NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1991 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . CARLT ON L. EAS TE R, A p p e l l a n t O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 1- 07- 00153- 001) H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo, D i s t r i ctJ udge Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2010 B E FO R E : M C K E E , B A R R Y , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 30, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge. T h is m att er c o m es o n b ef o re the C o u rto n d ef

en d an t C arlt o n L . E aster’s ( her ei naft er“East er ”) appea l fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed on2

A pr i l 1, 2009, i n t hi s cr ack c ocai ne ca s e. A ta tr i al w i t h J amel E . E as t erand J os eph M o o re a s c o -d e f

e n d a n ts, th e ju ryf

o u n d E a ste r g u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e 50 gr ams and more of cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( C ount I I ) and of c ons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 50 gr ams and more of cr ack coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 ( C ountI V ) . A ft erhi s convi ct i on E as t erfi l ed m ot i ons chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i ons on t he gr ound t hatthe ver di ct s w er e aga i ns tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence and the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe ver di ct . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed thes e mot i ons and s ent ence d E as t ert o concurr entcus t odi al t erm s of 210 m onths on eac h countt o be fol l ow ed byfi ve- y earconcurr entt erm s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. E as t erappea l s , cont endi ng t hatthe governm entdi d notpr ove al l of the el ement s of eac h of the tw o offe ns es bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a n d w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T he ca s e ar os e fr om a r ever s e s t i ng i n w hi ch J amel E . E as t er , one of Eas t er ’ s cocons pi r at or s , at t empt ed t o pur chas e cr ack c ocai ne fr om an i nform antw or ki ng w i t h t he FB I . T hough J amel E as t eror i gi nal l yt ol d t he i nform antthathe w ant ed t o pur chas e 18 ounces of cr ack, he s ubs equent l yt ol d t he i nform antthathe nee ded onl yni ne ounce s . T he i nform antnot i fi ed the FB I of J amel E as t er ’ s at t empt t o pur chas e the drug and the governm entarr anged a s t i ng t o ens nar e hi m . J amel E as t erdr ove t o t he s i t e forthe d eli v eryin H arrisbu rg, P en n sy lvan ia, in an au tom o b il e w ith three o ther o cc u p an ts, E aster,3

J os eph M oor e and a not herm al e w ho has notbeen a ppr ehende d butw ho has been i dent i fi ed as V i ct orPat t er s on. T he i nform antw as w ai t i ng atthe s i t e and goti nt o t he aut om obi l e butE as t erthen obs erved l aw enfor cementoffi cer s i n t he ar ea thathe bel i eved w er e conduc t i ng s ur vei l l ance . W hen he t ol d t he aut om obi l e’ s ot heroccupa nt s of hi s obs ervat i ons , J amel E as t erm oved the aut om obi l e t o anotherl ocat i on. T hen East ergave the i nform ant$6, 000 in c a sh a n d sa id th a t th e d ru g s w e re b e in g p u rc h a se d f o r h im . A f

ter th e in f

o rm a n t w ith M oor e’ s hel p count ed the money , FB I and l ocal offi cer s at t empt ed t o arr es tthe a u to m o b ile ’s o c c u p a n ts , b u t J a m e l E a s te r i n itia lly f ru s tr a te d th a t a tte m p t b yd ri v in g a w a y . D u rin g th e a u to m o b ile f lig h t M o o re , w h o h a d p o ss e ss io n o f a .4 0 c a lib e r G lo c k p isto l, th re w it to J a m e l E a s te r w h o to o k c o n tr o l o f it. T h e a u to m o b ile f

lig h t w a s n o t su c c e ss f

u l f o r a s J a m e l E a ste r d ro v e th e a u to m o b ile aw ayi tw as damaged r ender i ng i ti noper abl e. T hen J amel E as t er , M oor e, and Pat t er s on l eftt he aut om obi l e and c ont i nued t o fl ee. W hen the aut om obi l e’ s ot heroccupa nt s fl ed, E as t er , w ho had bee n di s abl ed i n an ea r l i eri nci dent , r emai ned behi nd. W hi l e fl eei ng on fo o t Jam el E aster h id the p ist o l and a b ag that h e w as c arry ing in a d it ch . T h e o ff icers r e c o v e r e d t h e p i s t o l a n d t h e b a g t h a tJ a me l Ea s t e rh a d h i d d e n wh i c h c o n t a i n e d 8 3 . 7 g r a ms o f c ra c k c o c a in e a n d a d ig ital sc a le. T h e o f f ice rs a lso se a rc h e d Ja m e l E a ste r’s a u to m o b ile and fou nd a bag i n the back seatcon t ai ning 4.7 gram s of crack, a bo x o f sand w i ch b ags, and s om e mar i

j uana. T hough Patt er s on es cape d, the pur s ui ng offi cer s arr es t ed J amel4

E as t erand M oor e w ho s oughtr efuge i n an aba ndoned hous e. O t heroffi cer s arr es t ed E a s te r. T her e i s no doubtbutt hatt he evi dence pl ai nl ys how ed thatE as t erw as partof a c o n s p i r a c yt o p o s s e s s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e 5 0 g r a ms a n d mo r e o f c r a c k c o c a i n e . As w e expl ai ned i n U ni t ed St at es v. Pr es s l er , 256 F. 3d 144, 149 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and U ni t ed St at es v. G i bbs , 190 F. 3d 188, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , tw o cas es the part i es ci t e, t o pr ove that there w as a crim inal co n sp ir ac ythe g o v ern m en t m u st establish tha t th e c o -co n sp ir ators h ad a u n ityo f p u rpo se, an inten t t o ac h ieve a c o m m o n g o al, an d an ag ree m en t t o w o rk t ogethert ow ar d t hatgoal . I n as s es s i ng the ade quacyof the evi dence w e r evi ew the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm entas the ver di ctw i nnerand cons i der both di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . See U ni t ed St at es v. W ert - R ui z, 228 F. 3d 250, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . H er e, t hough J amel E as t erarr anged f orthe pur chas e of the cr ack, w h e n th e tr a n s a c tio n s u p p o s e d ly w a s b e in g c o m p le te d E a s te r s a id th e d ru g s w e re f o r h im . Fur therm or e, E as t erdemonstr at ed thathe had a m aj orr ol e i n t he cons pi r acybybei ng i nvol ved i n t he tr ans ferof the ca s h t o payforthe drugs and byi dent i fy i ng l aw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs in th e v ic in ity w h e n J a m e l E a s te r i n itia lly sto p p e d th e a u to m o b ile . M oreove r, t he n i ne o un ces of crack thatthe co nspir at ors ul t i m at el yat t em pted t o p urchase w a s f a r in e x c e ss o f

th e 5 0 g ra m s c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t an d w a s s o g re a t a q u a n tity thati ti s r eas onabl e t o i nfert hatt heyw er e pur chas i ng i tfordi s t r i but i on r atherthan for p e rs o n a l u s e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d ri g u e z , 9 6 1 F .2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ).5

P l a i n l y th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d E a s t e r ’ s c o n s p i r a c y. S im ilarlyth e e v id e n c e o f E a ste r’s p o ss e ss io n o f

th e c ra c k w a s a d e q u a te to e sta b lish th a t E a ste r w a s g u iltyo n th e c o u n t ch a rg in g p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c ra c k . F o r th e g o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e th a t E a ste r w a s g u iltyo n th a t co u n t itw a s re q u ire d to es t abl i s h thatE as t erknow i ngl ypos s es s ed orcons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed the cr ack c ocai ne and di d s o w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e i t . H er e East erw as i nt i m at el yi nvol ved i n t he cr ack tr ans act i on and w as at t empt i ng t o pur chas e cr ack f r om the i nform ant . T hough J amel E as t erhad phy s i cal pos s es s i on of the cr ack thathe br oughtt o t he pur chas e and d isc a rd e d d u rin g h is f

lig h t, th e e v id e n c e su p p o rte d th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e p a ss e n g e rs in the aut om obi l e w er e coope r at i ng i n a cr ack bus i nes s . C ons equent l yi tw as r eas onabl e for the j ur yt o i nfert hatt he pas s enger s , i ncl udi ng E as t er , had domi ni on and contr ol cons truct i vel yt hr ough t he othercons pi r at or s overthe cr ack thattheyal r eadyhad ac qui r ed and w as partof thei ri nvent or y . See U ni t ed St at es v. M art or ano, 709 F. 2d 863, 866 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). T h u s, the e v iden ce su p p o rt ed the p o sses sion ch arg e a g ains t E aster. W ith resp ec t t o co n stru cti v e p o sses sion w e p o int ou t th at th e D istri ct C o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t:

I f an i ndi vi dual has t he abi l i t yt o exer ci s e s ubs t ant i al contr ol overan obj ectt hathe does nothave i n hi s phy s i cal cus t ody , then he i s i n pos s es s i on of thati t em. A n exampl e of thi s fr om everydayexper i ence w oul d be a p e rso n ’s p o ss e ss io n s [ sic ] o f item s w h ich h e k e e p s in a sa f e tyd e p o sit b o x in his ban k. A l t ho ug h the person do es not have p hy si cal cust od yof these i t e ms , h e e x e r c i s e s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r o l o v e rth e m, s o h e h a s wh a ti s k n o wn a s c o n s t ru c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e m.6

A pp. at544- 45. A ccor di ngl y , t he j ur yw as fr ee t o cons i derthe cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on th e o ryo f th e p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c h a rg e , an d , as w e e x p lain e d in M ar t or ano, coul d pr edi cat e a c oncl us i on thatE as t ercons t ruct i vel ypos s es s ed the cr ack bas ed on the ampl e ci r cumst ant i al evi dence agai ns thi m . See 709 F. 2d at866. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons t he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed A pr i l 1, 2009, w i l l be af

fi r m ed.