The Honora ble Thomas B. Russell, United States District J udg e for the Wester n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 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: 07a0316n.06 F iled: May 8, 2007 No. 05-6357 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. GI L BERT DA RREN SI MPS ON, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Before: ROG ERS an d GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and RUSSE LL, District Judge. * ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Gilbert Dar ren Simps on appea ls his conviction on ch ar ges of
c on sp ir a c y

to d istri bu te mari

jua na , d istri bu tio n o f m ari

jua na , a nd po sse ssi on

wi th t he int e nt t o distribute O x y Contin. First, Simps on alleg es that his indictment was the result o f v i n d ictive prosec ution and that the district court should have dismiss ed the indictment or, at least, conduc ted
an e vid e nti ary he ari ng on the a lle g a tio n. Se c on d, Simp so n a sse rt s that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b oth b y q u a s h in g Si mp s o n ’ s s u

bpoena of an Assistant United States Attorney and by prohibiting que stions ba se d on Simp so n’ s vin dic tiv e pr os e c uti on a lle g a tio n duri ng c ro ss- e xami natio n of a wi tn e ss.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 2 - Finally , Simps on challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence supporting a ll thre e o f t he counts on which he w as convic ted.
B e c a us e Simp son f

a ile d to e sta

bli shthat th e re wa s a

re a lis tic lik e lih oo d o f v ind ic tiv e ne ss, the district court did not err by denying Sim pson’s motion to di smiss t he indictment ag ainst him or by de nying Simp so n’ s re qu e st fo r an e vid e nti ary he ari ng on the vin dic tiv e ne ss a lle g a tio n. B e c a us e Simps on’s vindictive prosec ution claim was not rele vant to the issue of guilt o r i n n o ce nce, the dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s c or re c t to qu a sh the su

bp oe na of an AU SA a

nd to b ar q ue sti on s d ir e c tly

re la te d to the vindictiveness alleg ation at trial. F inally , Simps on’s suffic iency of the e vidence arguments lack merit. Acc ording ly , Simps on’s conviction on all thre e counts is af firmed.
I.
Un de r t he dir e c tio n o f K e ntu c ky

S ta te Pol ic e De te c tiv e Vi nc e Ke rs e y , a po lic e inf

or mant, Marty M i l l s , p urcha sed for $20 a bagcontaining marijuana from Gilber

t Darr en Simpson at Simps on’s home on Nove mber 14, 2003. An a dditional informant repo rt ed s eeing c ontrolled substances at Simpson’s residenc e on J une 4, 2004. On J une 18, 2004, the Kentuc ky State Police executed a se arc h war

rant on Simpson’s residenc e and se ized 143 Ox y Co n t i n 40 mg ta blets, 8 Oxy Contin

20 mg ta ble ts, 84 1 X ana x tab le ts, and $3 ,8 00 in c a sh . Si mps on was arres ted on s ta te drug char g es and r elea sed fr om custody afte r he posted a

proper ty bond.
I n Apr il 200 2, mor e tha

n tw o y e ars be fo re his arr e st, Simp so n h a d f ile d a c ivi l a c tio n a g a ins t Knox C ounty

J ailer Pre ston Sm ith alleg ing c ivi l ri gh t s violations. Sim ps on v . S mi th, e t al

. , No.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 3 - 4:02-cv-00075 ( W.D. Ky . Apr. 29, 2003) ( transfe rre d to the Easter n District of Kentucky , J une 03, 2002, Sim ps on v . S mi th , No
. 6 : 0 2 -cv- 298). Preston Smith i s the fathe r of Assistant United States Attor ne y Ste ph e n Sm ith
. I n No ve mbe r 20 02 , A USASmith w a s p re se nt f or an in te rv ie w w ithDa le L e wi s, a c on vic te d d

ru g de a le r w ho ha d e nte re d into a c oo pe ra tio n ag re e me nt wit

h the Un ite d St a te s. L e wi s to ld F re d B a ke r, a DEA a g e nt, that Sim ps on wa s a “ c us tom e r” to w ho m L e wi s h a d s old methamphetamine. Howeve r, Simps on’s name only appea rs in one notation in Ba

ker’ s i nterview notes, and t h er e wa s n o further investigation into S impson’s drug activity based on the 2002 interview w ith L ewis.
On J une 25, 2004, af

ter Simpson’s arr est on state drugchar g es, the super vising AU SA in the L o n d on office , Martin Hatf ield, completed a

