard r ece ived a withing uideline sentenc e. Mr. B ear d now challeng es on appea l the denial of hi s motion for judgme nt of acquittal as t o C o u n t 2 and the r easona bleness of his sente nce. F or the re asons that follow, weUn i t ed S t a t es v . B ea rd 06- 1737

2 AFF I RM the judgment of the district court, but re mand for a pplication of Amendme nt 706 to the United States SentencingGuidelines to the def endant’ s sentence . We first consider Mr . Be ard’ s contention that the evide nce prese nted at trial wa s insufficient to e sta bli shthat he ha d e ith e r a c tua l or c on str uc tiv e po sse ssi on

of the he ro in a s c ha

rg e d in Count 2 of the Four

th Super seding I ndictment. This Court revie ws the suffic iency of the e vidence produce d at trial in a lig ht most favorable to the g overnme nt and finds it lackingonly if “‘no r ational trier of fac t could have f

ound proof of

g uilt bey ond a re asonable doubt.’” United States v. W inston , 37 F.3d 2 3 5 , 2 3 8 (6 thC i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979)). In this c ase, there is suf ficient evidenc e for a rational trier of fac t to fi n dconstructive po sse ssi on

be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Con str

uc tiv e po sse ssi on

is e sta bli sh e d b y

a sh ow ingthat a person “ knowing ly

has the powe r and the intention at a given ti me t o exercise domini on and contr ol
over a n object.” United States v. Newsom , 452 F.3d 593, 608 (6 Cir. 2006)(citations omitted). At th trial, offic er te stimony was rec eived that on J une 28, 2000, Mr. B ear d was ridingin the passeng er
se a t of a c ar t hat w a s invo lve d in

a c ha se wi th t

he L ansi ngPol ic e . Wh e n th e c ar w a s e ve ntu a lly stopp e d , tw e lv e p a c k e ts o f h e r o in w e r e f o un d o nth e p a s s e n g e r

s e a t a n d th e p a s s e n g e r

f lo o r ar e a. Additionally , office rs observe d sever al “bindles” of heroin stuck to the wet exterior of both side s of the ca r, consistent with both the passeng er a nd the driver throwing them from the movingvehicle. Al tho ug h M r. B e ard

is c or re c t th a t “ me re pr oximi ty” to c ontr a ba nd is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sh constructive posse ssion, evidence of some other fac tor “‘inc luding. .
. a gesture imply ing control
. . . coupled with proximi ty

may suffice .’” United States v. Newland , 243 Fe d. Appx. 151, *3 (6th Cir.Un i t ed S t a t es v . B ea rd 06- 1737

3 Au gu s t2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Alex ander , 331 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ). He re, the
e vid e nc e of Mr . B e ard ’s c los e pr oximi ty to t he dr ug s, c ou ple d w iththe e vid e nc e of his a tte mpt

to dispose of the drug s (a g esture implying c ontrol), when vie wed in a l i g ht most favorable to the prosec ution, is sufficient to show that the jury ’s ver dict as to Count 2 was supported by substantial and compe tent evidenc e. Thus, Mr. Bear d has fa iled to meet his “ver y heavy burden,” United States v. Tocco , 2 00 F .3 d 4 10 , 4 24 (6 th Cir . 200 0) , in ch a lle ng ing the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s us ta in his conviction. Next, we consider the rea sonablene ss of Thomas Bear d’s s entenc e. Mr. Bear d argues that his sentence is unreasona ble bec ause th e 1 0 0:1 guide line sentenc e disparity for c rac k coca ine offe nses and powde r coc aine of fense s is unconstitut ional. Be cause it does not appea r that Mr. B ear d raised this issue at the se ntencingh ear ing, this Court, pursuant to F eder al Rule of Criminal Procedur e Rule 52(b), revie ws for plain err or. Fe d. R. Crim. P. 52( b)(“ a plain err or that aff ects s u b s t an t ial ri g hts may

be co ns id ered eve n th ou g h it wa s n ot b ro ug ht t o th e c ourt ’s a tte nti on ” ). “ To e sta bli sh plain err or, a de fenda

nt must show (1) that an error occurr ed in the di strict court; (2) the er ror wa s plain, i.e., ob vio us or

c le ar; (3 ) t

hat th e e rr or

a ff e c te d d e fe nd ant' s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts ; and

(4 ) that th is ad v er s e i m pact se riously aff ecte d the fa irness, integ rity , or public re putation of the judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 583 ( 6th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). In th is c a se , n o p la in e rr or oc c ur re d a t the dis tr ic t le ve l be c a us e the la w is we ll s e ttl e d in

thi s C i r c u i tth a tt h e 1 0 0 : 1 r a t i o w i th s t an d s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s c r u t i n y. See e .g., United States v. Bingham, 81 F .3 d 6 17 , 6 30 -3 1 ( 6th Cir. 19 96 ); Un ite d S

tates v . H ill , 79 F.3d 1477, 1488- 89 (6th Cir.1996);Un i t ed S t a t es v . B ea rd 06- 1737

4 United States v. Re ece

, 99 4 F. 2d 27 7, 27 8- 79 (6 th C ir .1 99 3) ; Un ite d S tates v . Ti nk

e r, 985 F.2d 241, 24 2 ( 6th Cir .1 99 2) ; Un ite d Sta te

s v . W ill iam s, 96 2 F. 2d 12 18 , 122 7 (6t h Ci r. 19 92 ); United States v. Pi c k e tt, 94 1 F .2 d 4 11 , 4 18 -1 9 ( 6th Cir .1 99 1) . A lth ou g h M r. B e ard argues th a t th is C ourt

sh ou ld
c h a n g e i t s p o s i t i o nr e g ar d i n g th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i ty o f t h e c r a c k / p o w d e r s e n t e n c i n g d i s p ar i ty

t h a tis pr e se nt i n th e Un ite d St ate s Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s, it is ina pp ro pr iate to re ve rs e c ours e on a pla in
err or re view. For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM th e ju d gme nt and the sente nce imposed by the district
c ourt . N on e the le ss, we REM AN D this c a se to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r c on sid e ratio n o f t

he a pp lic a bil ity of Amendme nt 706 to the United States S entenc ing Guidelines, which be came eff ective on November

1 , 2007, subsequent to the imposition of the defe ndant’s sente nce a nd to the notice of appea l in this case . Amendment 706 dec rea ses by two levels the ba se off

ense le vels for c rac k
c oc ain e off

e ns e s, see U. S. Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin es M

an ua l § 2D1.1 (2007), a nd has bee n made retroa ctive beg inning Ma

rch 3, 2008. SeeU.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 0 ( c )(Ma y 1, 2008). Ac cording ly , rema nd is nece ssary

for the district c ourt to c onsider in the first instance whether a modification of Thomas Be ard’ s sentence is warr anted pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
.