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: 10a0717n.06 No. 08-2514 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

United States of Amer ica, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. Manu e l I . B ro ok s, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEF OR E: M ER RI TT, RO G ER S, a nd K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. ROGERS , Ci rc u it Judge. Def endant Ma

nuel B rooks cha lleng es the suff iciency of the

e vidence to su ppor

t hi s c on vic tio n o n c ounts of c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te b e t w e e n fi v e a n d

fi ft y gra m s o f c o ca i n e b as e, an d p o s s es s i n g a f

i re ar m i nfu rt h er an ce o f a dru gtr a ff ic kin g c ri me . B ro ok s ma

ke s th e c ounte ri ntu iti ve argume nt t hat bec a us e the e vid e nc e a sse rt e dly sh ow s o nly

a c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss more than fifty g rams, there is not suff

icient evidenc e to support the jur y ’s ve rd ic t th a t B ro ok s c on sp ir e d to poss e ss b e tw e e n f ive and fi ft y g ra ms. B e c a us e the re is

e vid e nc e of

a mou nts un de r f

if ty g ra ms t hat th e jur

y c ou ld h a ve a c c e pte d, the pr e mis e for B ro ok s’ argument fails, eve n assuming the argument otherwise holds water. B ecau s e B rooks’ other arguments likewise lack me rit, his convictions must be upheld.No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 2 - I. ATF ag en ts ex ecute d a valid sea rch w arr ant on B rooks’ re sidence in Detroit on Marc h 2, 20 07 . B ro ok s’ ne ph e w, Da rr y l Ma dis on , a lso liv e d th e re , a long wi th Javo n Wo od ard (B ro ok s’ niece ), Wo o d a

r d ’ s f a th er, Woodard’ s children, a nd some of Woodard’s sibling s. This searc h war rant was obtaine d afte r an unde rcove r ATF ag ent, on Fe bruar y 28, 2007, purcha sed cr ack c ocaine pursuant to a telephone or der f rom a pe rson, later

identified as c o-conspirator I saac Spencer , outside of Broo ks ’ r e sid e nc e . A ft e r t he a g e nt c omp le te d h is d ru g tr ans a c tio n, Spe nc e r w e nt b a c k in to Br ooks’ re sidence and, shortly there afte r, another ATF ag ent perf orming surveillance observe d what appea red to be two more ha

nd-to-hand na

rcotics tra nsactions outside of the r esidenc e. Be fore the execution of the sea rch w arr ant, a D et ro i t p o lice off icer working with the ATF task forc e per formed sur veillance on Br ooks’ re sidence . During that s u rv ei l lance , the offic er observe d, within about twenty minutes, two men pull up in a vehicle , one man e x it the vehicle a nd enter Br ooks’ re siden ce , wh at appeare d to be two hand- to-hand na rcotics tra nsactions take pla ce betwee n the initi al v eh i cl e and two differe nt vehicles pulling up to the residenc e, and the n the

or iginal ve hic le le a vin g the sc e ne . Abo ut a ha lf -h our l a te r, of

fi c e rs e xec ute d th e se arc h w a rr a nt. Upon enter ing the residenc e, the of fice rs saw B rooks sitting on the c ouch in the living r oom, so they immediately

secur ed him and beg an a sear ch of the pre mises. The off icer s encounte red othe r people , inc lud ingc hil dr e n, ins ide the re sid e nce when c on du c tin g the ir se arc h. I n B ro ok s’ pa

nts po c ke ts, office rs found $1210 a

nd a loade d pistol. I n a stateme nt t o t h e officer s during the sea rch, B rooks admitted that the g un was his a nd claimed that over $800 of the money was his f rom selling his ca

r,No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 3 - bu t th a t th e re st w a s g ive n to him by his ne ph e w, Ma dis on , to ho ld wh ile he wa s g on e . Of fi c e rs a lso discovere d sever al fire arms, ammu n i t i o n , and 11.42 g rams of c rac k coca ine in a bedr oom in the southwest corne r of the r esidenc e. When aske d by an off icer wh i ch b edroom was his, Brooks ind ic a te d it was th e so uthw e st c or ne r b e dr oo m. B ro ok s su g g e sts , o n a pp e a l, t hat th e so uth we st

corne r bedr oom, in which the coca ine, firearms and ammunition wer e found, was Madison’s, and not his, be droom. Howe ver, a dditional evidence at trial showed that the bedroom wa s at least shar ed by Br ooks and Madison

. I n an y event, Brooks a dmitted to knowing that the we apons and ammunition we re in the bedroom, though he claimed they wer e not his, but a sserted that he did not know about the dr

ug s. B ro ok s wa s ind ic te d and tr ie d in fe de ra l c ourt on fo ur c ounts : (1 ) c on sp ir a c y to po sse ss w ith int e nt t o d istri bu te , a

nd to d istri bu te , mo re tha

n f if ty g ra ms of c oc a ine ba se in v iol a tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( a )( 1) ; ( 2) a idi ngand

a be tti ngthe po sse ssi on of mor e tha n fi ve g ra ms of c oc a ine ba se with an intent to distribute in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) a nd 21 U.S. C

. § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ); (3)

m ai n t ai n i n g a d ru g - i n v o l v edp re m i s es i nv i o l at i o no f 2 1 U. S

. C

. § 8 5 6 (a )( 2 ); an d (4 ) p o s s es s i n g a firea rm in further ance of a dr

ug -traf ficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A). At trial, J oe Ne ther , an AT F agent, testified a bout his invol vement with a task f orce inves t i gat i n g armed drug deale rs in northwest De troit. Nether e x plained that, while wor king underc over, he lear

ned about dr

ug deals be ing c onducted throug h the use of c ellular telephones—pur chas ers would call a ce rtain phone numbe r to order cra ck coc aine, a

nd then the individual answeringwould arr ang e for a plac e to meet to exchang e money for dr ug s. The sea

rchNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 4 - o f B rooks’ re sidence arose out of Nethe r’s unde rcove r investig ations. I nitially , Nether was investigating a

street g angcalled the Detr oit Thug L ords, but, while he wa s making an under cover dr ugpurc ha se fr om t

hat g ang , h e e nc ounte re d tw o me mbe rs of ano the r g angc a lle d the 9 52 B oy s. T hese two me mbers later g ave N ether

their ce llular phone number and off ere d to supply

cra ck

coca ine to him in the future. Ac cording ly , Nether beg an arr ang ing de als throug h this phone number

and me t w ithmany

of B ro ok s’ a lle g e d c o- c on sp ir a tor s, inc lud ingGa ry Yo un g , D a mie n H awk ins , Scott McDuffie , Anthony Mack a nd Reg inald Gilder. Nether stated t hat t he ATF t ask force se ized more than sixty

g rams of c rac k coca ine during the investigation of this c onspiracy , and that they wer e able to identify

additional sales in which the qua ntities ex cee ded that amount. Ne ther testified that his deals through this phone number eventua lly

led him to Brooks’ r esidenc e on F ebrua ry 28, 2007, when Ne ther c alled in an or der a nd was told to come to the stre et on which B rooks’ re sidence was located to c omplete the purc hase. A fe w of B rooks’ a lleg ed co- cons p i ra t o rs also t estified at his trial, including his nephew, Madison. Madison acknow ledg ed that he had been char g ed with c onspiracy to distribute c rac k

coca ine and ha d enter ed into a plea ag ree ment with the Gover nment. Moreove r, Madison admitted that he wa s in vo lve d with the 95 2 Bo y s and a ssi ste d in sel lin g c ra c k co c a ine thr ou g h th e us e of c e ll phones. Madison testified that the dr ug s found during the s ear ch were his, and that he had obtained them throug h the 952 B oy s, but that Brooks did not know they we re in the be droom. I n addition, Madison testified that he g ave B rooks ar ound $300 to hold , wh i ch M ad i son had obtained f rom selling d r u g s , an d th a t B r o o k s kn e w it w a s dr u g mo n e y . M o r e o v e r , M a d is o n te s ti f ie d th a t ahalf-No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 5 - ounce of cra ck coca ine, which is e quivalent to 28.350 g rams, g ener ally sold f or about $300 or $325. Thoug h, at trial, Madison denied his unc le’s involvement in the conspirac y , Madison’s conf licting g rand jury

testimony

convey ed that B rooks knew Ma dison was selling drug s out of the re sidence , that Br ooks rec eived pa

y ment in e x chang e for letting other people sell drug s out of the house, a nd that Br ooks was also selling his ow n drug s. At trial, Madison testified that Br ooks would “run of f” members of

th e gan g beca

use they wer e makingthe house “ hot,” but also that Br ooks rec eived compensation for letting the se member s sell drug s from th e re s i d en ce. Finally , Madison testified that Br ooks car

ried a handg un, that Madison did not, and that the firea rms in the bedroom be longe d to Brooks, not Madison. Ga ry Yo un g , a no the r a lle g e d c o- c on sp ir a tor , a nd the a pp are nt le a de r o f t

he 95 2 B oy s, a lso testified at B rooks’ trial. Youngalso ac knowledg ed that he had bee n char g ed in the conspira cy at issue, had ente red a

plea a g ree ment with the Gover nment, and had been sentenc ed to twenty y ear s imprisonment. I n terms of B rooks’ involvement with the c onspiracy , Young testified that B rooks he lpe d him sta

rt his or g anizatio n by a ssi sti ng him in a c qu ir ing his c e llu lar ph on e and so me dr ug s. Fur ther, Youngalleg ed that Brooks wa s one of Young ’s “r eload men,” meaningBr ooks’ re sidence

se rv e d a s a loc a tio n whe re oth e r m e mbe rs of the c on sp ir a c y

c ou ld c ome and

re ple nis h th e ir

su pp ly of drug s befor e g oing ba ck on the stre et to sell them, and that Young p ai d Brooks one thousand dollars a month for this service

. Young also claimed that Brooks let Youngcook cr ack c ocaine at Br ooks’ re sidence on a number of occ asions, and that Young paid Br ooks one hundred dollars ea ch time Brooks le t Young cook ther e. F inally , Young testified that B rooks would sometimes answerNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 6 - the 95 2 B oy s’ c e llu lar ph on e and “ hit so me of the c us tom e rs ,” i.e ., fu lf

ill the ir c ra c k c oc a ine or de rs , and that ther e we re guns at Br ooks’ re sidence and B rooks also ca rried a g un. The third alleg ed co -c o n s p i rator to testify in Brooks’ trial was Antoine B ankhea d. L ike M a d i s o n an d Y o u n g , B an kh e a d a c kn o w l e d g e d th a t h e h a d b e e nc o n v i c t e d

a s a p arto f t h e c o n s p i r a c y, and that he had enter ed a plea ag ree ment with the Gover nment. Thoug h Madison ear lier alleg ed that Br o o k s d i d not even know B ankhea d, Ba nkhead te stified that he and othe r member s of the conspirac y

used Br ooks’ residenc e for drug traff icking . Moreove r, B ankhea d stated that B rooks was prese nt at the re sidence when dr ug transac tions occurr ed, and that Ba nkh ea d persona lly

rec eived

cra ck coc aine f

rom Br ooks when B ro o k s wa s actingas a “ reloa d man.” In addition, Ba nkhead testified that B rooks used the cellular phone with which dr

ug order s were taken, a

nd that Br ooks would let Gar

y Young c o o k cr ack c ocaine at B rooks’ re sidence . Finally , Ba nkhead te stified that Br ooks car

ried a s m al l h an d gun while selling cra ck coc aine to customer s during the time of the conspirac y

at issue. Br ooks himself also testified. Br ooks denie d h av i n g control over the residenc e, asse rting instead that his niece and her fathe r, Darryl Woodard, handled all of t he li ving expenses. I n addition, Br ook s cl ai m ed he did not allow drug s to be stored in the re sidence , cooked at the residenc e, or dis tr ibute d f

ro m th e re sid e nc e . Br oo ks de nie d s e lli ngdr ug s w ithYo un g , le nd ingYo un g mon e y to start up his cellular ph o n e, o r g iving Youngany connec tions to drugs. Thoug h Br ooks admitted kn ow ingthat Ma dis on

wa s in vo lve d w ithYoung ’s dr ugc on sp ir a c y , B ro ok s te sti fi e d th a t he tol d Madison not to ge t involved with Young, but Ma dison continued to sneak a round dea ling dr

ug s forNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 7 - Young

. Br ooks also testified t hat he told Young , McDuff ie and Spencer not to come in the residenc e when he saw that they wer e eng ag ing in dr ug deals, but that B rooks did not know Ba nkhead a nd that he had not been inside Br ooks’ residence. I n descr ibing the Ma rch 2, 2007 r aid, B rooks explained that $960 of the money

office rs conf

iscated w as fr om a ca

r he ha d sold a few

day s befor e, and that the re st w a s mon e y Ma dis on ha d a sk e d him to h old . H ow e ve r, B ro ok s a dmi tte d th a t he kn e w this latter amou n t of money

was drugmoney . Br ooks also admitted that he wa s car rying a g un on the da y of the se arc h, bu t c la ime d that he did no t have the g un to p ro te c t th e dr

ug s. I ns te a d, B ro ok s sa id that he “ ha d th e g un

be c a us e [he ] wa s try

ing to ke e p the m gu

y s a wa y fr om t hat ho us e ,” and

be c a us e he wa s sick and nee ded it to protect himself. As to the f irea rm s fo und in the bedroom, B rooks claimed that only

one rifle was his and that the r est of the f irea rms and ammunit ion wer e ther e whe n he moved in t o t h e house. On cross examination, Brooks a dmitted having some knowledg e about

cra ck coc aine, a lleg ing that he had sold it sometime betwee n 1998 an d 2001 and that he ha d used it as rec ently

as June or J uly

2007. At the conc lusion of the Gover nment’s ca se, B rooks moved for a judgme nt of ac quittal on all counts pursuant to F eder al Rule of Criminal Pro ce d u re 2 9. After some discussion, the district court took the motion under a dvisement and g ave the Gover nment time to brief the issue. Upon

c omp le tio n o f h is c a se , B ro ok s r e ne we d th is m oti on . T he dis tr ic t c ourt den ie d th e mot ion wi th respe ct to counts 1, 3 and 4, but g rante d the m otion with respe ct t o count 2, which involved a iding

and a be tti ngthe po sse ssi on

of mor e tha n fiv e g ra ms of c oc a ine ba se wi th int e nt to dist ri bu te . I n s o holding, the district c ourt noted that the issue was “ whether there is sufficient evide nce in the r ecor dNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 8 - fr om wh ic h a re a so na

ble jur y c ou ld inf

e r or c on c lud e be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t a ll the e le me nts of the c rime have been e stablished.” The district court explained that it did not “believe that ther e is any evidenc e in the re cord that Mr. Br ooks knew that the c ocaine specific all y fo u n d in the [be dr oo m] wa s in the ho us e or that he wa s in po sse ssi on of it. ” Thus , a c c or din g to t he dis tr ic t c ourt , the “que stion [ was] . . . whether that g uilty knowledg e can be inferr ed, and the law

. . . is that if there is evidence that someone is participating in a conspiracy , they can be responsible for the substantive offe nses that ar e re asonably fore seea ble as fa lling within the scope of the c onspiracy .” The district court c ontinued, “the pr oblem with [ fore seea bility ] i s that in this par

ticular c ase w ith this particula r count the only evidenc e with re spect to ac tual owner ship came f rom Mr. Madison and he testified that he a c tiv e ly

a tte mpt e d to c on c e a l the ow ne rs hip of the c oc a ine , a nd in f a c t, i ts p re se nc e fr om . . . the Def

endant.” Acc ording ly , the district court rule d that “no re asonable jury coul d find the essential ele ments of Count 2 bey ond a reasonable doubt,” and g rante d the motion for a judg ment

o f a c qu i t t a l w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h a tc o u n t , t h u s , w i t h dr aw i n g i tf r o mt h e j u r

y. Af te r r uli ngon that mo ti on , the dis tr ic t c ourt re a d th e jur

y ins tr uc tio ns , h e ard

the pa rt ie s’

c los ing argume nts , an d we nt ove r the ve rd ic t for m with ou t ob

je c tio ns fr om e ith e r s ide . In r e g a rd to count 1 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in s tr u c te d th e ju

r y th a t th e G o v e r

n me n t mu s t p r o v e thr e e e le me nts: (1) “that two or more people conspired or ag ree d to c ommit the cr ime either of possession with intent to distribute o r d i stribution of coca ine base ;” (2) “ that [Brooks] knowingly and voluntarily

joined the conspira cy i n t ending to help advanc e or a chieve one of its g oals;” and ( 3) that “the amount ofNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 9 - c oc a ine ba se fo r w hic h [B ro ok s] w a s a c c ounta ble wa s fifty

g ra ms o r m or e .” As to t

he qu a nti ty element, the c ourt furthe r explained, [Y] ou should include, but are not l imited to any amounts actua lly

possessed or distributed by

[Brooks] in connection with the conspirac y . You should a lso consider any quantities of cocaine base that [Brooks] understood would be pr ocesse d with the in te n t to d is tr ib u te o r d is tr ib u te d in th e c o u r s e o f th e c o n s p ir a cy by [Brook s ] or by another mem ber of the conspiracy , whether or not cha

rg ed. (Emphasis adde d.) The district c ourt instructed that, if the jur y could not ag ree as to fifty g rams of

co ca i n e b as e, i t“m u s tt h en go o nt o co n s i d er wh et h er t h e Go v ern m en t h as p ro v edt h e l es s er ch ar ge of conspira cy to p o s s e s s w it h in te n t to d is tr ib u te a t le a s t f iv e g r a ms , b u t le s s th an f if ty g r a ms of

coca ine base .” This lesser char g e, the c ourt explained, includes the same three el em en t s listed above, e x cept the third r equire s only that Br ooks be ac countable for five g rams or more, but less than fifty g rams, of c ocaine base. As to count 4, the district court instructe d the jury that the Gover

n m en t m u s t prove f

our

e le me nts : ( 1) “ on

or a bo ut t he date c ha

rg e d, that [B ro ok s] po sse ss ed on e or mor e of the fi re a rm s listed in the indic t m en t;” (2) “ that [Brooks] knew what he possessed wa s a fire arm;” ( 3) “that [Brooks] commit ted a drug traff icking crime on or about the date cha rg ed;” a nd (4) “ that the fire arm possession w as in f

urthera nce of that drug -traf

ficking crime.” As to the third element, th e c ourt

ex p l ai n ed , “A c onspiracy to possess with intent to di stribute or distribute coc aine ba se and

c on tr oll inga

pla c e fo r t

he purp os e of

dis tr ibutin g dr

ug s are dr ug -t ra ff ick in g cri mes.” (E mph a sis added.) Fur

ther, as to the fourth element, the district court instructed that “ [a] firea rm is possessed in further ance of a dr u g -traf ficking crime if the re w as some re lationship between the Def endant’ sNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 10 - purpose f or possessing a fire arm a

nd the drugcrime, e ven if the c onnection is not the only rea son for whic h the Def

endant possesse d . . . the fire arm.” The c ourt continued, Such a relationship might ex ist if y ou find, for e x ample, that [Brooks] possessed the fi re arm to p ro te c t th e dr

ug s o r t he pr oc e e ds fr om t

he dr ugsa le s o r o the rw ise fa c ili ta te a dr ugtr ans a c tio n, e xec uti on

of the tr ans a c tio n, the e sc a

pe or the lik e ly

re sp on se to conting encie s that might have arisen dur ing the commission of a crime. Th e jur y fo un d B ro ok s g uil ty

of c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss wit h in ten t to dis tr ibute , o r t o distribute, more than five g rams, but le ss tha n fifty g rams, of coca ine base; g uilty of controlling and making available a re sidence for the pur pose of manuf

actur ing, storing , or distributing c ocaine base; and g uilty

of possessing a fire arm in fur thera nce of a drug -traf

ficking crime. The d istrict court sentenc ed B rooks to concur r e nt s ixt y - mo nth pr ison terms on the conspira cy and pre mises counts, and to a conse cutive six ty -month term on the fire arm c ount. Brooks now appea ls, claiming insuff icient

e vid e nc e to c on vic t on

the c on sp ir a c y

and fi re arm c ounts

. II. As outlined above, the Gover nment prese nted ample e vidence of B rooks’ pa rticipation in a conspirac y

to possess with intent to di stribute, and distribute, coc aine base. “[T]he releva nt question is w hether , afte r viewing the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the pr osecution, anyrational trier of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt.” Jack son

v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). B rooks’ main a rg ument on appea l is that the e vidence was sufficie nt only

to show a conspira cy

to possess over fif

ty g rams, in lig ht of

the district court’s ha

ving t h ro wn o u t t h e only

part of the case dealingwith an amount betwe en five and fifty g rams. The district c ourt’s acquittal on count 2, acc ording to B rooks, demonstrates that there i s n o t s u fficie ntNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 11 - evidenc e to link him to t he lesser amount of cr ack c ocaine found in his residenc e and, thus, convict him of c ount 1 , c on sp ir a c y

a s to an amou

nt o f m or e tha

n f ive , b ut l e ss t

ha n f if ty , g ra ms. The Gove rnment ar g ues with some forc e that sufficie nt e vidence to suppor t a g reater amount is inherently

sufficie nt to support a lesser amount. The jury may have g iven only

partial c rede nce to some testimony , or may mere ly have be en lenient. The argument is supported by the re asoning in the somewhat a

nalog ous line of ca ses upholding c onflicting verdic ts. See, e .g. , United St ates v. Po we ll , 469 U.S. 57, 62-66 (1984). We need not rely on that leg al arg ument, though, be cause there is evidenc e in this case f rom which the jury

could h av e fo u nd conspirac y to possess an amount be tw e e n f ive and fi ft y g ra ms. A. First, ther e is the 11.42 g rams found in the be droom. Al t h oug h the district court he ld that there was not suffic ient evidenc e to c onvict Br ooks of aiding and abe tting in the possession of the drug s in the bedroom, the sa me drug s could be attributed to Brooks f or purpose s of the conspira cy count, bec ause a co n s pirac y count re quires less knowledg e of pa rticular dr ug s possessed by

a coco n s p i ra t o r t h an a c o u n tfo r a i d i n g an d ab et t i n g. Count 2 charg ed B rooks with aiding and abetting the possession of more than five g rams of

coca ine base with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), a nd

re qu ir e d pro of that B ro ok s “ knew that the pr inc ipa l[] po sse sse d c oc a ine wi th t he int e nt t o d istri bu te it, and that [Brooks] assisted in [ the principa l’s] p lan to deliver the coca ine.” United States v. Ledezma , 2 6 F. 3 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( em p h as i s ad d ed ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Pe na , 983 F.2dNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 12 - 71, 72 (6th Cir. 1993)). B eca use there was no “ evidenc e in the re cord that Mr. Br ooks knew that the

coca ine specific ally found [i n the re sidence ] was in the house or that he w as in possession of it,” the dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d Br oo ks c ou ld not be c ri min a lly lia ble un de r c ount 2 . U nli ke c ount 2 , c ount 1 only require d proof that B rooks wil l fu l l y b ec ame a member of

a conspira cy

and that one of

the

c on sp ir a tor s k

no wi ng ly po sse sse d w ithan inte nt to dist ri bu te , or dis tr ibute d, le ss t ha n f if ty g ra ms, but mor e than five g rams, of c rac k coca ine. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . M e y e rs , 646 F.2d 1142, 1143- 44 (6 th C ir . 1 98 1) . M or e ov e r, “ [t]he g ov e rnme nt ne e d not sho w that [B ro ok s] pa rt ic ipate d in

a ll a sp e c ts of the c onspiracy ; it need only prove that [ Br ook s ] wa s a p ar t y to the g ener al conspiratorial ag ree ment.” Un ite d S

tat es v . B arre tt , 9 3 3 F

. 2 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Christ ian , 786 F.2d 203, 211 ( 6th Cir. 1986)). I n other wor ds, Br ook s co u l d b e co nvicted under

c ount 1 e ve n if

he did no t kn owthe sp e c if

ic a mou nt o f c oc a ine po ss esse d b y any of his

co-c onspirators at a

ny g iven time, as long as his co-c onspirator intende d to possess with an intent to d istri bu te , a

nd that inte nti on wa s in fur

the ra nc e of the c on sp ir a c y and re a so na bly fo re se e a ble to Br ooks. See P inkerton v. U nited States , 3 28 U. S. 6 40 , 6 46 -4 7 ( 19 46 ); Un ite d Sta te s v . M y e rs , 102 F.3d 227, 237 ( 6th Cir. 1996). Th e Go ve rnme nt pr ov ide d su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e fo r a ra

tio na l jur y to fi nd be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t B ro ok s w ill fu lly be c a me a

me mbe r o f a

dr ugc on sp ir a c y , th a t on e of B ro ok s’

co-c onspirators—spec ifically , Dar ryl Madison—intended to possess with an intent to distribute, or to distribute, more than five g rams, but less than fifty g rams, of c rac k coca ine, and that Ma dison’s i n t en t i o n wa s i n fu rt h er an ce o f th e dr u g co n s p i ra cy an d wa s re as o n ab l y fo re s ee ab l e to B r o o k s . InNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 13 - reg ard to B rooks’ willfully becoming a member of

a drugconspirac y , both Gary Young and Antoine Ba nkhead te stified to Brooks’ involvement with the 952 B oy s. Young explained that Brooks he lped Young start up his org anization, sometimes let him cook the cra ck coc aine in the r esidenc e, and acte d as a “re load m an” f or him. Moreove r, B ankhea d confirme d that Br ooks was involved in the drug conspirac y

and th at i t s m em bers use d Br ooks’ re sidence as par t of the conspira cy . Even Br ooks’ nephe w, Madison, admitted t hat Brooks was paid for letting t he members of the c onspiracy sell drug s out of the re sidence , and that B rooks knew Ma dison was selling drug s out of the house a nd did not try to stop him . As for the underlying substantive dr ug offe nse, it is undisputed—as Madison ha s a dmi tte d—

that th e 11 .4 2 g ra

ms o f c ra c k c oc a ine fo un d in B ro ok s’ re sidence b e lon g e d to Madis o n and we re posse ssed by Madison with the intent to dist ribute them as pa rt of the dr

ug conspirac y . Madison’s intent to distribute the drug s found in the residenc e was in f urthera nce of the drug conspirac y , as the drug s were provided to him by one of his co-conspirators, and Madison admitted that they

belong ed to t he 952 Boy s’ orga nization. Finally , Madison’s pos session with an intent to distribute the 11.42 g rams of coca ine was rea sonably fore seea ble to Br ooks, since B rooks knew Ma dison was selling drug s out of the re sidence , Br ooks rec eived c ompensation for a llowing

me mbe rs of

the c on sp ir acy to se ll d

ru g s o ut o f t

he re sid e nc e , a

nd Ma dis on g a ve B ro ok s $ 30 0, in what B rooks knew to be drug money , to hold on the day of the sea

rch. B. Se c on d, e ve n if the dr

ug s in the be dr oo m we re no t a ttr ibute d to the c on sp ir a cy , Bro ok s’ possession of the $300 of Ma dison’s money , which Br ooks knew was drug money , was suff icientNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

Th is p ro vis ion

state s: 1 Exc e pt t o t h e e xt e n t t h a t a g r e a t e r m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e i s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y

thi s subsection or by any other provision of l aw, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or

drug traff icking crime (including a

crime of violence or

drug traff icking crime that provides for a n enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a

deadly or dang erous we apon or de vice) for whic h the per son m ay be prose cuted in a c ourt of the United States, uses or c arr ies a fir ear m, or who, in furthe ranc e of a ny such cr ime, possesses a fire arm, shall, in addition to the punishment pr ovided for such cr ime of violence or drug tr a f f ic k in g c r im e , [b e s e n te n c e d to th e ma n d a to r y te r ms p r o v id e d

in th e s tatute ].

- 14 - to connec t him to a conspiracy involving more than five g rams, but less than fifty g rams, of c ocaine base. Ma dison testified that a half ounc e of c rac k sold for a ro u n d $ 3 0 0 , and the district cour t instructed the jury that one ounce of cocaine was e quivalent to 28.350 g rams. Thus the ha nding ove r of the money

alone wa s enoug h to support the jury ’s ver dict beca use B rooks coul d b e t i ed to t he lesser a mount of cra ck coca ine throug h his retention of this drug money . Considering the testimony of the c o- c on sp ir a tor s c on ne c tin g B ro ok s to the 95 2 B oy s’ c on sp ir a c y in conj un c tio n w ithhis possession of the $300 in drug money , the jury had sufficie nt evidence upon which to convict B rooks of a c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d ist ri bu te , or to dis tr ibute , mor e tha n f ive g ra ms, bu t le ss than fifty g rams, of c ocaine base. There are acc ording ly

two independe nt evidentiary bases f or the jury

to have f ound Br ooks g uilty of conspira cy

with respec t to an amount betwee n five a nd fifty g rams. III . There was a lso sufficient evide nce to c on v ict Br ooks under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A) 1

no tw ith sta

nd ing B ro ok s’ argume nt t hat th e Go ve rnme nt f

a ile d to pr ov e tha

t he po sse sse d f

ir e a rm sNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 15 - in f ur the ra nc e of a drug -traf

ficking crime. The Gover n m en t d emonstrated the appropr iate nexus betwee n t he fire arms found a nd the drugconspirac y . Br ooks does not dispute that he possessed firea rms, but instead argues that t he Government fa iled to establish the require d connec tion between his fi re arm s and

a dr ug -t ra ff ic kin g o ffen se. This c ourt ha s e xpla ine d th e me anin g of the “ in fu rt he ra nc e of ” langua g e a t is su e a s f

oll ow s: T h e gover

nment must clearly

show that a fir ear

m was possessed to a dvance or promote t he commission of the under ly ing of fense . The mer e pre sence of a f irea rm in a n a re a wh e re a cri mi na l a c t oc c ur s is no t a su ff ic ie nt b a sis fo r i mpo sin g thi s p ar t i cu l ar m an d at o ry s en t en ce . R at h er , t h e gov ern m en t m u s t i l l u s t ra t e t h ro u gh specific fac ts, which tie the def endant to the f

irea rm, that the fire arm wa s possessed t o a d v an c e o r

p r o m o t e t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. United States v. Mac key , 265 F.3d 457, 461 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 105-344 (1997) , 1997 WL 668339, at *11-12). T his lang uag e imposes a slightly more string ent re quirement than the “duringand in relation to” l ang uag e, which “modif[ies] the use a nd car ry prong s of the statute.” Id. This court has a lso noted that “the possession of a firea rm on the same pr emises as a drug transac tion would not, without a showing of a connec tion be tween the two, sustain a § 924(c ) convic tion,” but instead “the firea

rm must be strateg ically

located so that it is quickly and ea sily

available for use .” Id. a t 46 2. Ad dit ion a l f

a c tor s “ re le va

nt t o a de te rm inatio n of wh e the r the we a po n wa s p os se sse d in further ance of the c rime” inc lude, but are not limi ted to, the following : “ whether the g un was loade d, the ty pe of we a po n, the le g a lity

of its po sse ssi on , th e ty

pe of dr uga c tiv ity

c on du c te d, and

the tim e and cir cumstance s under whic h the fire arm wa s found.” Id. Apply ing these fac tors to B rooks’ case , it is clea r that the Gover

nment prese nted suffic ient

e vid e nc e to p ro ve that Br oo ks po sse sse d f ir e arm s in fu rt he ra nc e of a dr ug -t ra ff ic kin g c ri me . F ir st,No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 16 - on the da y of the se arc h, AT F a g e nts fo un d f ir e arm s b oth

on B ro ok s’ pe rs on

and un de r the be d in the bedroom that Br ooks share d with Ma dison a nd in w hich ag ents also discovere d 11.42 g rams of

cra ck coc aine. These firea rms wer e not only easily

acc essible to Br ooks, but were also found inside

a re sid e nc e that wa s us e d to c on du c t dr uga c tiv ity , in

c los e pr oximi ty

to n arc oti c s, and

a lon g wi th dr ugmon e y , w hic h w ou ld a llo w a re a so na ble jur y to bel iev e that B ro ok s p os se sse d th e g un in fu rt he ra nc e of dr

ugtr ans a c tio ns or

in f ur the ra nc e of ma int a ini nga

dr ug -i nv olv e d p re mis e s. Moreove r, the first ATF ag ent throug h the door during the sear ch testified that B rooks was sitting

on the couch when the ag ents enter ed the residenc e. This, combined with the fa ct that B rooks had a loade d g un and drug money in his pants pockets, supports an inferenc e by the jury that Br ooks was standing g uard ove r the drug -involved re sidence . Finally , Br ooks’ co- conspirator s tes t i fi ed that B r o o k s c ar

r i e d a g u n , an d t h a t h e k e p tt h i s g u no nh i m w h i l e s e l l i n g dr u g s d u r i n g t h e c o n s p i r a c y. This evidence woul d p er m i t a rational jury to conclude be y ond a re asonable doubt that Brooks

car ried the gun to fac ilitate a drug -traf ficking crime. I n case s with simil ar ev id e n c e , th is c o u rt h a s u p h e ld c o n v ic ti o n s u n d e r

§ 9 2 4 ( c )

. For example, in Mack

ey , this court found that “ther e was an illega lly possessed, loade d, short-bar rele d shotgun in the living room of the c rac k house, ea sily acc essible t o the defendant and located ne ar the scale s and ra zor blades.” Id. Wit h that evidenc e, this court held that “a re asonable jury could infer that the purpose of

the fire arm wa s to provide def ense or d et er re n ce in further ance of the drug traff icking for which [t he] de fenda nt w as arr ested.” Id. at 4 6 2 -6 3 . L ikewise, in United States v. Swa ffo rd , 3 85 F .3 d 1 02 6 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) , th is c ourt

re lie d o n th e fo llo wi ngfa c ts:No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 17 - [Th e de fe nd ant’ s] .4 5 c a lib e r p ist ol w a s st rategically

loc a te d s o th a t it

wa s q uic kly and ea sily available for use. The gun was found loa ded, with its handle pointing up, within arm’s re ach of

the bed whe re [the def

endant] was ly ing.

. . . Finally , the g un was discove red a s the offic ers e x ecute d a sea rch w arr ant looking f

or drug s, which they ultimately

found. Id. at 1029. Even though t he drugs were not found i n the same r oom as the g un, the Swa ffo rd court held, upon consider ing this evide nce, that the wea pon was possesse d in further an ce of drug tr a ff ic kin g , a nd re a so ne d th a t “ the g un

se e ms muc h mor e us e fu l for pr ote c tio n pur po se s if ke pt c los e to [ the def

endant], the potential user, r ather than close to the dr

ug s.” Id. Finally , in United States

v . H arris , No. 09-5220, 2010 WL3398872 (6th Cir. Aug

. 27, 2010), t his court noted thre e key piece s of evide nce in f

inding s u ff

i cient evidence f

or a § 924( c) c onviction—the defe ndant’s “r esidenc e itself was c entra l to his drug a ctivity ” because he dealt drug s out of t he residence , “at least one g un was located in extremely

close proximit y

to cra ck cocaine,” and “a ll five handguns that were found

wer e loade d and not safe ly secur ed, mea ning the y could be use d immediately .” Id. a t *3 . B e c a us e the fa cts of B rooks’ case are analog ous to the se prior case s, the jury had suff icient evidenc e to find the re quired ne x us betwee n the fire arms discove red a nd the drug -traf

ficking crimes at issue. Br ooks also alleg es that t he dis trict court erre d in failing to provide a limiting instruction for the jur y to d isr e g ard

an A TF a g e nt’ s te sti mony re g ard ingB ro ok s’ int e nt, bu t, at w or st, thi s w ou ld be harmless err or. Br ooks contends that this testimony should be excluded, and that, without it, there is insu f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to c o n v ic t B r o o k s u n d e r § 9 2 4 ( c )

. I n p arti c u la r , B r o o k s c h a ll e n g e s the following testimony

of Ag ent Eric K imble: Q: On thi s p art ic ula

r o c c a sio n, y ou

re c ov e re d b oth

g un s a nd dr ug s, c or re c t? A: Guns and drug s were located in the house , y es, sir.No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 18 - Q: Okay , based on w hat y ou know of y our investig ation and this particular location, did that mean a ny thing to y ou? A: Yes, it did. Q: What did it mean to y ou? A: I t me ant t

hat th e we a

po ns we re the re to p ro te c t th e na rc oti c s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

su sta ine d the de fe ns e ’s ob je c tio n to thi s li ne of

qu e sti on ing , b ut t

he de fe ns e did

n o ta s k f o r t h e c o u rtt o i n s t r

u c t , an d t h e c o u rtd i d

n o ti n s t r u c t , t h e j u r

y t o d i s r e g ar d

t h i s t e s t i m o n y. As su min g wi tho ut n e c e ssa ri ly de c idi ngtha

t th is t e sti mony

wa s in a dmi ssi ble , thi s c ourt “ c an r e ve rs e only for plain e rror

aff ectingsubstantial rig hts,” since B rooks failed to object at trial to the lack of a limiting instruction. United States v. Christian , 7 86 F .2 d 2 03 , 2 14 (6 th C ir . 1 98 6) (c iti ngF e d. R. Crim. P. 52(b)). “Unde r plain er ror r eview, [the def

endant] must show that the error ‘af fec ted substantial rig hts’ and that it ‘ser iously aff ecte d the fa irness, integ rity or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.’” Un ite d S

tat es v . S mi th , 6 0 1 F. 3 d

5 3 0 , 5 4 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Jones , 108 F.3d 668, 670 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) ). Moreove r, “[ t] o show that the error a ffe cted

su bs tanti a l r ig hts , [the de fe nd ant] mus t g e ne ra lly sh owthat th e e rr or

wa s p re jud ic ia l, t hat is , th a t it aff ecte d the outcome of

the district court proc eeding s.” Id. (q u o t i n g Jones , 108 F.3d at 672). The dist rict court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction as to Ag ent Kimble’s testimony does not amount to plain err or. Even w it h out this t estimony , the re cord c ontains compelling evidenc e to convict Brooks under § 924(c) . As discussed above , the evidenc e at tria l showed that Br ooks possessed loade d firea rms on the day of t he search, that drug s were found in execution of that

s e ar c h n e ar s o m e o f B r o o k s ’ f i r e ar m s , t h a t B r o o k s ’ r e s i d e n c e w a s i n v o l v e d i nt h e dr u g c o n s p i r a c y,

and that B ro ok s c arr ie d a

g un wi th him wh ile e ng a g ing in dr ug a c tiv iti e s. I n ad dit ion , B ro ok s d idNo. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 19 - not obje ct to, a

nd has not c halleng ed on appe al, the trial testimony of Ag ent Nethe r, who e x plained that “[t] y pically , drug deale rs wo u ld keep, you know, long g uns in a reside nce to pr otect the

re sid e nc e , b ut w he n th e y

a re a c tua lly

—th e g un s th e y a c tua lly

ke e p o n th e ir

pe rs on a ll the tim e wo uld usually be a sma ller handgun.” This testimony , combined with the pre viously discussed evide nce, could have led the jury

to con cl u de beyond a re asonable doubt that Brooks posse ssed fire arms at l e a s tt o p r o t e c t h i s dr

u g - i n v o l v e d p r e m i s e s , i f n o t a l s o t o f a c i l i t a t e dr

u g t r an s a c t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y, the lack of

a limiting instruction in reg ard to Age nt Kimble’s t estimony did not unfairly aff ect the

ou tc ome of

the pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t B ro ok s. Finally , Br ooks claims that there is insufficient evidenc e to c onvict him under 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c )( 1) (A ) b e c a

us e the Go ve rnme nt f

a ile d to pr ov e the e xiste nc e of a dr ug -t ra ff ic kin g c ri me , b ut,

a s e xpla ine d a

bo ve , the re wa s su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to c on vic t B ro ok s o f c on sp ir a c y to p os se ss w ith intent to dist ribute, or to distribute, more than five, but le ss tha n fifty , g rams of c ocaine base. The firea rms provision at issue defines “ drug traff icking crime” for pur

poses of § 924(c ) as “ any

felony punishable under

the Controlled Substanc es Act (21 U.S.C. 801 e t seq.), the Controlled Substance s I mport and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or c hapter 705 of title 46.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2)

. This definition includes both conspirac y t o p ossess with an intent to distribute, or to distribut e,

coca ine base, and maintaining a drug -involved pre mises, as both are drug -traf ficking crimes unde r the Controlled Substances Ac t. Brooks did not cha lleng e his co n v i ction on count 3 of the indictment, for maintaining a drug -involved pre mises, in this appea l. Accord i n gl y , ev en if there

wer e not suffic ient evidenc e to convict B rooks under co u n t 1, Br ooks could be c onvicted under §No. 08-2514

United States v. Brook

s

- 20 - 924(c) (1)( A) for

possessing a firea

rm in f urthera nce of maintaining a drug -involved pre mises. Thus the Gover nment did produce sufficie nt evidence to sustain Brooks’ c onviction under c ount 4. IV. F or the se re a so ns we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

.