“Criminal Opening s” for m to init iate fe dera l pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t Sim

ps on , a nd a ssi g ne d th e c a se to AU SA Smit h. I n July 20 04 , A USASmith
arr ang ed for

Detec tive Ker sey

to interview L e w is about Simpson’s drug a ctivity . L ewis re ported that he had distributed larg e quantiti es of marijuana a s well as six to eig ht ounces of me thamphetamine to Sim pson. On J uly 26, 2004, Simps on was arre sted on fede ral c harg es pursua nt to the filing of a criminal complaint by

a DEA investigator. On J uly 28, 2004, AUSA Smith appeare d on behalf of the Go ve rnme nt a

t Sim ps on ’s ini tia l a

pp e ara nc e and mov e d th a t Sim

ps on be de ta ine d p e nd ingtr ia l. Two day s l ater, on J uly

30, 2004, Smit h told AUSA West t hat Smith “had been a dvised” that Simps on had filed a

civil suit aga inst S mith’s father. Wi t h Smit h’s ag ree ment, the ca se wa s
rea ssigne d to AUSA West. AUSA W est repr esente d the Gover nment from that point forwa rd.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 4 - AUSA West presente d the cha rg es ag ainst Sim pson to the federa l g rand jury . The g rand jury returne d a five -count indictment. Count One cha rg ed Simpson with conspiracy to d i s t ri b u te 100 kilogr ams or more of marijuana ; Count Two char g ed Simps on with distributing fifty g rams or more of methamphe tamine; Count Three c harg ed Simpson with di stributio n o f l es s than 250 g rams of marijuana ; Count Four charg ed S impson with possession with intent to di stribute Oxy Contin; and Count Five cha

rg ed Simpson with poss ession with intent to dis tribute benzodiazepine. Prior to the pre- trial confe renc e, Simpson filed a m o t i on asking the cour t to dism iss the indictment ag ainst him on g rounds of vindictive prose cution and re questing an evide ntiary hear ing on the alleg ation. Simps on argued that AUSA Smith had an improper s t ak e i n Simps on’s pr os e c uti on

be c a us e of Simp so n’ s the n ong oin g c ivi l ac tio n ag a ins t Smith’ s fa the r, and that Smi th
a c te d unr e a so na

bly in a rr ang ingfo r D e te c tiv e Ke rs e y to i nterv iew L e wi s in

c on ne c tio n w ith Simps on’s case. The dist rict court denied Si mpson’s motion on the g rounds that Simpson had not exercised a

protec ted rig ht upon which a vindictiveness claim could be base d and, in the alter native, that Simps on had pre sented no e vidence of unre asonable conduct in his prosec ution.
After the district court de nied Simpson’s mot ion, Sim pson’s attorney serve d subpoenas on AUSA Smith and a probation officer involved in the L ewis case. The Government asked the district
c ourt to q ua sh the su

bp oe na s and to pr oh ibi t dis c us sio n o f t he vin dic tiv e pr os e c uti on c la im at tr ia l. At a he ari ngon

the Go ve rnme nt ’s mo tio ns , Si mps on argue d th a t th e su

bp oe na s w e re ne e de d to obtain information that was ne cessa ry for the e ffe ctive cross-examination of L ewis. The c ourt found that th e su

bp oe na s w e re “ int e nd e d me re ly fo r t he purp os e s of ha

ra ssm e nt” and that a ll d isc ov e ra bleNo. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 5 - information re levant to the cr oss-examination of L ewis was available without the subpoena s. The court ther efor e g rante d the Gover nment’s motion to quash the subpoenas. The c ourt also ruled that any questions reg ardingSimps on’s pendingcivil suit aga inst P reston Smith and the allega t i o n of vindictive prosec ution would not be permitted at trial bec ause the vindictiveness allegation was not rele vant to the issue of Simps on’s g uilt or innocenc e. The court noted that the issue of possible bias
on the pa rt of L e wi s shou ld be a dd re sse d by a sk ing him “ dir e c tly” a bo ut w hat he ho pe d to g a in i n return f or his testimony
. At Simps on’s trial, the Gover nment’s evidenc e included, in pa rt, testimony

from De tective Ke rs e y , w ho te sti fi e d a

bo ut h is i nv e sti g a tio n a

nd arr e st o f S imp so n; t e sti mony fr om Marty

Mil ls, who testified that he purcha sed $20 of marijuana from Simps on; te stimony from L ewis that he ha d sold Si mpson both marijuana and methamphetamine; and a re port and testimony from a c hemist for the Kentuc ky

