Opinion ID: 3064166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: On appeal, Jones argues that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to show that she “maintain[ed]” the residence at 5606 86th Street, because it failed to show that she exercised “any significant control” over the site, had a “role in the acquisition of the site, rented or furnished the site, repaired the site, or supplied food to those at the site.” To support a conviction for maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing crack cocaine, the government had to prove that Jones knowingly operated or maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing 17 crack cocaine. See United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1090 (11th Cir. 1992), modified in part on other grounds, 977 F.2d 538 (11th Cir. 1992); 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). Distribution alone is not enough to establish purposeful maintenance of a place, but “[a]cts evidencing such matters as control, duration, acquisition of the site, renting or furnishing the site, repairing the site, supervising, protecting, supplying food to those at the site, and continuity are, of course, evidence of knowingly maintaining the place.” Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1091. Because the government offered testimony that Jones helped direct and “supervise” the crack cocaine distribution before Henry’s arrest and supervised the Pit “employees,” in order to continue the distribution operation, after Henry’s arrest, the government presented sufficient evidence to show that Jones “maintained” the Pit for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing crack cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.