2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-26-2008 

# U SA v . Ab dun afi P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3635

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Abdun afi " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 192. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/192NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 3635

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M A L IK A B U H A M ID IB M W A K IL A B D U N A F I, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00255) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: N ovember26, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

Ma l i k A b d u n a f

i a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e f o rd ru g - r e l a t e d o f

f e n s e s . We wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ecause w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, w e recoun ton l ythe essenti al fact s. A f ter b e in g a rre ste d f

o r d istrib u tin g h e ro in to a c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t, S h a v e tte Sw ai n i dent i fi ed A bdunafi as hers uppl i erand agr eed t o cooper at e w i th pol i ce. T he f o llo w in g d a y , S w a in m e t w ith A b d u n a f i to se ttl e a $ 1 ,5 0 0 h e ro in d e b t. Im m e d iate ly fol l ow i ng thei rm eet i ng, pol i ce s t opped A bdunafi ’ s vehi cl e and s ei zed the $1, 500, al ong w i th drug par aphernal i a. L at erthatday , pol i ce c onduct ed cons ents ear ches of tw o m ot el room s r ented i n A bd un afi ’s nam e and a t ow nh ou se ow ned byA bd un afi ’s cou si n. T hese s ear ches y i el ded evi dence of pow dercoca i ne, cr ack, her oi n, and drug par aphernal i a. A bdunafi w as i ndi ct ed and c onvi ct ed on fi ve count s fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al . H e w as s ent ence d t o 240 m onths i m pr i s onm entand or der ed t o for fei t$100, 000. II. I n thi s appea l , A bdunafi cl ai m s ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o convi cthi m on Co u n tI ( c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n 5 0 g r a ms of coc ai ne bas e, m or e than 500 gr ams of coc ai ne, and addi t i onal quant i t i es of her oi n and m a riju a n a in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ) a n d o n C o u n t IV (p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t toW e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on overA bdunafi ’ s cl ai m s of tr i al err orunder28 1 U . S. C . § 1291 and r evi ew hi s cl ai m of s ent enci ng err orunder28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 -28 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

3 di s tr i but e more than 500 gr ams of coc ai ne, m or e than fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, and ad d it ion al qu an ti ti es o f h ero in an d m arij u an a in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1)). 1 A bdunafi conce des thathe s ol d cr ack, butcl ai m s thatthe evi dence attr i al w as i ns uffi ci entt o convi cthi m of cons pi r acy t o di s tr i but e cr ack. A bdunafi bear s a hea vy bur den i n l i ghtof our“part i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al ” s t andar d of r evi ew i n cas es chal l engi ng th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 1998) . W e musts us t ai n t he ver di cti f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence , vi ew ed i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t, to u p h o ld th e ju ry’s d e c is io n . See G las s erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 1 5 U .S . 6 0 , 8 0 (1 9 4 2 ), s upers eded by s tat ut e on othergr ounds ; U ni t ed Stat es v. B e c ke tt , 208 F. 3d 140, 151 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e nei therw ei gh the evi dence noras s es s t he c re d ib ility o f

th e w itn e s s e s . D ent , 149 F. 3d at187. I ns t ead, w e mustaff i r m i f “ any r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” J

a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) . “[T] he evi dence need n o t u n e q u iv o c a llyp o in t to th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilta s lo n g a s it p e rm its a f in d in g o f g u ilt bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” S e e U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 1 8 3 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W hen pol i ce s t opped A bdunafi ’ s van fol l ow i ng hi s m eet i ng w i th Sw ai n, he w as acc om pani ed bytw o y oung m en, w ho w er e l at eri dent i fi ed as J os e Loui s C ano and J amal4

T om pki ns . T he van a l s o cont ai ned par aphernal i a us ed t o cook pow dercoca i ne i nt o cr ack, in c lu d in g a P yre x b e a k e r, a s if te r, a n d a h o tp la te w h ic h h a d c ra c k re s id u e o n it. ® A lth o u g h th e m e re p re se n c e o f th e se tw o m e n w ith A b d u n a f i in th e v a n is in su f

f icie n t to pr ove a c ons pi r acy , thr ee w i tnes s es t es t i fi ed thattw o m en w er e as s oci at ed w i th A bdunafi a n d h is d ru g o p e ra tio n a t th e S u p e r 8 M o tel a s w e ll. A c c o rd in g to K im M c G ra w , A b d u n a f i su m m o n e d tw o y o u n g m e n to b rin g h im p o w d e r c o c a in e f