State Police Crime L aboratory conce rning the identity

of t h e contr olled substances seized during the J une 18, 2004, sea rch of Simps on’s re sidence
. At the close of t he Government’s case, Simpson moved for a judgme nt of ac quittal, arg uing that the evidenc e on all five counts was insufficient to suppor t a conviction. The district c ourt denied the motion, holding that “all five counts should g o to the jury for de termination.” The jury returne d verdic ts of g uilty

on Counts One, Three , Four , and F ive, and not gu i l ty on Count Two. The Gover nment moved t o set aside the jury verdic t as to Count Five bec ause the jury instruction (like the indictment) mistakenly ref err ed to benz odiazepine instead of a lprazolam, the pharma ceutica l desig nation for Xa

nax. C ount Five wa s dismis sed and Simpson was sentenced t o 3 6 0 months onNo. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 6 - e a c h o f C o u n t s O n e an d

F o u r , an d 1 2 0 m o n t h s o n C o u n t T h r e e , w i t h a l l t e r m s t o r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y, for a total sentence of 360 months.
II.
A. P r os e c ut or ialVi ndic ti ve ne ss
Be cause Sim p s o n h as fa iled to establish two of the three elements re quired to cr eate a
rea listi c likelihood of vindictiveness, the district court did not err by ref using e ither to dismiss t he indictment ag ainst Sim pson or to conduct a n evidentiar

y hear ing on the vindictiveness alleg ation.
Evaluation of Simps on’s contentions reg arding vindictive prosec ution, both that the district court should have dismiss ed his indictment and that the court should ha ve conducte d an evide ntiary hear ing on the claim, require essentially the s ame analy sis. Simps on does not argue that he has proof of “a ctual vindictiveness” in this case; rather, he argues that the fac t s he alleg ed g ave r ise to “a
rea listi c likelihood of vindictiveness.” There fore , in ord er t o d eter mine whether

the district court should have c onducted a n evidentiar

y hear ing on the claim, the question i s whether Simps on’s fac tual alleg ations support a prima f acie claim of vindictivene ss. United States v. Adams , 870 F.2d 1140, 1146 (6th Cir. 1989) (“ [W ]here ther e has be en a pr ima fac ie showing of ‘a rea listi c likelihood of vindictiveness,’ it is incumbent upon the district c ourt to ‘ conduct an evidentiar y hear ing w here the g overnme nt’s explanations can be f ormally prese nted an d t es t ed.’” (dea ling with a c laim of
s el ec t i v e p ro s ec u t i o n ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d Stat es v. Andr e ws , 633 F.2d 449, 457 ( 6th Cir. 1980) (en banc) (vindictive prose cution)))
.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

The district cour

t also based its ruling on the alter native g round that S impson “has not 1 prese nted any

evidenc e of unr easona

ble conduc t.” That a lternative holding , which we uphold, suffice s for a ffirma

nce. - 7 - Be cause Simps on has not alleg ed facts that show a r ealistic likelihood of vindictiveness that
wo uld wa rr a nt a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng , it

fo llo ws that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in refu si ng to dismiss Simps on’s indictment beca use of vindictive pr osecution. Ac cording ly , the cor rec tness of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to g ra nt a he ari ngand

the c ourt ’s re fu sa l to dis mis s th e ind ic tme nt a g a ins t Simps on may

both be established by

lo oking to se e whe ther the f acts a lleg ed by

Simps on support
e a c h o f t he e le me nts of

the pr ima

fa c ie vin dic tiv e pr os e c uti on c la im. A prima fa cie c ase of

vindictive prosec ution requires a lleg ations of f ac t s howing “(1) exercise of

a prote cted r ight; (2) a p ro s ec u torial stake in the e x erc ise of that rig ht; (3)
unrea sonablene ss of the prose cutor’s c onduct; (4) the intent to punish the def endant f or exercise of the protec ted ri g ht.” United States v. Suarez , 2 63 F .3 d 4 68 , 4 79 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) . “ Pr e su ma bly , if the fi rs t th re e e le me nts are pr e se nt, thi s may he lp es ta bli sh g ro un ds to be lie ve the fo ur th i s p re se nt, that there is the require d ‘re alistic likelihood of vindictiveness,’ which the g overnme nt would have to rebut.” Id
. 1) Exe rcise of a Protecte d Right
We a s s u me th a t S im

p s o n a d e qu a te ly a s s e rte d a p r o te c te d r ig h t i nf il in g a c iv il r ig h ts s u it
. We do no t r e ly

on the di st ric t c ourt ’s re a so nin g that “ ‘t he pr ote c te d r ig ht’ the pr os e c uto r i s a lle g e d to have intentionally impeded must be a constitutional rig ht,” and, indee d, the Gover nment does not 1No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

T h e G o v e r

n me n t a s s e rts th a t th e r e c o u ld h a v e b e e n n o im p r o p e r p r o s e c u to r ia l s ta

k e here 2 beca use Smit h did not know about Simps on’s § 1983 action when Smit h ref err ed De tective Ke rsey to L ewis
. T he district cour t acc epted this asser

tion of fac t, and found that, “ Upon lear ning that [Simp so n] ha d p re vio us ly ini tiate d a pen din g c ivi l matt e r ag a ins t AUSA Smit h’ s fa the r, Mr . Sm ith rec used himself and the matter w as re assig ned to AUSA Rog er West.” I f true, this fa ct would re but Simps on’s alleg ation of a pr osecutoria l stake eve n with respec t to S m i t h . Howeve r, bec ause the rec ord does not appe ar to re veal the e videntiary basis for this finding , we do not re ly on it. - 8 - de fe nd thi s a sp e c t of the dis tr ic t court ’s re a so nin g . Whil e many c a se s r e fe r t o c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts only when r estating the eleme nts of prosec utorial vindictiveness, this court has e x plicitly rec og nized that “a de cision to pr osecute may not be deliberately based upon the exercise of protec ted statutory rig hts.” Un ite d S

tat es v . A da ms , 870 F.2d 1140, 1145 ( 6th Cir. 1989). The protected r ight e x erc ised in Ad am s was the c riminal defe ndant’s rig ht to pursue an unr elated c ivil sui t ag ainst another g overnme nt ag ency . There fore , it appear s that Sim pson’s ri gh t to bring a civil ac tion under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a protected r ight, the exercise of which may be the basis of a c laim of prosec utorial vin dic tiv e ne ss. 2) A Prosecutorial Stake in the Ex ercise of the Protected Right
B e c a us e the un de rl y ingvin dic tiv e ne ss a lleged by Simp so n p e rt a ins to A USASmith personally

and exclusively , and bec ause Smith was not responsible for any critica l prosecutor ial de c isi on in thi s ca se , the Go ve rnme nt ha s re bu tte d an y pr e su mpt ion of pr os e c uto ri a l vi nd ic tiv e ne ss that mi g ht a

ri se fr om Smith ’s sta

ke in Simp so n’ s pro se c uti on . We a ssume , f or sake of argume nt, that Simps on’s civil action ag ainst AUSA Smit h’s father might constitute an impermissible conflict wi th r e g ard

to AU SA S mith. Ho we ve r S imp so n’ s c la im s til l f a ils thi s e le me nt o f t

he pr ima fa c ie 2No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 9 - vindictiveness claim bec ause this conf lict is personal and pe culiar to Smith. Accordi n g ly , th e a lle g ed conflict a ffe cts only

those prosec utorial actions undertaken by Smit h. The only

such ac tion alleg ed by Simp so n is Smith’ s d e c isi on to a rr ang e fo r D e te c tiv e Ke rs e y to int e rv ie w L e wi s. Ev e n if it i s g rante d, for the sa

ke of a rg ument, that t h i s action wa s undertake n for imprope r motives, the Gover nment’s dec ision to prosecute Si m p son is not tainted by that motive beca

use all dec isions actua lly relating to Simpson’s prosecution we re ma de by individuals other than Smith.
This court addr essed the e ffe ct of the pr e-tria l rec usal of potentially conflicte d prosec utors in Bragan v. Poindex ter, 249 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2001). Bragan involved a vindictive prose cution claim that ar ose fr om the decision to re- prosec ut e Br aga n , a cr iminal defenda nt who had bee n rele ased f rom prison pursuant to a succe ssful habea s corpus challeng e to his ini tial conviction. Id
. at 478. Brag an allege d that the state c hose to prosec ute him a sec ond time in retaliation for B rag an’s public criticism of the g overnme nt’s conduct dur ing his fir st prosecution. Id
. at 4 7 9-80. Afte r
re ins ta tin g c ha

