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: 10a0778n.06 No. 07-3303 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. EDWARD JAC KSON, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COUR T F O R THE NO RT HER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: M OORE, SU TTON and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. Def endant Edwar d J ackson was found guilty of attempting to possess 100 kilogra

ms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute it. Although the evidenc e of Jackson’s intent to possess the marijuana was thi n—as t he poli ce inter rupted the tra

nsaction and

arr ested Jackson befor e he a ctually possessed it—the tri al co u rt denied Jackson’s motion for judgme nt of ac quittal. After the jury returne d its guilty

verdic t, the trial court a lso denied Jackson’s motion for new tria l or judg ment o f ac quittal, notwiths tanding newly discovere d evidenc e that an informant had g iven fa lse testimony . On appe al, J ackson c halleng es both of these ruling s. For the

rea sons that follow, we find no error and ther efor e af

firm the judg ment as we ll as the denial of the motion for new tria l.No. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 2 -

I. BACKG ROUND On Marc h 26, 2005, Ar n ulfo Quintana, a self-e mploy ed truc k driver, w as en r oute from Tucson, Ar izona to C leveland, O hio with a load of Celotex insul ati o n on his flatbed tra iler, whe n he stopped at a rest are a near Emporia, Kansa s. There he enc ountere d law enf orce ment officia ls who

wer e che cking an irre g ularity in his trailer re g istration number. When his load was subjected to a dog -sniff inspec tion, Quintana admitted that marijuana was c oncea led in the insul at i o n. He

e xpla ine d that Cle ve land wa s his de sti natio n and he a g re e d to c oo pe ra te wi th the p ol ice in perf orming a contr olled delivery

. Authoriti es i n C l ev eland we re a lerted. Police stake d out the identified wa rehouse are a on Aurora Road in Warrensvil l e Heig hts (just southeast of Cleveland) on Ma rch 27, 2005, Ea ster Sunday . I n the ea

rly eveninghours, just before dusk, office rs observed t wo v eh icles, a Chevr olet Suburban and a

Chevrolet Tra ilblazer, arr ive tog ether at the wa rehouse at 20905 Auror a, which w as subdivided into ga

rag es. Their drivers, two A frica n-Amer ican male s, pulled the vehicle s into one of the g ar a g e s . A p p r o xi m a t e l y f i f t e e nm i n u t e s l a t e r , t h e y

l e f t , e a c h i na

s e p ar a t e v e h i c l e . T e nto fiftee n minutes later, off

icer s obs er v ed the a

rrival of Quintana’ s red se mi-truck and tr ailer at the

same wa rehouse . He pa

rked it par allel to t h e wa

rehouse . Approxim ately

five minutes later , two additional vehicles a

rrived, the same Trailblazer and Suburban that had just de parte d, eac h driven by an African- Americ an male. E dwar d J ackson w as the drive r of the T railblazer; the Suburba n was driven by J ackson’ s fr i en d , Ernest Matthew s. Offic ers obse rved Matthews open the door to the

war ehouse g ara g e and the n both men met brief l y wi th Quintana. The n, as Matthews e ntere d the g ara g e to look for plier s, J ackson be g an helpingQuintana loosen the canva s straps s ecuring theNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 3 - pallets of insulation to the trailer. A t this point, beca use i t was ge tting dark, the observingoffice rs moved in to arre st the suspects. Matthews a nd J ackson “ moved r at her r apidly ” or “ ran” into the

war ehouse g ara g e, whe re the y wer e appr ehende d and plac ed under arr est. Concea led within the tallest load of insulation, the office rs discovere d 39 bales c ontaining 74 9 po u n d s o f

m ar i j u an a . U p o nar

r e s t i n g M a t t h e w s , t h e y

f o u n d o v e r $ 3 , 2 0 0 i nc u r

r e n c y o nh is person, in addition to some $500 near him. I n the Tra ilblazer, driven by J ackson, of

fice rs found a quantity of two-g allon siz ed plastic stora g e bag s and three rolls of con t ac t paper . DEA Spec ial Ag e nt Wi ll iam L epp la , o ne of the of fi c e rs wh o p art ic ipate d in the surv e ill anc e and

arr e sts , rec og nized, based on his experience in drug traff icking investigations, that such storag e bag s are commonly

used to repa ckag e quantities of marijuana

. L eppla also observe d that the contac t paper found in the Tra ilblazer was similar to that in which the bale s of marijuana wer e wr apped. Jac ks on and Matth e ws we re su bs equ ent ly c ha rg e d in the No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Oh io wi th knowing ly

and intentionally

attempting to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilogra ms or more of a mixt ure or substance containing a detectable amount of m arijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 841( b)(1) (B ), and 846. Ajury trial commenc ed on September 13, 2005. I n a dd iti on

to t he a bo ve fa c ts, wh ic h w e re e sse nti a lly un dis pu te d, th e gove rnme nt’ s c a se inc lud e d Q uin tana ’s te sti mony (w ith the a id of an in te rp re te r) e xpla ini ngthat he ha d b e e n h ir e d in Tucson by

one Martin Guzman to transport the marijuana to Cleve land for $25,000. When Quintana enter ed into the agr eeme nt in mid-Marc h, Guzman was accompa nied by an Af

rica n-Amer ican man, identified by

Guzman as “the boss.” Quintana wa s told that “the boss, ” wh o Qu i n t ana only saw briefly in the passeng er se at of Guzman’s ve hicle, would be in Cleve land to meet h i m . QuintanaNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 4 - ide nti fi e d th is m an, wh o w a s in fa c t pr e se nt t o r e c e ive de liv e ry in Cle ve land , as Er ne st M a tth e ws , J ackson’ s co -def

endant. On c ross-examination, Quintana denie d ever having been to the Aurora Road war ehouse be fore ; said he did not know it was a mobil e wa sh business; denied having been in Cleveland in Fe bruar

y or ear ly Marc h of 2005; but admitted being in Cleve land in J anuar y 2005, when his truck br oke down on the w ay to Phil adelphia. Fur ther, DEATask F orce Offi ce r J am aal Ansa ri testified that the da

y afte r Matthews w as

arr e ste d, Matth e ws a c kn ow le dg e d h a vin g be e n in Tu c so n, bu t de nie d g oin g t here to ma ke a de a l. Ansari’ s testimony

was followe d by introduction of a stipulation that Americ a West Airlines rec ords showed Matthew s depar

ting Cleve land for L as Veg as on Marc h 1, 2005 and re turning to Cleveland from L as Ve g as in the ea

rly morning hours of Mar ch 14, 2005. At the c los e of the g ov e rnme nt’ s c a se in c hie f, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e def end ant s’ motions for judgme nt of ac quittal. For the de fe n s e, n ei t h er defe ndant took the stand. Gre g ory Robitson t estified that he ha d been e mploy ed by J ackson at his mobi le wash business that ope rate d out of the Auror a Road wa rehouse fro m M arch 2004 to May 2005. He r emember ed havingonce washe d a red semi-truck dr iven by a man with a strongacc ent, but Robitson di d not know the make of the truc k. Chantay Robinson, Matthews’ aunt, testified that she ha d been in L as Ve g as with Matthews and other s Marc h 10-13, 2005, having flown back on the s ame flight as Matthews late on the 13th. Robinson also testified t hat s he had rente d the Tra ilblazer J ackson ha d driven to the wa rehouse from E n t e r p r i s e R e n t
- A

- C ar

i nF e b r u ar y. R o b i n s o nw a s h o s t i n g a f a m i l y g a t h e r i n g o n E a s t e r S u n d a y; Matthews and Jackson we re both gue sts. At some point, R obinson told Matthews to take theNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 5 - Tr a ilb la zer

to Ja c ks on ’s mob ile was h for a thor ou g h c le anin g , b e c a us e it w a s to be re tur

ne d to Enterpr ise the next day . Robinson ex plained t h at s he used the plastic storag e bag s found in the Trailblazer to store frozen foods. The rolls of contact paper , she explained, wer e used f or var ious household projec ts. Dar tany an Thompson was the owner of the Suburban. H e wa s at Robinson’s for Easter dinne r, too
. He te sti fi e d that a t a bo ut 6:3 0 p. m., he dr ov e ov e r to the Auro ra Roa d w are ho us e , w ith Jac ks on a c c omp anyinghim

in t he Tr a ilb la zer , to loo k at so me mot or c y c le p art s and som e mob ile

wa shc le anin g e qu ipm e nt t hat Jac ks on

ha d th e re . T his t oo k 15 -20 minute s; the n th e y re tur ne d to Robinson’s. L ater , Thompson testified, M atthews borrowed Thompson’s Suburban and drove aw ay with J ackson, w ho drove the Trailblazer a g ain. F ina lly , M a tth e ws ’ g ir lf

ri e nd Cy nth ia Ha rr is te sti fi e d ab ou t the tr ip the y ha d tak e n, fl y ingto L a s V e g a s o n M arc h 1 , a

nd dr ivi ng to L os An g e le s, Pho e nix, T uc so n, and the n b a c k to L a s V e g a s, befor e re turning to Cleveland in the early morning hours of Marc h 14. Apar t from a two- and-a -halfhour per iod in Phoenix on Marc h 7, when Ha rris had a job interview with Amer ican Express, she said she and Matthews wer e constantly toge ther: they arr ived in T ucson late on the 7th and lef t for L as Ve g as on the morning of the 9th. H arr is’s testimony tended to impug n Quintana’ s testimony that Matthews wa s prese nt when he me t with Guzm an in mid-Marc h. I n his c los ing argume nt, Jac ks on ’s c ouns e l argue d th a t Q uin tana wa s n ot a re lia ble wi tne ss and that the g overnme nt’s case , short on corr oborating evidenc e, lef t t oo many

questions

unanswe red. H e ins isted the gover nment had failed to prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that J ackson was guilty

of the c rime cha

rg ed.No. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

Matth e ws ’ a

pp e a l f ro m th e se ve ry

same ru lin g s, imp lic a tin g iss ue s n e arl y ide nti c a l to tho se 1 here raised by

J ackson, w as re

j ecte d by another panel of this court on October

21, 2008. United Sta te s v . M att he ws , 298 F. App’ x 460 (6th Cir. 2008). J ackson’ s appea l, although or igina lly filed at a

bout the same time as Matth ew s ’, wa s neg lected f

or two y ear s, having been d i s m i s s ed fo r wa nt of prosec ution in April 2007, and then reinstated in Ma

rch 2009. - 6 - The jury beg an deliber ating on Sept em b er 1 6 , 2005, and re sumed on September 19, w hen they returne d their verdicts, finding both defe ndants g uilty as cha rg ed. B oth defe ndants moved for

ne w t ri a l or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , f

or jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l. O ve r th e nex t sever a l mo nth s, the se motions wer e suppl emented and full y briefe d, befor e the district court c onducted a hear ing on the motions on May

31, 2006, and then r ece ived furthe r pos t -h earing briefs. F inally , on October 23, 2006, the district court iss u ed i t s opinion deny ing the motions for new trial or for judg ment of acquittal. J ackson w as sentenc ed on F ebrua ry 21, 2007. The court imposed the mandator y minimum prison term of 60 months. On appeal, J ackson challeng es t he dis trict court’s denials of his motion for judg ment of ac quittal and motion for new trial, rea sserting the same arguments the district court reje cted. 1 II. AN AL YSI S A. Suf fi ciency of Evid ence 1. Stan dard of Revie w The district cour

t’s denial of Jackson’s motion for judgme nt of acquittal is reviewe d de novo. United States v. Kuehne , 5 4 7 F.3d 667, 677 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Yet, to preva il on this claim that the g overnme nt’s proofs we re insuff icient t o sustain the conviction, J ackson must bea r a “ heavyNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 7 - burden.” United States v. Graham , 622 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2010). I n revie wing the suffic iency of the e vidence challeng e, we “examine the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the g overnme nt and dra w all infer ence s in the g overnme nt’s fa vor in order to determine w hether

any rational trier of fa ct could have found the elements of t he offense be y ond a re asonable doubt.” United States v. Torres-Ramos , 536 F.3d 542, 556 ( 6th Cir. 2008). “This analy sis doe s not r equire the re moval of

ever y hy pothesis except that of g uilt.” Id. Be ca u s e t h e i s s u e i s o n e o f l ega l s u ff i ci en cy , we ar e n o tp er m i t t edt o i n d ep en d en t l y we i gh the evidence or

judge the cr edibility

of witnesses. Un ite d S

tat es v . H owa rd , 6 21 F .3 d 4 33 , 4 60 (6 th Cir. 2010). For

the cour t of appe als to assess witness cre dibilit y would be to i mpermissibly “invade the province of the jury as the sole finder of fac t in a jury trial.” Graham , 622 F.3d a t 449

. (quoting United States v. Be arden , 2 74 F .3 d 1 03 1, 10 39 (6 th Cir . 200 1) ). An a tta c k o n w itn e ss c re dib ili ty is a cha lleng e to “the qua lity of the g overnme nt’s evidenc e and not the sufficie ncy of the e vidence .” Id. (q u o t i n g United States v. Paige , 470 F.3d 603, 608 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). 2. Me rit s I n denying defe ndants’ mot ions for judgment of acquittal as a matter of l aw, the district court

e xpla ine d w hy

the pr oo fs , v ie we d in

the lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the pr os e c uti on , w e re su ff ic ie nt t o

su sta in t he c on vic tio ns : I n short, the Gover

nment prese nted evidenc e that (1) the def endants a ppear ed at the g ara g e in pre paration for the ar rival of the se mi-tractor t ra i l er ; (2) the se mi-tractor trailer a rrived at the desti nation; (3) the defe ndants ag ain appeare d shortly afte r the arr ival of the semi-tra ctor tra iler; (4) the de fenda nts held a discussion with the driver of the semi-tra ctor tra i l er ; (5 ) J ackson appea red to a ssist wit h the re moval of the marijuana from the se mi-tractor

trailer; and (6) the de fenda nts had in their possession items util ized in drug tra fficking . Moreove r, the G o v ernme nt presente d theNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 8 - te sti mony of Qu int ana tha t su g g e sted th at Matth e ws ha d a pp e are d in

Ar izon a wi th the alleg ed sourc e of the marijuana sever al wee k ear lier. R

. 1 8 5 , M em o ra n d

u m Op i n i o n an d Or d er p . 2 8

. T h e co u rt we n t o n t o ex p l a i n t h a t a l t h o u gh defe ndants had identified disc repa ncies a nd inconsistencies in the testimony of var ious gove rnment witnesses, “a

rational juror

could conc lude beyond a re asonable doubt that J ackso n ’ s a n d M a tthe ws’s independe nt conduct, whe n viewed obje ctively , unequivoca lly corr oborate s their individual and subjective intent to commit the crime a s char g ed.” Id. at 29. J ackson insists the district court er red. H e maintains there was no proof that he attempted to knowingly

possess the marijuana

and no evide nce tha

t he knew the car g o lo ad ed on the tra iler contained ma

rijuana. While ac knowledg ing that the jurors ar e allowe d to dr a w r e a s o n a b le infere nces from the c ircumstantial evidenc e, Jackson argues t hat t heir verdict cannot leg itimately be base d on

mere speculation. J ackson is rig ht: his m ere prese nce at the scene of a c rime does not establish guilt. See Parker v. Renico , 5 0 6 F

. 3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 2 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. N o r , i t m u s t b e c o n c e d e d , i s t h e r e an y direct evidenc e that he w as aw are of the pre sence of the mar ijuana on the tra iler. To sustain the cha

rg e, the g overnme nt was re quired to prove bey ond a reasonable doubt, as the distr i ct court a cknowledg ed, that Jackson intentionally took an over

t act that constituted a substantial step toward knowing ly pos s essi ng marijuana

with intent to dis tribute it. That J ackson too k a n o ve rt a c t to ward e xer c isi ngdo min ion ov e r t he c arg o c on ta ini ngthe mari jua na is substantiated b y L ep p l a’s testimony that he obser

ved Jackson helping Quintana try to remove the

car g o from the tra iler. That J ackson intended to distribute the marijuana ma y be re asonably

inferr edNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 9 - from the lar g e quantity

of marijuana

involved. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . W e tts tai n , 6 1 8 F. 3 d 5 7 7 , 587 (6th Cir. 2010). Henc e, the c ritical question posed in this c ase is whether the circ umstantial evidence pr e se nte d b y

the g ov e rnme nt, vie we d in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the g ov e rnme nt, is su ff ic ie nt t o

war rant the conclusion by a rational jury that J ackson knew m arijuana was concea led i n the ca rg o. Whil e circ umstantial e vidence g iving r ise to rea sonable infe renc es ca n support a convic tion, “re asonable speculation” is not sufficient evidence. Se e Ne wm an v . M e tri sh , 5 43 F .3 d 7 93 , 7 96 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) ; Parker , 506 F.3d at 452. But her e, in the rationale quoted above , the district court i d en t i fi eds i x i t em s o f e v i d en ce t h at s u p p o rt a r ea s o n ab l e i n fe re n ce t h at J ac k s o nkn ew t h e c ar go

c on ta ine d ma

ri jua na . D e fe nd ants pr e se nte d e vid e nc e te nd ingto o ff e r i nn oc e nt e xplanatio ns fo r t he ir pr e se nc e a t th e g ara g e on Ea ste r S unda

y e ve nin g wh e n th e tr

uc k lo a d o f i ns ulatio n h a pp e ne d to

arr ive, and for their possession of materia ls c ommonly used in dr ug traff icking . Yet, in re viewing the suffic iency

of the e vidence , we a

re oblig ed to dra

w all reasonable inf

ere nces in fa

vor of the g overnme nt. Moreover , sever al of the f actor s pointing toward culpability have not been met by any innocent explanation. For instance, de fenda n t s ’ appar ently rea dy willingness to coope rate with a strang er in re ceivingdelivery of and he lping to unloa d an unexpected tr uckload of

new c onstruction i n s u l a t i o nm a t e r i a l s a t a

m o b i l e w a s h b u s i n e s s o nE a s t e r S u n d ay i s u n u s u a l an d

y e tu n e x p l a i n e d

. In this respec t, J ackson’ s conduct at the scene appea rs t o be inconsist ent wit h the defense story that he and Matthew s took a break from the Easter cele bration at Chantay Robinson’s home simpl y to do her the favor

of cle aning her r ental vehic le. Also unexplained is J ackson’ s hasty retre at into the g ara g e wh e n the po lic e of fi c e rs c a me ou t of hid ing

. Hi s re a c tio n to th e e me rg e nc e of the po lic e is inconsistent with his professed innoce nce. See B rown v. Palmer , 441 F.3d 347, 352 (6th Cir. 2006).No. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 10 - Of c ourse, Jackson has no burde n to prove his innocenc e and no a d v erse infere nce c an be draw n from his dec ision not t o testify . Yet, whe ther the c ircumstantial evidenc e supports (a)

“ re a so na ble inf e re nc e ” po int ing to g uil t, or (b ) on ly “ re a so na ble sp e c ulatio n” a

bo ut t he po ssi bil ity of guilt, i s a

d e te r mi n a ti o nth a t c le ar ly

r e qu ir e s a

“ c o mm o ns e n s e ” a s s e s s me n t— th e s o rt of assessment the jury

was inst ructe d to make—of the pl ausibility of various infere nces that might be draw n from the known fac ts. Making this common sense assessment of a ll the known circ umstances compels the conclusion that the j ury ’s findi ng that J ackson kne w of the pr esenc e of the marijuana

wa s th e pr od

uc t of re a so na

ble inf e re nc e , n ot m e re sp e c ulatio n. F or the re a so ns c le arl y

se t f or th i n the district court’s opinion , t h e j u ry ’s ver dict was prope rly found to be supporte d by sufficie nt evidenc e. This re asoning was adopted by another Six th Circuit panel in relation to the conviction of Jackson’s co-de fenda

nt Matthews. Se e Ma tth e ws , 298 F. App’x at 465. J ackson ha s g iven us no persua sive rea son to depart f rom that rea soning in this case . Acc ordi n gl y , we find no err or in the district court’s de nial of the motion for judg ment of ac quittal. B. Denial of

Motion for New Trial 1. Stan dard of Revie w The district c ourt’s denial of J ackson’ s motion for new trial based o n n ew l y d iscovere d evidenc e is revie wed f

or abuse of discre tion. United States v. Olende r , 338 F .3 d 629 , 6 35 -3 6 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Motions for new tria l based on ne wly discovere d ev i d en ce a

re disfa vored a nd the district c ourt’s ruling should not be disturbed unless it “clea rly abused its discre tion.” United States v. Turns , 198 F .3 d 584 , 586 (6 th Cir . 200 0)

. “ A dis tr ic t cou rt c le arl y a

bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n it ‘applies the w rong leg al standar d, misapplies the corr ect leg al standar d, or re lies on clea rly err oneousNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 11 - finding s of fa ct.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Sc ha c hn e r v . Blu e Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ld , 77 F.3d 889, 895 ( 6th Cir. 1996)). The movant bear s the burden of demonstratingthat “(1) the evidenc e wa s discovere d afte r the trial, (2) it could not have been discovere d ear lier with due diligenc e, (3) it is m ater ial and not

mere ly cumulati v e o r i m peac hing, a nd (4) it would likely

produce an ac quittal if the case was retrie d.” Id. at 586-87. 2. Me rit s I n d e nyingde fe nd ants ’ m oti on s f or ne w tri a l, t

he dis trict c ourt

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t ne wl y discovere d evidenc e strong ly sug g ested that Quintana g ave f alse testimony

when he testified (a ) that he me t Mat the ws w i t h G u z m ani nT u c s o ni nm i d