ro m a n e a rb yro o m a t th e S u p e r 8 M o tel to su p p lyto o n e o f h is cus t om er s . M cG r aw al s o t es t i fi ed thats he obs erved A bdunafi s el l i ng cr ack f r om the m ot el . Fur therm or e, M cG r aw and K i m ber l yD oy l e t es t i fi ed thatw hen A bdunafi w as not ar ound, he di r ect ed them t o pur chas e mar i j uana orpow dercoca i ne fr om thos e s ame m en atthe mot el . Si m i l ar l y , T abetha M ahnke t es t i fi ed thats he pur chas ed both pow dercoca i ne and cr ack f

r om A bdunafi atthe Super8 M ot el and s he obs erved a ba g al m os tful l of cr ack. D oni el l e Lagabed t es t i fi ed thats he r emem ber ed bei ng atthe mot el w i th tw o m en and thats he gotcr ack a tthatl ocat i on. I n addi t i on t o t hi s gener al t es t i m onythatA bdunafi and tw o m en w er e di s tr i but i ng var i ous drugs fr om tw o r oom s atthe Super8 M ot el , ther e i s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat a t le a s t o n e o f

th e m e n a t th e m o te l w a s o n e o f th e m e n f

o u n d w ith A b d u n a f

i in th e v a n . B oth Sw ai n and anotherw i tnes s , C hr i s t i na Shotw el l , obs erved a man w i th s t i t ches att he Super8 M ot el , w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i th the des cr i pt i on of one of the men found by pol i ce i n the van.A bdunafi ar gues thatK i m M cG r aw ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the tw o m en atthe 2 S u p e r 8 M o tel re late d o n lyto p o w d e r c o c a in e a n d d id n o t in c lu d e c ra c k c o c a in e . T h is ar gum enti gnor es the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence thats ugges t s thatA bdunafi ’ s tw o y oung acc om pl i ces cons pi r ed w i th hi m t o s el l cr ack a nd pow dercoca i ne. 5 T a k in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t, w e f in d th a t a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e of c ons pi r acy b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See J acks on , 443 U . S. at319. A bdunafi w as found i n the van w i th tw o m en and c r ack- pr oduci ng par aphernal i a; tw o m en meet i ng a s i m i l ar des cr i pt i on w er e i nvol ved i n drug tr ans act i ons atthe Super8 M ot el ; and A bdunafi w as s e l l i n g c r a c k o u to f

th e mo t e l . F r o m th e s e f a c t s i tc a n b e l o g i c a l l yi n f e rr e d th a tth e s a me tw o m en w er e i nvol ved i n al l i ns t ance s and thattheyand A bdunafi s har ed a uni tyof p u rp o se to d istrib u te c ra c k , an in ten t to a c h iev e a c o m m o n g o a l, an d a n a g re e m e n t to w o rk to g e th e r t o w a rd th a t g o a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 1 9 0 F . 3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 2 T h e o th e r m e m b e rs o f

th e c o n s p ir a c yn e e d n o t b e s p e c if ic a lly id e n tif

ie d , R ogers v. U ni t ed Stat es , 340 U . S. 367, 375 ( 1951) , and ther e i s s uffi ci entevi dence thatA bdunafi “had a n agr eementw i th s om eone – a ny one” i n or dert o m eetthe r equi r ement s of a c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e . U

n itedS ta tes v . O b ia lo , 23 F. 3d 69, 73 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . A l though t he juryw as n o t r eq u ir ed to f ind that the tw o y o u n g m en fo u n d w ith A b d u n af i i n the v an w ere th e s a m e a s h is a c c o m p lic e s in th e S u p e r 8 M o te l, it w a s re a s o n a b le f o r t h e ju ry to s o f

in d .B eca us e A bdunafi di d notm ove fora j udgm entof ac qui t t al on thi s char ge i n t he 3 D is tr ic t C o u rt , w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. See U

nited S tates v. G rasso , 381 F. 3d 160, 166 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , U ni t ed Stat es v. Sant os , 128 S. C t . 2020 (2 0 0 8 ); F ED . R. C IV . P. 29. 6 A c c o rd in g ly , the e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t to c o n v ict A b d u n a f i f o r c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te cr ack. III . A bdunafi al s o chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence r egar di ng hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e drugs ( C ountI V ) . T hi s convi ct i on w as pr emi s ed 3 o n a f in d in g th a t A b d u n a f

