NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0464n.06 No. 09-3876 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. NATHA NI ELROBI

NSON, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N ORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

Before: KEITH, GIBBONS, and WHITE , Circuit Judges. P ER CURIAM

. Nathanie l Robinson appea ls his conviction for conspirac y to possess with intent to distribute coca ine and coca ine base (cr ack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A) and 846. Robinson asse rts that insufficient evidenc e was prese nted to link him to the alleg ed drug traff icking conspirac y and that the district court improperly denied his motion for judgme nt of acquittal at the clos e o f t he g overnme nt’s case . Be cause we hold that sufficie nt evidenc e was prese nted to support the jury ’s finding that Robinson fac ilitated a drug sale in further ance of a drug traff icking conspirac y , the district court’s denial of Robinson’s motion for judgme nt of acquittal and Robinson’s convictions are AF F IRMED

. I. BACKG ROUND A ten-y ear joint investiga tion by the Fed er al Bu re au of I nvestig ation (“F BI ”) and the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA” ) i n t o d ru g traff icking around the King

1No. 09-3876

United States v. Nathaniel Robinson Kenne dy Estates housing projec t in Cl evela nd, Ohio culminated in a fe dera l indictment of six teen defe ndants in 2008. Eac h defe ndant, including Def endant Nathanie l Robinson, was indicted on drug traff icking char g es, including conspirac y to p o s s e s s w it h in te n t to distribute coca ine and coca ine base (cr ack) , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A) and 846, and distribution of coca ine base (cr ack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and (b)( 1)(B ). Robinson was the only defe ndant who did not plead g uilty and his three day jury trial beg an on April 27, 2009. Evidence at Robinson’s jury trial established that the criminal investiga tion was cente r e d a r o u n d a g r o c e r

y s to r e, Sav-Mor, located next to the King Kenne dy Estates. The g overnme nt prese nted evidenc e at trial that demonstrated that d rug deale rs from King Kenne dy Estates worke d with middlemen at Sav-Mor to direc t “saf e” customers their way and provided the middlemen with cash or drug s for their assistance

. The FB I paid Kison Robertson about $20,000 fr o m 2000 to 2008 to serve as an informant as part of its investiga tion of King Kenne dy Estates and other drug traff icking are as. At trial, Robertson testified that he had previously reque sted Robinson’s help i n purcha sing coca ine at Sav-Mor in November of 2007 ; h o we v er , despite Robinson’s help, Robertson was not connec ted with a deale r on that

occa sion. O n D e c e mb e r 3, 2007, two g overnme nt informants, including Robertson , a r r iv e d a t Sa v - M o r , both equ i p p ed with audio and video surveillance equipment. Robertson approa ched Robinson, g ree t ed h i m b y n ame and inquired about purcha sing a “quake ,” which is a quarte r of an ounce of

cra ck. Robinson stated “ther e is my dude rig ht there ,” and pointed Robertson toward a drug deale r, Artemous Roulette, who was in a parke d car at Sav-Mor. Robinson approa ched the car and notified Roulette that he had a customer. Robertson g ot in the car , reque sted a “ quake,” and inquired as to 2No. 09-3876

United States v. Nathaniel Robinson whether Roulette was g oing to “take car e” of Robinson for his assistance

. Roulette declined to provide Robi nson with any benef it for direct i n g R o b er t s on to him at t hat t ime, so Robertson paid Robinson twenty dollars. Roulette sold a “quake ” to Robe rtson for $300 later that day at a BP g as station, in the same neig hborhood. At trial, video evidenc e of Robertson’s encounte r with Robinson and Roulette at Sav-Mor, and of Robertson’s “qu ak e” purcha se at BP was introduced. The videos included audio. The g overnme nt asser

ted that Robinson “middled” the d r u g d e a l; a n d, there fore , was g uilty of the char g ed offe nses. The g overnme nt also prese nted testimony from cra ck d ealers Fa dil Ba rre tt, Antoine Morg an, and Hy sheen Thomas, eac h of whom stated t hat t hey saw Robi nson “middle” drug deals

at King Kenne dy Estates. Crack deale r Br ian Nettles said Robinson “middled” drug transac tions for him a few times and he compensa ted Robinson by g iving him cash or cra ck. Roulette and Thomas

wer e also indicted along side Robinson. Roulette testified at trial that Robinson “middled” the drug transac tion rec orded by Robertson, that he previously sold cra ck to Robinson and that he had g iven Robinson cra ck for fre e on occa sion. Roulette testified that he only sold cra ck to Robertson beca use Robinson twice assure d Roulette that he knew Ro b er t s on. Additionally , Roulette stated that he declined to pay Robinson for “middling” the drug transac tion until afte r th e cr ac k sale was complete d , t h at Robinson did not want to wait for pay ment; and that Robertson subsequently volunteere d to pay