- M ar c h 2 0 0 5 ; an d ( b ) t h a th e h a d

n o tb e e nto Cle ve land

in F e br ua ry or e arl y Ma

rc h 200 5. R. 185 , Mem or and um Op ini on

and Or de r p . 3 6. Ye t, the court observe d that Quintana’ s cre dibilit y in the se particula rs had alre ady

been de stroy ed. The court concluded that the newly discovere d evidenc e was “cumulative a nd impeaching .” Id. at 37. The c ourt found “the re w as substantial undisp u t ed ev i d en ce linking J ackson a nd Matthews to the marijuana such as their timely arr ivals to the g ara g e on Ea ster Sunday .” Id. at 38. The c ourt thus conclude d that the newly

discovere d evidenc e did not undermine c onfidenc e in the ver dict. Jac ks on c on te nd s th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa iled to p ro pe rl y

we ig h th e sig nif

ic anc e of the ne wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e . He ins ist s tha t Quin tana ha s now be e n expo se d as a pe rj ur e r an d c on te nd s th a t, without his t esti m o ny , the g overnme nt cannot mee t its burden of proof . The fa lsity

or inac cura cy in Quintana’s testimony is troubling

. But J ackson clea rly exagg erates the signific ance of Quintana ’s misstatements. That is, even a ssuming Quintana was wr ong about the date in March w hen he me t Guzman and ag ree d to transport the mar ijuana to Cleveland, the undisputed fac t is that Quintana didNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

Yes, the discove ry

that Quin t an a had be en to Cleveland in F ebrua ry and/or e arly

Marc h 2 could b e d ee m edt o b u t t re s s J ac k s o n ’s t h eo ry t h at Qu i n t an a ha d p re v i o u s l y b ee n t o J ac k s o n ’s gar age to h a ve his tr

uc k w a sh e d. An d s uc h a p ri or vis it c ou ld

have g iven rise to a f

amiliarity with the are a that Quintana c ou ld

have r elied on to identify the Aurora Road war ehouse as the marijuana delivery de sti natio n. Ye t, as the dis tr ic t court ob se rv e d, Jac ks on ’s the or y ha d pre c iou s littl e fa c tua l su pp or t. Acc e ptance of the notion that Quintana f alsely identified Jackson’s g ara g e as the delivery destination would still require pure speculation, whic h is ha rdly sufficie nt to undermine the re asonable infere nce that J ackson kne w what Quintana ’s load conta ined as he helped unf asten it from the tra iler. - 12 - tr an s p o rt t

h e ma r ij u an a to Cl e v e la

n d an d d e li v e r it to Ja c k s o n ’ s g ar a g e . A n d e v e na s s u mi n g “ the boss” whom Quintana e ncounter ed with Guzm an i n T u cs on was not in fac t Matthews, the undisputed fac t is that Matthew s and Jackson did arr ive at the ware house, in conc ert, shortly afte r Quintana arrived with the l oad of marijuana, a nd did appea r to coope rate with Quintana’s attempt to deliver his ca

rg o. And eve n assuming Quintana had in f act been to Cleve land in Febr uary and/or

ear ly Marc h, instead of or in a ddition to a visit in J anuar y , this inaccura cy

would appea

r to have been desig ned only

to conce al or diminis h Quintana’ s own involvement rathe r than to inculpate J ackson. Th a t is , th e fa c t tha t Quin tana ha d p re vio us ly c ome to t he Cle ve land

are a in F e br ua ry and /or e a rl y Marc h hardly tends to exonerate J ackson in relation to his own conduct as observed by the ar resting office rs on Marc h 27, 2005. 2 I n o ther wo rds , no ne of the ne wl y

dis c ov e re d r e ve la tio ns a lte r o r u nd e rm ine the six considerations identified by the district c ourt as re prese nting suff icient evidenc e justify ing the jury ’s

rea sonable infe renc e of Jackson’s guilt. The district court’s asse ssment that the newly discovere d evidenc e does not unde rmine conf idence in th e verdic t thus appear s to be sound and has not be en shown to be a c lear

abuse of discretion. In relation to co-defe ndant Matthews’ ident i cal ne w trial motion, another pane l o f

this c ourt aff

irmed the district cour

t’s conclusions that the new ly discovere dNo. 07-3303

United States v. J

ackson

- 13 - e vid e nc e was me re ly

c umu la tiv e and

imp e a c hin g and

wo uld no t ha ve re su lte d in

an a c qu itt a l. Ma tth e ws , 298 F. App’x at 466-67. Ag ain, t here is no rea son for us to re ach a differ ent conc lusion in this case. III . C ON CL USI ON Acc ording ly , we r ejec t both of J ackson’ s claims of er ror. We uphold the district co u rt’s de nia l of the mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l and

the jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n is AF F IR M ED

.