Opinion ID: 4521761
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possession of Cocaine and Methamphetamine5

Text: The government presented sufficient evidence to show that Griffin knowingly possessed the methamphetamine and cocaine. The evidence revealed that Griffin exercised “dominion” and “control” over the Crown Royal bag containing the methamphetamine and cocaine because that bag was found in Griffin’s bedroom within Griffin’s house. See Flanders, 752 F.3d at 1332. Moreover, near the Crown Royal bag, the officers found multiple car titles listing Griffin’s name and address, a ledger that Griffin had written in, and the marijuana that Griffin admitted to owning. With this evidence, a jury could have reasonably found that Griffin knowingly possessed the methamphetamine and cocaine. Although Griffin proffered an alternative explanation for how the Crown Royal bag of drugs landed in his bedroom—that Walker or “Big Man” put it there—the jury was free to disbelieve and reject this testimony. United States v. Williamson, 339 F.3d 1295, 1301 n.14 (11th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Allison, 908 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The jury may view the defendant’s false explanatory statement as substantive evidence proving guilt.”). 5 Griffin admits that he possessed the marijuana. He therefore only challenges the “intent to distribute” element of that charge. 11 Case: 18-14826 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 12 of 13 ii. Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine and Marijuana The evidence also supports the jury’s finding that Griffin intended to distribute the methamphetamine and marijuana. As an initial matter, the amount of the drugs supports a finding that Griffin intended to distribute them. Williams, the government’s expert on drug distribution, stated that the weight of the methamphetamine alone—21 grams—indicated that it was intended for distribution. And although Williams acknowledged that the weight of the marijuana (45 grams) was such that it “could go either way” regarding whether Griffin intended to sell it, he concluded that the surrounding evidence was “indicative of someone who’s distributing marijuana.” Indeed, the record is rife with indicia of drug distribution: in addition to the drugs themselves, the officers recovered a set of scales, vehicle deeds bearing Griffin’s name, a ledger (which Griffin disputed ownership but admitted to writing in) containing names and contact information, plastic sandwich bags, and $982 in cash. See Capers, 708 F.3d at 1301; Mercer, 541 F.3d at 1076. Also telling was what the officers did not find in Griffin’s home: items indicating personal drug use, such as syringes, pipes, or smoking devices. See Mercer, 541 F.3d at 1076. Against this evidence, Griffin argues that the amount of marijuana was consistent with personal use and he had been smoking it earlier in the day, as evidenced by the unrecovered refuse in the trash can. And he maintains that he did 12 Case: 18-14826 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 13 of 13 not possess and was not aware of the methamphetamine. Again, we cannot reverse a conviction solely because the defendant put forth an innocent explanation. Campo, 840 F.3d at 1258; Williamson, 339 F.3d at 1301 n.14. The government presented enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Griffin intended to distribute the methamphetamine and marijuana. Capers, 708 F.3d at 1301. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 13