Opinion ID: 3063231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to determine if it was sufficient to support Chisolm’s convictions. United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005). A. Count 1: Conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846) and Possession with the Intent to Distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) To sustain a conviction for conspiracy for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal agreement to possess a controlled substance with the intent 1 Chisolm was convicted of the following counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base more than 50 grams of cocaine base with Jonathan Cellen Bolware, Floyd Kimball, and “other persons,” between April 17, 2006, and June 3, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(A)(iii) (“Count 1”); (2) distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base on July 20, 2006, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) (“Count 2”); (3) 2 counts of distribution of more than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 10, 2008, and April 11, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (“Counts 5 and 6”); and (4) distribution of cocaine on April 24, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (“Count 7”). 2 to distribute it existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant, knowingly and voluntarily joined it. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; see Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1333. “To satisfy this burden, the government need not prove that the defendant knew all of the details or participated in every aspect of the conspiracy. Rather, the government must only prove that the defendant knew the essential nature of the conspiracy.” United States v. Miranda, 425 F.3d 953, 959 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation and alterations omitted). “Because the crime of conspiracy is predominantly mental in composition, it is frequently necessary to resort to circumstantial evidence to prove its elements.” United States v. Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168, 1182 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “While the existence of a simple buyer-seller relationship alone does not furnish the requisite evidence of a conspiratorial agreement, an agreement to distribute drugs may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to a purchaser.” Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1292 (citation, quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). Here, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Chisolm guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base with Bolware, Kimball, and “other persons,” between April 17, 2006, and June 3, 2008 beyond a reasonable 3 doubt. The evidence established that Chisolm, Bolware, Kimball, and others had conspired to do so as: (1) Bolware and Chisolm were cousins and partners, who pooled their money to buy powder cocaine and split their profits equally; (2) Chisolm introduced Bolware to his cocaine suppliers in Dothan and Atlanta; (3) Chisolm and Bolware would travel together to buy the cocaine with Bolware transporting the money and cocaine in his car and Chisolm driving a surveillance car to look out for law enforcement; (4) Bolware would “cook” the powder cocaine into cocaine base (i.e. crack cocaine) in Kimball’s shed on Bolware’s mother’s property while Chisolm was present; (5) Chisolm and Bolware paid Kimball with cocaine base for the use of his shed and his assistance in cleaning and hiding the glassware used to “cook” the cocaine into base; (6) Kimball tested the quality of the cocaine base for Chisolm and Bolware; (7) Bolware sold cocaine powder and base and maintained custody of the money; (8) Kimball delivered drugs to customers and would stand guard when Chisolm delivered drugs; (9) Chisolm counted the money; and (10) Chisolm would also deliver drugs to customers. The evidence established that more than 50 grams of cocaine base was involved in the conspiracy because: (1) for each drug purchase Bolware and Chisolm made from a dealer named Alton over the course of six or seven months, 4 they purchased approximately one-half of a kilogram of cocaine to split; (2) Bolware and Chisolm also purchased cocaine powder from an individual named “B” on 20 to 40 different occasions, and Bolware estimated that they received over 50 kilograms of cocaine from “B”; and (3) McCloud testified that on approximately 20 occasions from January through June 2006, he would buy 4 or 5 crack cocaine “cookies,” which were approximately 21 to 23 grams each, from Chisolm and Bolware. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chisolm conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base between April 17, 2006, and June 3, 2008. See Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1333; Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1292 (holding that sufficient evidence supported conspiracy because the government established “the existence of a continuing relationship between Mr. Stratton and Ms. Thompson in which Mr. Stratton would supply Ms. Thompson cocaine, the bulk of which she would distribute to customers”).2 Because the evidence was sufficient 2 Chisolm submits that Bolware’s testimony was incredible as matter of law because Bolware testified that he and Chisolm on occasion would drive to Dothan, which was approximately 100 miles away, once or twice a day and yet would still have time to sell drugs. However, Bolware testified that he rarely went to Dothan twice in one day and that he sometimes would have a buyer lined up to give drugs to immediately upon his return. This testimony is not incredible as matter of law because driving 400 miles in a day and dropping something off to someone who was waiting for it is not an impossible event. See United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation and alteration omitted) (holding that a witness’s testimony is “incredible as a matter of law” if the witness testifies “as to facts 5 for a reasonable jury to find Chisolm guilty of Count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court should affirm Chisolm’s conviction as to Count 1. B. Counts 2, 5, 6, and 7: Distribution of a Controlled Substance (21 U.S.C. § 841) Chisolm also was charged with (1) distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base on July 20, 2006 (Count 2); (2) 2 counts of distribution of more than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 10, 2008, and April 11, 2008 (Counts 5 and 6); and (3) distribution of cocaine on April 24, 2008 (Count 7). With respect to Count 2, the evidence presented at trial established that: (1) on July 20, 2006, to set up a controlled buy as part of his cooperation with law enforcement, Jarvarus Taylor telephoned Chisolm to buy cocaine base because Chisolm had been and was his source of cocaine base; (2) Chisolm told him to call Bolware, who Taylor did not know prior to that point; (3) later that day, Taylor made a controlled buy of cocaine base at Bolware’s mother house; and (4) the cocaine base recovered was 55.2 grams and 39% pure. This was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chisolm distributed more than 50 grams of cocaine base on July 20, 2006. The evidence presented at trial with respect to Counts 5 (distribution of more that the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” 6 than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 10, 2008), 6 (distribution of more than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 11, 2008), and 7 (distribution of cocaine on April 24, 2008) was sufficient to sustain Chisolm’s convictions. Dewayne Lamar Johnson, who was cooperating with law enforcement, set up three controlled buys of cocaine base with Chisolm. On April 10, 2008, Johnson made a controlled buy, which was recorded on audio and video, of 19.6 grams of 37.2% pure cocaine base for $900 from Chisolm. On April 11, 2008, Johnson made another controlled buy, which was recorded on video, of 20.5 grams of 41.3% pure cocaine base for $1,350 from Chisolm. Deputy Ramie, who had seen Chisolm on 20 to 25 other occasions, identified Chisolm as the individual in the video of the incidents on April 10 and 11 with “100 percent” certainty. On April 27, 2008, Johnson made his third controlled buy of 12.1 grams of 60.8% pure cocaine base from Chisolm. Though this third buy was not recorded, Officer Retherford testified that he was surveilling Johnson during the buy and saw Chisolm following Johnson to Johnson’s house in their respective vehicles and Deputy Ramie saw Chisolm arrive at Johnson’s house, and enter Johnson’s car for a short while before returning to his car. This was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chisolm distributed more than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 10, 2008, and April 11, 2008 (Counts 5 and 6) and distributed of cocaine base on April 24, 2008. 7