rg e s a g a ins t B ra g an, the pr os e c uto ri a l of fi c e that ha d p ro se c ute d Bra g an in his fi rs t trial and that ha d been the targ et of B rag an’s public c riticism w as disqualified a nd a new district attorney p ro t em p o re wa s appointed. Id . at 479. This court he ld that beca use the prose cutor pro tempore did not shar e the or igina l prosecutor s’ stake in the case , and bec ause the new pr osecutor ha d the authority

to proce ed or not proc eed w ith the prosecution, the pr esump t i on of prose cutorial vindictiveness base d on the orig inal prosec utors’ stake in r einstating the char g es wa s rebutted. Id
. at 484-85.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 1 0 - I n th is c a se, it i s und isp ute d th a t su pe rv isi ngAU SA H a tf

ie ld m a de the ini tia l de c isi on to prosec ute Simpson and that AUSA W est approve d the indictment and pre sented the c ase to the g rand jury
. L ike the prose cutor pro te mpore in Bragan , neither of these prose cutors shar ed Smith’s alleg ed sta ke in t he pro secu ti on . T he re fo re , e ve n if Smit h’ s st a ke in t

he pr os e c uti on

we re su ff

ic ie nt t o supp o rt a p re s u mp t i o no f p ro s ec u t o ri al v i n d i ct i v en es s , t h e G o v ern m en th as succe ssfully rebutted tha

t presumption. 3) Unreasonablene ss of the Prosecutor’s Conduct
The district cour

t c orre ctly held that Simps on offe red no e vidence of unre asonable conduct to support his vindi ctiveness c laim
. Simps on asser ts that AUSA Smi th’s actions in contac ting De te c tiv e Ke rs e y and arr ang ing fo r Ke rs e y to int e rv ie w L e wi s we re un re a so na ble
. To su

pp or t th is alleg ation Simps on offe rs two additional asser tions. First, Simps on argues that Smit h’s ac tions were
un re a so na

ble sim ply be c a us e Smith h a d a

c on fl ic t of int e re st. Ho we ve r, thi s a rgume nt a

pp e a rs to conflate the unre asonable ness eleme nt of the vindictiveness c laim with the prosecutor ial stake element. Next, S impson asserts that there was no rea sonable basis for Smit h to believe that L ewis had any “re levant information” about Simpson. Ho we ve r, in ma kin g thi s ass e rt ion , Simps on dis c ounts the fac t that L ewis had identified Simps on as a “customer ” in a interview taken in Nove mber 2002, and that Smith was prese nt f or that interview. Smit h contac ted Dete ctive Ke rsey about interview ing L ewis only

afte r state tra ffickingchar g es had be en broug h t aga inst S impson in J une 2004. UponNo. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 1 1 - lear ning of the later state cha rg es ag ainst Smit h, there was nothing unrea sonable in sug g esting that L ewis might have had additional information related to those char g es. Be cause Si m p s o n h as n ot alleg ed any

prosec utorial ac t that is objectively unrea sonable, his vindictiveness claim fa ils to satis fy this element of the pr ima fac ie claim.

4) Intent to Punish the Defe ndant for Exercise of the Protected Right Finally , beca

use S impson cannot establish each of the first three elements of a prosec utorial vin dic tiv e ne ss c la im, the re is n o r e a lis tic lik e lih oo d of vin dic tiv e ne ss t

hat w ou ld e nti tle Simp so n to
a re buttable pre sumption as to the fourth element a nd Simps on’s vindictiveness cla im fails. B. Q uas hing of Subpo e na a nd Lim it at ion of Que st ion ing
The district cour

t did not err either by quashing Simps on’s s ubpoena of AUSA Smith or by ruling that q

u e s ti o n s r e g ar d in g Si mp s o n ’ s c iv il s u it a g a in s t P r e s to nSm it

