NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0654n.06 No. 10-6389 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. J I MMY D. CORNETT, aka J immy D. Cornette, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY

BEF ORE: BOG GS and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; BA RZI L AY, District Judge. *

PER CURI AM. J immy D. C ornett, a fede ral prisoner, ap p ea l s t h e dis trict court judgment in his criminal case. We aff irm. On August 12, 2009, a citiz en reported t o t h e police that he had

seen his trailer campe r, which had been stolen one wee k ear lier, in Cornett’s backy ard. The police
went t o C o rn et t ’s home to investiga te. Cornett was outside in the y ard and his co-de fenda nt was sitti ng in a whe elcha ir next t o the camper. The co-def endant was being soug ht by the pol ice after absconding from home confinement. Corne tt admitted that he had run an electrica l cord from the house to the campe r. Whil e attempting t o i d en t i fy the campe r, the police discovere d evidenc e of methamphetamine production and a rifle inside. A sear ch war rant was obtained for the house on the proper ty and the ensuing sear ch reve aled the prese nce of a shotgun. Checks with local stores showed

The Honora

ble J udith M. Ba

rzilay , Senior J udg e for the United States Court of I nterna tional * Trade , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 10-6389

United States v. Cornett that Cornett and his co-de fenda nt had purcha sed Sudafed numerous times in the months befor e their

arr est, including one occa sion when they bo t h purcha sed Sudafed from a pharma cy within thirty

m i n u t es of eac h other. The Sudafed was consistent with the ephedr ine product used i n t h e manufa cturing opera tion that the police discover ed on Cornett’s pr operty

. Cornett was char g ed with conspirac y to manufa cture methamphetamine, aiding and abetting the manufa cture of methamphetamine, aiding and abetting the possession of equipmen t to manufa cture methamphetamine, possession of a firea rm in further ance of a drug -traf ficking crime, and two counts of possession of a firea rm by a felon. The co-de fenda nt enter ed a g uilty plea to some of the char g es, while Cornett proce ede d to a trial. The jury found him g uilty on all six counts. Howeve r, the trial court g rante d in part a motion for direc ted verdic t, overturning the convictions for possession of the rifle in the campe r in further ance of a drug -traf ficking crime and possession of the rifle by a felon. After a rema nd from this court, the district court sentenc ed Cornett to ninety -seve n months of imprisonment. Cornett arg ues that the trial court err ed in deny ing in part his motion for a direc ted ver dict b eca use t here was insufficient evidenc e of the m anufa cture of m ethampheta mine. He argu es t h at there was no evidenc e that he planned to d i stribute the methamphetamine or that the methamphetamine w as manufa cture d in the campe r while it was on his prope rty

. The standard of revie w of a denial of a motion for acquittal is the same as that for sufficie ncy of the evidenc e. United Stat es v. A b ner , 35 F.3d 251, 253 (6th Cir. 1994). When addre ssing an arg ument of insufficienc y of the evidenc e, we deter mine whether , afte r revie wing “the evidenc e in the light most fa

vorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fac t could have found the essential

-2-No. 10-6389

United States v. Cornett elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt.” Jack son v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Contrary t o Cornett’s arg ument, the offe nse of manufa cturing drug s does not require proof of an intent to distribute. United States v. Miller , 870 F.2d 1067, 1071 (6th Cir. 1989). Moreove r, it was not nece ssary to establish that the methamphetamine had been manufa cture d on Cornett’s proper ty

. There was sufficie nt evidenc e for a rational trier of fac t to conclude that Cornett and his co-de fenda nt conspired tog ether

and aide d and abe tted eac h other in manufa cturing methamphetamine. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-