i co n stru c tiv e lyp o ss e ss e d d ru g s f o u n d a t th e re sid e n c e o f h is cou si n, W i l l i am R ob bins. U pon s ear chi ng R obbi ns ’ s r es i dence , pol i ce di s cover ed 645. 5 gr ams of pow der c o c a in e , 5 .4 g ra m s o f

c ra c k , a n d 3 0 .5 g ra m s o f h e ro in , a lo n g w ith e m p ty Z ip lo c b a g s , a ® di gi t al s cal e, and a gl as s j arof cutt i ng agent s . T he bags found i n the R obbi ns r es i dence m a tch e d Z ip lo c b a g s s e ize d f ro m th e S u p e r 8 M o tel. R o b b in s te stif ied th a t th e d ru g s d id ® no tbelong to him and that he di d n ot know ho w the d rugs got there. R ob bins al so t es t i fi ed thathe gave A bdunafi a keyt o hi s r es i dence and thatA bdunafi keptcl othes ther e. B es i des A bdunafi , onl yR obbi ns , hi s m other , and fa ther - i n- l aw had ac ces s t o the hom e. In a d d iti o n to R o b b in s, K im M c G ra w tes tifie d th a t sh e a c c o m p a n ied A b d u n a f i to R o b b ins’s reside n ce o n m u lt iple o cc asio n s, stat ing : “I w o u ld ca ll h im , an d h e w o u ldn ’tC o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n m a yb e p ro v e d b yc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See U ni t ed 4 Stat es v. B obb, 4 7 1 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A b d u n af

i al so ch all en g es f

o r th e f ir st t im e o n ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u ry 5 in stru c tio n re g a rd in g c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n , arg u in g th a t th e trial ju d g e m iss tate d its r equi r ement s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yexpl ai ned the r equi r ement s forcons truct i ve p o s s e s s io n w h ile c a u tio n in g th e ju ry th a t “ m e re ly b e in g p re s e n t a t th e s c e n e o f a c ri m e . . . i s nots uffi ci entconductt o fi nd thatM r . A bdunafi comm i t t ed thatcr i m e. ” W e fi nd no e rro r a t all, m u c h les s a n e rro r th a t “w a s s o f u n d a m e n tal a n d h ig h lyp re ju d icia l as to cons t i tut e pl ai n err or . ” B e n n is v . G a b le , 823 F. 2d 723, 727 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( quot at i on m ark s o m itted). 7 have a nythi ng, and he w oul d pi ck me up and he w oul d s t op ther e. . . . H e w oul d j us tget outof the ca rand go i ns i de. ” She then t es t i fi ed thatA bdunafi w oul d r eturn m i nut es l at er w i th pow dercoca i ne forher . T hi s happene d on thr ee oc cas i ons . A ddi t i onal l y , M cG r aw t es t i fi ed thats he s aw A bdunafi us e a bl ack di gi t al s cal e, w hi ch s he l at eri dent i fi ed as bel ongi ng t o A bdunafi aft eri tw as s ei zed ove rthe ce i l i ng t i l es al ongs i de the drugs i n the R obbi ns r es i dence . I n l i ghtof thi s t es t i m ony , a j urycoul d r eas onabl ydeduce that A bdunafi had know l edge of the drugs and exe r ci s ed s uffi ci entdom i ni on and contr ol over th e m to e s ta b lis h c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. I

af el i ce , 978 F. 2d 92, 96 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). 4 A r eas onabl e j urybel i evi ng thi s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence “and the i nfer ence s l ogi cal l ydeduci bl e ther efr om i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

cN e ill , 8 8 7 F .2 d 4 4 8 , 4 4 9 -5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ), co u ld f in d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthatA bdunafi cons truct i vel ypos s es s ed the drugs atR obbi ns ’ s hom e w i th the i nt ent t o d i s tr i b u t e th e m. 58 I V. A bdunafi ’ s fi nal s uffi ci encyof the evi dence chal l enge r egar ds hi s convi ct i on for c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s tr i b u t e a tl e a s t5 0 0 g r a ms o f c o c a i n e ( Co u n tI ) . T h i s i n v o l v e s two s epar at e i nqui r i es : ( 1) w hethera cons pi r acyexi s t ed t o di s tr i but e coc ai ne; and ( 2) the w eigh t of

