FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 18, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 85 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 10 3- CR-OR L-13 KRS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WALLACE RAY SMITH, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 18 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, DU BINA an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:W al la ce Ra y Sm ith app eal s h is co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to p os se ss with th e in te ntto di st rib ut e m ari juan a in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(v ii ). He rai se s a s in gl e is su e o n app eal , nam el y whet he r th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l was in su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in a co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy. Sm ith a rg ue s h is co nv ic ti on was n otsupp orte d b y pro of be y on d areas on ab le do ub t b ecau se th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto est ab li sh Smith h adkn owl ed ge of t he co ns pi racy. Sm ith fu rth er co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt, i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , ess en ti al ly allo cat edto hi m th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g wh athe di d n otkn ow an d re li edon im pe rm is si bl e in fere nc es .

“ Su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce i s a que st io n o f la w th atwe rev ie w de n ov o.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu

pt a , 46 3 F .3d11 82 , 11 93 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In r ev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce, we co ns id er “ th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e al so m ak e al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il ity ch oi ces infav orof th e Gov ern m en t an d t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Id. W e m us t af firm “un le ss , un de r no reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce, co ul d t he jury ha ve fou ndth e [d efen da nt ] gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id. “ The ev id en ce n eedno t ex cl ud e ev ery hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce o r be co m pl et el y in co ns is te ntwith e ve ry

co nc lu si on ot he r

2th angu il t b ecau se a jury m ay sel ectam on g c on st ru ct io ns of t he ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bai le

y , 12 3 F .3d13 81 , 13 91 (11 thCir . 19 97 ). To s up po rt aco ns pi racy con vi ct io n u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 6, the Gov ern m en t m us t es tabl is h b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t (1 ) a co ns pi racy exi st ed , (2) th e de fen da ntha d kno wled ge of i t, an d (3 ) he vo lu nt ari ly j oi ne d i t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Th omp so n , 42 2 F .3d12 85 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ [T]he ex is te nc e o f an ag reem en t i n aco ns pi racy case is rare ly pro ve n b y di rectev id en ce tha t the co ns pi rat or s fo rm al ly ent eredor r each edanag reem en t. . . . The m or e co m m on m etho d o f pr ov in g a n a gr eem en t i s thr ou gh cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Mor al es , 86 8 F .2d15 62 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (ci tati on om it te d) . “ A de fen da nt ’s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on ina co ns pi racy m ay be est ab li sh edth ro ug h pr oo f of su rro un di ng cir cu m st an ces su chas a ct s co m m it te d b y th e d efen da nt whi chfurth eredth e p ur

po se of t he co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba in , 73 6 F .2d 14 80 , 14 85 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). In a dd it io n, “ th e d efen dant ’s ownst at em en ts m ay be us edto in fer h is pa rti ci pa ti on ina co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C oo pe r , 87 3 F .2d 26 9, 2 72 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Furth er, a d efen da nt ’s pre se nc e in a ve hi cl e wit h dru gs co m bi ne d wi thev id en ce the de fen da ntm ad e co nf li ct in g s ta te m en ts or r el at ed im pl au si bl e st or ie s t o aut ho rit ie s m ay supp ort a c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy. Uni te d St at es v. Stan le

y , 24 F.3d13 14 , 13 20 –2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Fin al ly, th ere i s a 3ge ne ral pri nc ip le th at , incas es in vo lv in g l arg e am ou nt s o f na rco ti cs , “ a p ru de nt

sm ug gl er i s n otli ke ly to s uf fer the pre se nc e o f un affi li at edbysta nd ers .” Uni te d St at es v. Cr uz -Valde

z , 77 3 F .2d15 41 , 15 47 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). In t hi s ca se , Sm ith d oe s n otarg ue th ere was no co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te m ari juan a; rathe r, he co nt en ds he was u na ware o f th e co ns pi racy. The cu m ul at iv e effe ctof t he cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, h owe ve r, be li es Sm ith’s co nt en ti on th athe la ck edkn owl ed ge of t he co ns pi racy. Se e Mor al es , 86 8 F .2dat 1 27 4. Sm ith tra ve le d fr om

Texa s t o F lo rid a in a truc k t ha t ca rri eda 60 0- po un d m ari juan a sh ip m en t an d h ada stro ng od orof m ari juan a em an at in g fr om

it . He was p res en t at th e in it ia l d el iv ery of

th e truc k c on ta in in g t he hi dd enm ari juan a. Afte r th e truc k was un lo ad ed , Sm ith m ad e in cu lp at ory st at em en ts to th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t ackno wled gi ng th e co nt en ts of t he tru ckan d t he pre se nc e o f a ch as e car . Se e Co op er , 87 3 F .2dat 2 72 . Mor eo ve r, th e jury was en ti tl edto vi ew Sm ith’s tria l te st im on y an d s ta te m en t t o l aw en fo rcem en t tha t h e d idno t m eetwith a nyon e du rin g t he tri p a s s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce t en di ng to pro ve gu il t b ecau se th e st at em en ts were i nc on si st en t wi th su rv ei ll an ce v id eo th atsh owe d S m ith m eet in g with t wo Hi sp an ic m enfro m th e ch as e car . Se e St an le y , 24 F.3dat 1 32 0– 21 .

4As fu rth er s up po rt o f hi s ar gu m en ts , Sm ith c it es th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er

de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d t he co urt’s o bs erv at io n o f th e po ss ib il ity

he was n ota kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ntinth e co ns pi racy. Sm ith a rg ue s the co urt’s o bs erv at io n d em on strat es hi s g ui ltwas n otpro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Thi s co nt en ti on , ho wev er, i s wi th ou t m eri t b ecau se th e ev id en ce n eedno t ex cl ud e ev ery hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce. Bai le y , 12 3 F .3dat 1 39 1. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t, we co nc lu de a reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d S m ith kno win gl y pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy. The cu m

ul at iv e eff

ectof t he cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o su st ai n S m ith’s co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to p os se ss with t he in te ntto di strib ut e m ari juan a. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Sm ith’s co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

5