UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 09-4104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSEPH M. KING, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr00026-FPS-JES-2) 

Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Elgine H. McArdle, Wheeling, West Virginia; Brendan S. Leary, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellants. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, John C. 

Parr, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 A jury convicted Shawndale D. Saunders and Joseph M. 

King of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to 

distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district court sentenced 

Saunders to 100 months in prison. King received an eighteenmonth prison sentence. Both appeal, challenging the sufficiency 

of the evidence. Saunders also challenges the district court’s 

admission of rebuttal evidence about his banking records. King 

contends that the district court erred by granting the 

Government’s for-cause strike to remove King’s uncle from the 

jury panel. We affirm. 

 This case arose from the postal delivery of a package 

containing 9.65 pounds of marijuana to a house on McColloch 

Street in Wheeling, West Virginia. The package, which had a 

fictitious Arizona return address, was addressed to Michael 

Tompkins at the McColloch Street address. It was mailed March 

27, to arrive the next day. Postal agents in Arizona suspected 

the package contained contraband and alerted their counterparts 

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Law enforcement officials in 

Pittsburgh received the package and opened it, finding the 

marijuana tightly packed and concealed in a plastic container. 

After examining the package, postal authorities repacked the 

3 
marijuana1 and set up a controlled delivery to the McColloch 

Street address. At the time of the delivery, no one was living 

at the house. The owner, Crystal Smith, was allowing Saunders 

to renovate the house in exchange for an eventual discount on 

the rent. Saunders had shoes, dry-cleaned clothes, and receipts 

in the house. 

 Saunders and King arrived at the house on the 

afternoon of March 28 and checked the mailbox. Finding it 

empty, the two left and immediately returned after driving past 

a postal truck. King then signed a false name to receive the 

package of marijuana, with Saunders in the room. King carried 

the package to the basement. As King began opening the package, 

a beeper alerted law enforcement officials, who entered to 

execute an anticipatory search warrant. During their search, 

the agents discovered, among other things, a digital scale, and 

bank records belonging to Saunders. The agents arrested 

Saunders, who had with him over $1600 in cash. During a second 

sweep of the home, the authorities found King hiding in the 

darkened basement, near the package of marijuana. On this 

evidence, as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses, the 

jury convicted King and Saunders, who now appeal. 

 1

 The authorities were only able to put seven pounds of 

marijuana back in the container. 

4 
 “A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507 

F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1690 

(2008). This court reviews such a challenge by determining 

whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States 

v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v. 

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We review both direct 

and circumstantial evidence, and we accord the Government all 

reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be 

established. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th 

Cir. 2008). 

 In order to prove aiding and abetting the possession 

with intent to distribute marijuana, the Government must show 

the Defendants: (1) possessed marijuana, (2) had knowledge of 

the possession, and (3) intended to distribute the marijuana. 

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 

195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999). 

 Viewing the evidence and drawing inferences most 

favorable to the Government, a reasonable juror certainly could 

have found the Defendants guilty. Direct and circumstantial 

evidence supported the allegation that Saunders and King 

expected to receive a package containing marijuana at the 

5 
McCulloch Street house on March 28, and that they intended to 

distribute the marijuana within. Defendants presented testimony 

to counter this evidence. King claimed he did not know what was 

in the package, but simply hoped to steal some clothing. King 

also claimed Saunders was in the bathroom when the package 

arrived. King further testified that the two returned to the 

house because Saunders had to use the restroom, not because they 

spotted the mail truck. But clearly, the jury could have chosen 

to discount this self-serving testimony.2

 Saunders also claims the court erred in admitting 

rebuttal testimony about his banking records. We review the 

district court’s decision to admit rebuttal evidence for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2003). At trial, Saunders accounted for his income by 

offering testimony from an insurance agent, who stated that 

Saunders had money from a personal injury claim. The Government 

rebutted this testimony by resort to Saunders’ bank records. 

The Government’s rebuttal evidence was both relevant and 

 2

 The Defendants rely on United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 

1091 (4th Cir. 1984), in support of their assertion that the 

evidence was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to the 

marijuana. The case at hand, however, involves significantly 

more evidence that the Defendants were knowing participants in 

the receipt of contraband. 

6 
7 

properly introduced. Thus, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in permitting the jury to consider it. 

 King also challenges the district court’s decision to 

strike his uncle from the venire. A reviewing court will not 

overturn a trial judge’s decision to remove a juror for cause 

absent a “manifest abuse of . . . discretion.” Poynter v. 

Ratcliff, 874 F.2d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court 

struck King’s uncle after the uncle said that a guilty verdict 

might upset his wife and his sister-in-law. Given the close 

family relationship and the risk King’s uncle could not be 

impartial, the district court did not err. 

 We affirm Saunders’ and King’s convictions and 

sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED