[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11043

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARREN J. MCCORMICK, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 7:20-cr-00035-WLS-TQL-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11043

Before LUCK, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, defendant Darren McCormick appeals his 

conviction for possession with intent to distribute over fifty grams 

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

(b)(1)(A)(viii). After careful review of the record and the parties’ 

briefs, we affirm McCormick’s conviction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Michael Husbands 

In October 2019, Michael Husbands was arrested for 

possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs. After his arrest, 

Husbands gave an interview about his work for Darren

McCormick. Husbands lived in Nashville, Georgia. Husbands 

made a deal with the Alapaha Circuit district attorney, who agreed 

to let Husbands post bond in exchange for his assistance in 

investigating McCormick. 

Husbands had a close relationship with McCormick, who 

paid Husbands to assist McCormick with various tasks starting in 

2018. These tasks included delivering drugs for McCormick and 

giving McCormick rides to the store and other places. By 

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 2 of 11
22-11043 Opinion of the Court 3

Husbands’s estimate, he made 30 to 40 drug deliveries for 

McCormick.

B. The Investigation of McCormick 

In 2020, the Berrien County Narcotics Office (“BCNO”), 

which was investigating McCormick, used Husbands as an

informant.

Following his release from jail, Husbands returned to 

working for McCormick, who asked Husbands if packages could

be delivered to Husbands’s residence in Nashville, Georgia. 

Husbands contacted the district attorney’s investigators about 

McCormick’s request. Then, Husbands agreed to receive 

McCormick’s packages at Husbands’s Nashville address.

C. McCormick’s Packages Sent to Husbands’s Residence 

Two packages were delivered to Husbands’s address. When 

the first package arrived, McCormick asked Husbands to open it. 

The first package contained marijuana. The investigators 

instructed Husbands to “let it go through” to McCormick.

McCormick later told Husbands to watch out for another 

package that would arrive in the next few days at his Nashville 

address. Husbands informed the investigators that McCormick 

was expecting a second package. The package then was 

intercepted by a U.S. Postal Inspector in Tallahassee and taken by 

that inspector to the post office in Nashville, Georgia. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11043

D. The May 8, 2020 Package 

On May 8, 2020, after a law enforcement agent informed 

Husbands that the second package had arrived, Husbands picked 

up the package at the post office in Nashville. The package had 

been sent to an indecipherable name at Husbands’s Nashville 

address. When Husbands returned home, he suggested to the 

investigators that the package be stored in a shed in his backyard. 

However, BCNO Agent Hines Taylor instructed Husbands to 

place the package in the trunk of Husbands’s car for safekeeping. 

On that same day (May 8), Husbands informed McCormick 

that the package had arrived in the mail. Husbands led McCormick

to believe the package was in Husbands’s shed, where Husbands 

had held packages for McCormick on other occasions. 

When Husbands talked with McCormick about the 

package, Husbands learned McCormick might need a ride from 

Douglas, Georgia, to Nashville. Husbands then offered 

McCormick a ride, which McCormick accepted. McCormick did 

not ask Husbands to bring the package, and Husbands did not tell 

McCormick the drug package was in the car. 

After Husbands informed the investigators that McCormick 

needed a ride, Agent Taylor directed Husbands to pick McCormick

up and provided Husbands with a recording device that recorded 

Husbands’s conversations.

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 4 of 11
22-11043 Opinion of the Court 5

E. McCormick’s Recorded Conversation with Husbands on 

May 8, 2020

Later the same day (May 8), Husbands picked up 

McCormick in Douglas, Georgia. McCormick’s conversation with 

Husbands on this trip was recorded by the agents and played for 

the jury. 

Soon after McCormick entered the car, he asked Husbands, 

“You put it up good, didn’t you?” Husbands responded, “Yeah. I 

got it put up. I know better than that.” Husbands testified that, 

during this exchange, McCormick was referring to the package that 

came in the mail.

McCormick also said, “Told my boy I don’t know how the 

f*** I’m gone sell this dope but I told em um sh*t cost a lot of 

f***ing money you know what I am saying $600 you hear me Unc?” 

and “My a** gonna make a lot of money off this sh*t cause um we 

gonna be havers not have nots.” McCormick then described the 

purity of the methamphetamine, stating, “It’s real ice you feel me.” 

Husbands testified that “ice” refers to the purest form of 

methamphetamine.

During the recorded conversation, McCormick detailed his 

plans to “cut” and otherwise prepare the drugs for sale so that he 

could preserve the purity needed to make a profit. McCormick and 

Husbands discussed the prices they could get for different

quantities of the drugs, including a gram, a “zip” (one ounce), and 

an “8 ball” (3.5 grams or an eighth of an ounce). McCormick told

Husbands, “This first round right here we grinding this

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11043

mother***er,” which Husbands understood to mean that 

McCormick planned to sell the drugs as quickly as possible.

On the way back from Douglas, Husbands’s car was 

stopped, and the package in the trunk was seized. Law 

enforcement later confirmed that: (1) the package contained two 

substances; (2) the first substance weighed 6.971 grams and 

contained 47.8 percent pure methamphetamine; and (3) the second 

substance weighed 215.115 grams and contained 47.8 percent pure 

methamphetamine. 

F. Indictment and Trial 

In 2020, McCormick was charged with possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine weighing in excess of fifty

grams, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) 

(Count 1).

During the three-day trial, the government presented 

testimony from Husbands and several law enforcement officers, as 

well as other evidence, including audio recordings, that established 

the facts recounted above. At the close of the government’s 

evidence, McCormick moved for judgment of acquittal under 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district court reserved 

ruling on the motion.

The jury found McCormick guilty of the charged drug 

offense. The district court denied McCormick’s motion for 

judgment of acquittal. Ultimately, the district court sentenced 

McCormick to 195 months’ imprisonment.

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 6 of 11
22-11043 Opinion of the Court 7 

II. SUFFICENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

To convict a defendant under § 841(a) of possession with 

intent to distribute, the government must prove the defendant 

(1) knowingly (2) possessed a controlled substance, and (3) with 

intent to distribute it. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297 

(11th Cir. 2013). 

“Possession may be actual or constructive, joint or sole.” 

United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008)

(quotation marks omitted). This case involves only constructive 

possession.

To establish constructive possession, the government must 

demonstrate that the defendant (1) “knew the identity of the 

substance,” and (2) owned it or exercised dominion and control 

over it. United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1525 (11th Cir. 

1985); see also Capers, 708 F.3d at 1306 (“To prove constructive 

possession, the government must produce evidence showing 

ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband . . . .” 

(quotation marks omitted)); Woodard, 531 F.3d at 1360 (“A 

defendant’s constructive possession of a substance can be proven 

by a showing of ownership or dominion and control over the

drugs . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)). “‘[C]onstructive

possession’ of a thing occurs if a person doesn’t have actual 

possession of it, but has both the power and the intention to take 

control over it later.” Capers, 708 F.3d at 1297 (quoting United 

States v. Cochran, 683 F.3d 1314, 1316 (11th Cir. 2012)). 

“Constructive possession need not be exclusive, and may be 

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11043

proven through circumstantial evidence that shows ownership, 

dominion, or control over the drugs[.]” Holmes v. Kucynda, 321 

F.3d 1069, 1080 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Poole, 878 

F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989)).

Here, there was ample evidence to convict McCormick on a 

constructive possession theory. The evidence showed that: 

(1) McCormick had knowledge that the package delivered to 

Husbands on May 8, 2020 contained methamphetamine; 

(2) McCormick both owned the drug package and had the ability 

and intent to exercise control over the drugs; and (3) McCormick 

had the intent to distribute them.1 As to the knowledge element of 

§ 841(a), there was more than sufficient evidence that McCormick 

knew the package contained methamphetamine. McCormick 

asked Husbands if packages could be delivered to Husbands’s 

address and told Husbands to watch out for the package a couple 

of days before it arrived. Then, on May 8, 2020, McCormick asked 

if Husbands had “put it up good,” to confirm that Husbands had 

hidden the drugs in a safe location. In the same conversation with 

Husbands, McCormick (1) described the purity of the 

methamphetamine, (2) detailed his plans to prepare the 

methamphetamine for sale, (3) discussed the prices he could get for 

1 This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in 

favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th 

Cir. 2018).

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 8 of 11
22-11043 Opinion of the Court 9

different quantities of drugs, and (4) indicated that he planned to 

sell the drugs quickly. These facts clearly support the jury’s finding 

that McCormick knew the package contained methamphetamine.

The same facts show that McCormick both owned the 

package and had the ability and intent to exercise control over the 

methamphetamine. Because McCormick asked Husbands if 

packages could be delivered to Husbands’s address and later told 

Husbands to watch out for the package shortly before it arrived, a 

reasonable jury readily could find that McCormick owned the 

package and arranged for this package to be sent to Husbands’s 

address. As noted above, McCormick later told Husbands about

his plans to sell the methamphetamine during their recorded 

conversation on May 8, 2020. This evidence, taken together, 

allowed the jury to conclude that McCormick exercised dominion 

and control over the drugs, which in turn allowed the jury to infer 

he constructively possessed the drugs. See Woodard, 531 F.3d at 

1361 (concluding that sufficient evidence showed the defendant 

constructively possessed marijuana when he told a co-conspirator 

that he planned to sell the marijuana once it arrived in the mail). 

Turning to § 841(a)’s third element (intent to distribute), 

McCormick’s recorded statements about his plans to sell the drugs 

clearly demonstrated his intent to distribute the 

methamphetamine. Accordingly, the evidence was more than 

sufficient to convict McCormick of possession with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine.

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11043

McCormick argues that he was a mere passenger in 

Husbands’s car and had no knowledge that there were drugs 

hidden in the truck. McCormick stresses that Husbands did not tell 

him drugs were in the truck. Even so, this argument is beside the 

point here. First, this is not a case where the government seeks to 

show constructive possession by a defendant’s presence in a vehicle 

or house where drugs are found during a search. Rather this case 

is about ownership of a drug package sent through the mail to a 

designated location during a specific time period. To establish 

constructive possession in that situation, the government needed 

to prove only that: (1) McCormick knew the package contained 

methamphetamine and (2) he owned the drug package or had 

dominion and control over it. See Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1525; 

Capers, 708 F.3d at 1306. The evidence recited above proved a 

strong ownership nexus between McCormick and the 

methamphetamine that he constructively possessed. That 

McCormick did not know the drugs were hidden in the car trunk, 

not Husbands’s shed, does not negate the force of the other 

evidence that McCormick owned the methamphetamine and 

intended to sell it. 

McCormick also argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction because there were no circumstances 

evidencing his “consciousness of guilt.” See United States v. 

Stanley, 24 F.3d 1314, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the 

evidence was insufficient to sustain a defendant’s § 841(a) 

conviction when: (1) she was a passenger in a vehicle where drugs 

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 10 of 11
22-11043 Opinion of the Court 11

were hidden, and (2) there were no “circumstances evidencing a 

consciousness of guilt,” such as evidence that she made 

incriminating statements). We disagree. McCormick’s 

incriminating statements during his recorded conversation with 

Husbands proved that he knew the package contained 

methamphetamine.

In sum, we conclude sufficient evidence supported 

McCormick’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11043 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 11 of 11