the c o ca ine in q u esti o n . T h ese inq u ir ies co rresp o n d to o u r find ing s in P arts II an d III . I n Par tI I I , w e conc l uded thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h that A bdunafi cons truct i vel ypos s es s ed the drugs found i n the R obbi ns t ow nhous e. T he t es t i m onyof M cG r aw r egar di ng herm ul t i pl e vi s i t s t o the r es i dence and heri dent i fi cat i on of the bl ack di gi t al s cal e w er e s uffi ci entfora j uryt o fi nd thatA bdunafi knew of the drugs l ocat ed i n t hatr es i dence and exe r ci s ed the r equi s i t e domi ni on and contr ol over th e m . See I

af el i ce , 978 F. 2d at96. T her efor e, w e det erm i ned thatthe evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o fi nd thatA bdunafi cons truct i vel ypos s es s ed the 645. 5 gr ams of coc ai ne s ei zed a tthe R obbi ns r es i dence . Fur therm or e, a j urycoul d have r eas onabl ydeduce d thatthes e drugs w er e partof a l ar gercons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne. A s di s cus s ed i n Par tI I , M cG r aw t es t i fi ed that A bdunafi s um m oned tw o y oung m en atthe Super8 M ot el t o br i ng hi m pow dercoca i ne fr om a nea rbyr oom t o s uppl yt o one of hi s cus t om er s . A ddi t i onal l y , M cG r aw and K im b e rlyD o y le te stif

ied th a t w h e n A b d u n a f

i w a s n o t ar o u n d , h e d ire c ted th e m to p u r c h a s e d ru g s , i n c l u d i n g p o w d e rc o c a i n e , f r o m th o s e s a m e m e n a tth e m o t e l . F i n a l l y,9

the bags found i n t he R obbi ns r es i dence m at ched Superm an Zi pl oc bags s ei zed f r om t he ® Super8 M ot el , l eadi ng t o a l ogi cal i nfer ence thatthe drugs and par aphernal i a found a tt he R o b b in s re sid e n c e w e re c o n n e c ted to A b d u n a f i’s a c tiv iti e s a t th e m o tel. T h e G o v ern m en t nee d n o t pro v e tha t th e o ther m em b ers o f th e c o n sp ir ac yw ere ever presentatthe R ob bins t ow nh ou se i n o rdert o p rove a co nspir acyi nv olvi ng these drugs . T her e i s s uffi ci entci r cumst ant i al evi dence thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd a

“ lo g ica l an d c o n v in c in g c o n n e c tio n ” b e tw e e n th e d ru g s A b d u n a f i co n stru c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e d a t th e to w n h o u s e a n d th e a c tiv itie s a t th e m o te l. McN e ill , 8 8 7 F .2 d a t 4 4 9 -5 0 . A ccor di ngl y , a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatA bdunafi part i ci pat ed i n a cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e atl eas t500 gr ams of coc ai ne. V. A bdunafi al s o chal l enges hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by i m pos i ng a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforobs truct i on of j us t i ce unde rU . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. Fi ve hour s aft erpol i ce t ook A bdunafi i nt o cus t odyfol l ow i ng the van s t op, A b d u n a f i w a s tra n sp o rte d to th e L a c k a w a n n a C o u n tyP riso n . A s th e tra n sp o rt v e h icle ent er ed the conf

i nes of the pr i s on, A bdunafi br oke fr ee f r om hi s r es tr ai nt s and es cape d fr om the vehi cl e. H e w as found 90 m i nut es l at erabouta mi l e fr om the fa ci l i ty . A bdunafi c o n ten d s th a t h e w a s n o t y e t in c u sto d yw h e n h e f led f ro m th e p o lice a n d h is b e h a v io r is m or e appr opr i at el ycl as s i fi ed as “avoi di ng orfl eei ng arr es t ” w hi ch does notw arr antan e n h a n c e m e n t. See U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 5( d) . W e di s agr ee.10

U n lik e th e c a se s c ited b yA b d u n a f i in w h ich th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a rre st w a s s til l in p ro g re s s , U

ni t ed Stat es v. D r aves , 103 F. 3d 1328 ( 7th C i r . 1997) , orhad noty etoccurr ed, U ni t ed Stat es v. Str oud , 893 F. 3d 504 ( 2d C i r . 1990) , A bdunafi had bee n i n pol i ce cus t odyforfi ve hour s ; an arr es thad bee n acc om pl i s hed and a s t at e of l egal cus t odyhad b e g u n . S e e Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 1 5 2 F . 3 d 2 9 4 , 3 0 4 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A b d u n af i’ s w i l l ful att empt t o es cape fr om thatcus t odyi n or dert o obs tructj us t i ce w arr ant ed hi s t w op o in t en h a n c e m e n t. V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.