h w e r e ir r e le v an t a

nd, the r e f o r e , p r o h ib it e d a t tr ia l. Si mp s o n a s s e rts th a t b y qu a s h in g h is s u b p o e n a o f A U SA Sm ith the court de nied Simpson’s Six th A mendment rig ht to have compulsory proce ss for obtaining witnesses i n h i s favor . Howeve r, the c ompulsory proce ss rig ht does not entitle the defe ndant to prese nt evidenc e that is irre levant. Se e Tay lor v . I lli no is , 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1988) ( “The acc used does not have an unf

e tte re d r ig ht t o o ff

e r t e sti mony

that is inc omp e te nt, pr ivi le g e d, or oth e rw ise ina dmi ssi ble under standa

rd rules of

evidenc e.”) . Fr om Sim pson’s own ar g ument on appea l, it is ev i dent that Simp so n w ish e d to qu e sti on Smith a bo ut m a tt e r s r e l e v a

nt t o S i m p s on ’s vin dic tiv e pr os e c uti on c la im, not the ultimate issue of Simpson’s guilt or innocenc e.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 1 2 - I n United States v. Abboud , 4 3 8 F. 3 d 5 5 4 (6th Cir. 2006), this court re jected a n argument very simil ar to the one that Simpson makes here . I n Abboud , the c ri min a l de fe nd ants so ug ht t o r a ise the def ense of selec tive p ro s ec u t i o n. Id . at 579. Howe ver, in re sponse to a pre -trial motion, the district court held that the de fenda nts we re p rec luded from pr esenting evidenc e of se lective prosec ution at trial. Id . at 56 2. Th is c ourt up he ld the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g a g a ins t the de fe nd a nts ’ Six th Amendment cha lleng e beca use “[t] he question of discriminatory prosec ution r elates not to the g uilt or innocence o f [ t h e d efendants], but rather a ddresse s itself to a constitutional defec t in the instit ution of t h e prosec ution.” Id . at 579. Ther e is nothing to distinguish Simpson’s vindictive prosec ution claim from the s elec tive prosec ution claim in Abboud in this respe ct. Be cause Simps on soug ht to question S mith on an issu e that was not bef ore the jury , and which ha d alre ady been decide d by

the district court, the c ourt was c orre ct to quash the subpoena
. For the s a me r e a s o n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s c o r r e c t to p r o h ib it Si mp s o n ’ s a tt o r n e y from exploring his vindictive prosec ution theory at trial. Simpson arg ues that his in ab i l i t y to question L e wi s abo ut the a lle g e d vind ic tiv e pr os e c uti on de nie d Si mps on

the op po rt

un ity fo r e ff e c tiv e c ro ssexamination. This court’s opinion in Abboud is ag ain helpful in illumi nating the flawin Sim pson’s argument. I n Abboud , this court observed that the def endants “ seem[ed] to conflate the c oncepts of wi tne ss b ia s and

se le c tiv e pr os e c uti on ” and th e co ur t e xpla ine d th a t “ [s]e le c tiv e pr os e c uti on is a separ ate and distinct [constituti onal] c laim.” Id
. at 580. The same is true here: Simpson’s claim of prosec utorial vindictiveness is distinct from any bias that may have been used to impea ch L ewis’s testimony
.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 1 3 - Fur thermore , the d i s t ri ct cour t’s decision bar

ring discussion of Simps on’s vindictive prosec ution claim did not prevent Simpson from que stioning L ewis about a ny bias, prejudice s, or
u l t er i o r m o t i v es . I nfa ct , S i mp s o n ’s at t o rn e y d i d qu es t i o nL ew i s ab o u th i s m o t i v e f o r t es t i fy i n g, asking if L ew i s “hop[ed] that [ he] might g et more time off for [his] testimony ” ag ainst Sim pson. Simps on’s c o u n s el al s o attacke d L ewis’s c redibility by highlig hting the f

act that L ewis did not provide de tailed i nformation about his transa ctions with Si mpson when L ewis wa s first interviewe d by Ag e nt B a ke r in 20 02 , a

nd on ly pr ov ide d th e se de ta ils wh e n in te rv ie we d b y De te c tiv e Ke rs e y

in 2004. Acc ording ly , t h e re co rd does not support Simpson’s claim that the district court’s r uling
conce rning the inadmissibili ty of evide nce re l evant to Simpson’s vindictive prosecution theory preve nted Simpson’s counsel from ef fec tively cross-e x amining L ewis.
C. Suf fi ciency of the Evidence Simps on’s ar g uments that t h e d i s t rict cour t erre d by denying his motion for judg ment of acquittal base d on the insufficie ncy of the e vidence ag ainst him on Counts One, Three , and F our ar e wi tho ut m e ri t. “ Th e re le va nt q ue sti on in a sse ssi ng a c ha lle ng e to the su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e is whether , afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the prosecution, any rational trier of fac t c ould ha

ve found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt. This court will not weigh the evidenc e pre sented, co n s i d er the cr edibility of witnesses, or

substitut e our judgme nt for that of the jury .” United States v. J ackson , 470 F.3d 299, 309 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks a

nd citations omitt ed).No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

- 1 4 - Count O ne of

the i nd ictme nt a g a ins t Sim ps on c ha rg e d h im w ithc on sp ir a c y to d istri bu te marijuana . Simps on challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence supporting this cha rg e by attacking the cr edibility

of the principal witness with respec t to this char g e, Da le L ewis. Simpson arg ues that L ewis’s testimony

conce rning substa n t ial marijuana sales to Simpson was not credible in lig ht of L ewis’s fa ilure to mention any such transa ctions when L ewis wa s interviewe d by Ag ent B aker

two y ear s ear lier. This argumen t fa i l s b ec ause it asks thi s court to make a deter mination about the
cre dibilit y

of L ewis as a

witness. See J

ackson , 470 F.3d at 309.
Coun t T h re e ch arge d Simps on with the sale of ma rijuana. Simpson notes that the Gover nment did not introduce the labor atory report s howing that the substance was mar ijuana. Howeve r, this court has r ecog nized that [t ]he ide ntity of a drug may be asce rtained by circ umstantial e vidence
. . . . S u ch circ umstantial evidence may include evide nce o f the phy sical appe ara nce of the su bs tan ce invol ve d in

the tr ans a c tio n . . . , te sti mony that a hig h p ri c e wa s p a id i n cash f or the substanc e, evide nce that transac tions invol ving th e s ubstance wer e car ried on with sec rec y or deviousness, and evide nce that the substance w as ca lled by the name of

the illeg al nar cotic by

the def endant or others in his prese nce. United States v. W

right , 1 6 F. 3 d 1 4 2 9 , 1 4 3 9 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . S c ott , 725 F.2d 43, 45-46 (4th Cir. 1984)). H ere , it is clear from the testimony of Mar ty Mills, t he informa

nt who made the purcha se upon which thi s char g e is based, that Mill s understood the substanc e he boug ht from Simpson to be mar ijuana. Additionally , Detec tive Ker sey testified that, af

ter the pur chase , he loo ke d at th e ba g of mari

jua na and ide nti fi e d it a s mari jua na . B a se d on

thi s e vid e nc e , a

re a so na ble juror could have conc luded that the substance involved in the sale wa s in fact mar ijuana.No. 05-6357

United States v. Simpson

Simps on also draw s the co u rt ’s attention to the fa ct that the che mist’s original lab r eport 3 misidentified the OC 40 pills as OC 80s. The chemist testified that this was t h e result of a ty pog raphic al er

ror. Give n that this court will not weigh the evidenc e pre sented at trial, it is not clea r what signific ance Simps on believes this fa ct to ha ve in this appea l. See J

ackson , 470 F.3d at 309. - 1 5 - Simps on’s cha lleng e to Count Four is similar to his argument with r espec t to Count Three. Count Four cha

rg ed S impson with possession with intent to dist ribute Oxy Contin. S impson notes that the alleg ed Oxy Contin t ablets had diff ere nt marking s: 143 wer e marked OC 40 while 8 we re marke d OC 20. Sim pson then notes that the cr ime lab che mist analy zed only a portion of one ty

pe of ta ble t out of

a tot a l of 15 1 p ill s id e nti fi e d a s Ox y Co nt in
. S impso n a rgue s th a t ba se d o n th is limit ed sampling , and g iven t h e exis tence of plac ebo pills, the Governme nt did not establish the identity of the substanc e in ea ch tablet bey ond a re asonable doubt. This argument is unavailing 3 beca use the chemist’s testimony that she was able to ide ntify all the pills as Oxy Contin based on the marking s on the pills and the scientific test of the one sample was clea rly sufficie nt to support the infere nce that all of the tablets mar ked as O x y Contin were in fa ct that controlled substanc e.

IV.
For the fore g oing r easons, Simpson’s conviction on all three counts is AFF I RMED.