Robinson. At the close of the g overnme nt’s case , Robinson moved for judgme nt of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal P roce dure and asser ted t hat i nsufficie nt evidenc e wa s prese nted to support any conviction on the indicted offe nses. The district court denied Robinson’s 3No. 09-3876

United States v. Nathaniel Robinson motion. There afte r, the defe nse prese nted no evidenc e, and the case was submitt ed to the jury

. The jury found Robinson g uilty of both the conspirac y and distribution o ff en s es . Robinson was sentenc ed t o t h e mandatory , statutory -minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months on J uly 1, 2009. Robinson ti mely

appea led. II. ANALYSIS Robins o n co n t ends that the district court err ed in deny ing his motion for judgme nt of acquittal such tha t his conviction for conspira cy and attenda

nt sentence must be vaca ted. A. Standard of

Review We revie w d e n o v o a dis trict court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Gross , 626 F.3d 2 8 9 , 2 9 5 (6th Cir. 2010). “I n revie wing challeng es reg arding the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e pres en t ed to the jury , we are limit ed to asce rtaining whether

. . . any rational trier of fac t could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt.” United States v. Die rker , Nos. 08-3994/09-4124, 2011 U.S. A pp. L EXI S 6729, at *8 (6th Cir. Apr. 1, 2011) (quoting United States v. Carmichael , 232 F.3d 510, 519 (6th Cir. 2000) (interna l quotation marks and additional citations omitted)). “Onc e a defe ndant has been found g uilty of the crime char g ed, the fa ct finder’ s role as weig her of the evidenc e is prese rved throug h a leg al conclusion that upon judicial revie w all of the ev i dence is to be considere d in the light most favor able to the prosec ution.” Jack son v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (empha sis in orig inal) (footnote omitted). B. Motion f

or Judgm ent of Acquittal

4No. 09-3876

United States v. Nathaniel Robinson Robinson states that the g overnme nt failed to p re s en t sufficie nt evidenc e to support his conviction for conspirac y to possess with intent to distribute coca ine and cra ck in v i o l at i o n of §§ 841(a) (1), (b)(1)( A) and 846. “To sust ain a conviction for conspi ra cy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the g overnme nt must have proved: (1) an ag ree ment to violate drug laws, in this case 21 U.S.C. § 841; (2) knowledg e and intent to j o i n the conspirac y ; and (3) participa tion in the conspirac y .” United States v. Sliwo , 620 F.3d 630, 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Deitz , 577 F.3d 672, 677 (6th Cir. 2009)). Eac h convicted conspirator must have h ad k n o wledg e of the g oal of the conspirac y

—here , to sell coca ine and c rac k. See id. at 635. Robinson asser

ts that the evidence produced at trial did not permit the jury to infer that he beca me a member of a drug conspirac y ; rathe r, the evidenc e simply showed that he was familiar with King Kenne dy Estates and was abl e t o point out drug deale rs at Sav-Mor like any other King Kenn ed y E s t at es resident. Fur ther, Robinson contends that the deale r, Roulette, did not pay him beca use he play ed no role worthy of pay ment. I nstead, he states that he only acc epted a volunteere d pay ment offe red by g overnme nt informant Robertson. Robinson contends that he was mere ly prese nt at the scene and while he may have associate d with criminals, the g overnme nt failed to show that he had know ledg e of the conspirac y or that he voluntar ily

beca me a pa rticipant. Viewe d in the light most favor able to the prosec ution, a rational trier of fac t could have found the elements of conspirac y to possess with intent to distribute coca ine or cra ck wer e proved bey ond

a rea sonable doubt. Five drug deale rs from King Kenne d y E s t at es testified about Robinson’s “middling” role of often assisting in drug t ra n s ac t i o n s. L ikewise, audio and video evidenc e established Robinson’s pa rticipation in a drug transac tion with a g overnme nt inf ormant. Not only 5No. 09-3876

United States v. Nathaniel Robinson did Robinso n k n o w who and wher e the drug deale rs wer e in the King Kenne dy Estates are a, he broug ht customers to the drug deale rs and rec eived compensa tion in the form of cash or cra ck from the deale rs. Thoug h he was not the leade r of the drug ring , he was far from a mere by stander. Evidence was prese nted that Robinson answe red a customer’ s reque st to find a drug deale r, direc ted that customer to a drug deale r, persona lly vouched for the customer to the drug deale r, and acc epted pay ment from the c ustomer af ter the dealer declined to deliver pay ment prior to the conclusion of the drug sale. Thus, sufficie nt evidenc e support Robinson’s conspirac y conviction and sentenc e and the district court prope rly denied Robinson’s motion for judg ment of ac quittal.

III. CONCLUSION For the fore g oing re as o n s , Robinson’s conviction for conspirac y to possess with intent to distribute coca ine and cra ck is AF F IRMED

. The district c ourt’s denial of Robinson’s motion for judgme nt of ac quittal is AF F IRMED

.

6