United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2711

___________________________

 United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antione Deandre Maxwell

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

Submitted: September 20, 2023

Filed: December 27, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antione Deandre Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy and drug distribution. 

He appeals, arguing that the district court1

 erred by denying his motions for judgment

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
of acquittal or for a new trial and by denying his request for a jury instruction on

implicit bias. We affirm.

Law enforcement officers began investigating a drug organization led by

Michael Graham in 2018. The investigation revealed that Graham employed Antione

Maxwell, his brother Charles Maxwell, their father Charleton Maxwell, and Bernard

Davis to sell methamphetamine and heroin. Graham and Davis are Antione and

Charles’s maternal half-brothers. The investigation lasted for approximately two

years, during which law enforcement officers conducted extensive surveillance,

directed multiple controlled purchases, interviewed arrestees and drug users who

were involved with the organization, and ultimately made arrests and searched

various locations, finding substantial evidence of drug distribution. 

Maxwell and his father were charged in the same indictment and tried together. 

See United States v. Maxwell, 61 F.4th 549 (8th Cir. 2023) (affirming Charleton

Maxwell’s convictions and sentence). The jury found Antione Maxwell guilty of the

following offenses: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and (C), 846, and 851; three counts

of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A) or (B), and 851; and one count of distribution of heroin, in violation of

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 851. After denying Maxwell’s post-trial motions,

the district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be

served concurrently.2

2These sentences are being served concurrently with Maxwell’s 240-month

sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and 120-month

sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-2653,

slip op. (8th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023). 

-2-
Maxwell argues that the district court should have granted his renewed motion

for judgment of acquittal on all counts. He also seeks a new trial. “We apply the

deferential sufficiency of the evidence standard to the denial of a motion for acquittal,

and we review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.” United

States v. Patterson, 68 F.4th 402, 419 (8th Cir. 2023). 

Maxwell first argues that there was no evidence that he conspired with anyone

to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. For conviction, the government was

required to prove that there was an agreement to distribute drugs, that Maxwell knew

of the conspiracy, and that he intentionally joined the conspiracy. See Maxwell, 61

F.4th at 558–59 (elements of the offense). “An agreement to join a conspiracy need

not be explicit but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.” 

Id. at 559 (quoting United States v. Ramirez, 21 F.4th 530, 532–33 (8th Cir. 2021)). 

We have said that “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to

sustain a conviction if it is not otherwise incredible or insubstantial on its face.” Id.

(alteration and citation omitted).

Deputy Frank Hodak of the Cerro Gordo County Sheriff’s Office testified that

he had observed Maxwell so many times during his investigation that if he “passed

him in a grocery store [he] would say, ‘Hey, hi, Antione.” Hodak supervised a

confidential informant (CI) in several controlled buys from Maxwell and from other

members of the organization. Hodak testified that in April 2020 after a buy had been

arranged with Davis, Davis sent the CI to Maxwell, who sold him methamphetamine

and received payment. The CI, a daily heroin user, testified that he had purchased

heroin and methamphetamine directly from Maxwell and that there were times when

he had contacted Davis, and Davis then referred him to Maxwell. Charleyann Mullen

also testified that she regularly purchased heroin from Davis, but that he sometimes

sent Maxwell to complete the sale. 

-3-
Armondo Gray testified that he had supplied Maxwell with methamphetamine

for resale, that he had seen Maxwell repackage pounds of methamphetamine with

Graham for resale, and that he had seen Maxwell sell drugs. According to Gray,

Maxwell was doing “pretty much the same thing I was doing. Getting it from Pops

[Charleton Maxwell] or Tuffy [Graham] or Bernard [Davis], and breaking it down to

a lesser quantity, selling it for more.” Contrary to Maxwell’s contention that he was

merely present when others sold drugs, there was overwhelming evidence that he

intentionally joined the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, and

we reiterate the conclusion “that Mullen’s and Gray’s testimony is not incredible or

unsubstantial.” Maxwell, 61 F.4th at 559.

Maxwell also challenges his convictions on the four distribution counts. He

argues that the government failed to produce physical evidence of drug distribution,

e.g., photos, videos, phone records, fingerprints, DNA, or serialized currency from

controlled buys. The CI testified that he participated in controlled buys of

methamphetamine and heroin from Maxwell, however. With respect to the three

counts of distribution of methamphetamine, Hodak testified that he supervised the

CI’s controlled buys of the drug from Maxwell on April 13, 14, and 16, 2020. Hodak 

identified the location where each transaction took place, he described the car in

which Maxwell arrived on April 13 and 14, and he explained that he observed

Maxwell during each transaction. With respect to the distribution-of-heroin count,

Hodak testified that the CI made arrangements with Maxwell to buy heroin and that

Maxwell directed an associate to complete the sale. The government also entered into

evidence the lab reports indicating the weight and purity of the drugs involved in each

transaction. That officers did not find methamphetamine or heroin during the

searches of Maxwell’s home or another residence he frequented does not render the

evidence insufficient to convict him, particularly in light of the fact that officers

seized approximately three pounds of methamphetamine, 80 grams of heroin, four

firearms, and more than $18,000 in cash from Davis’s home, where Maxwell visited

-4-
immediately before completing the April 16 transaction and where he visited

regularly during the year leading up to the search. 

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Maxwell’s motion for

judgment of acquittal or abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial. For the

reasons set forth in United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-2653, slip op. at 10–11 (8th Cir.

December 27, 2023), we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Maxwell’s requested instruction that the jury be instructed on

implicit racial bias. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-5-