Opinion ID: 2821480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Hodges contends the district court erred in denying his renewed motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to convict him with respect to each count. We review the evidence presented on each Count de novo. See United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency of the evidence grounds).
First, Hodges asserts he should have been acquitted of Count One because the Government failed to prove the substance at issue was Cannabis sativa L., as opposed to another species of marijuana. Marijuana is statutorily defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). We have rejected the 9 Case: 14-11994 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 10 of 13 argument the government must prove the marijuana was Cannabis sativa L. United States v. Henley, 502 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1974).2 Second, Hodges contends the Government failed to link him to the marijuana found in a backpack outside his house and therefore did not prove Hodges possessed the marijuana or had intent to distribute it. In order to convict a defendant of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, the government must prove knowledge, actual or constructive possession, and intent to distribute. United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1989). As discussed more fully below, the items found in the bedroom, such as the .38 caliber bullets and .22 caliber ammunition, were sufficient to link Hodges to the backpack, which contained a substantial quantity of marijuana and a set of digital scales. Additionally, a reasonable jury could have inferred intent to distribute from the items found in the bedroom and in Hodges’ car, which included marijuana; a grinder; a digital scale; vacuum sealed bags, mason jars, and Ziploc bags containing suspected marijuana residue; and small plastic bags commonly used to distribute marijuana. See id. (stating intent to distribute can be proven circumstantially by the quantity of drugs or by the existence of implements 2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 10 Case: 14-11994 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 11 of 13 commonly used to distribute drugs). In sum, the district court did not err in denying Hodges’ renewed motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count One.
Hodges argues he should have been acquitted of Count Two because the Government did not prove a nexus between Hodges and the guns found in the backpack. To convict a defendant for possession of firearms by a convicted felon, the government must prove (1) the defendant was a convicted felon (2) who knowingly actually or constructively possessed a firearm (3) that was in or affected interstate commerce. United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir. 2014). Because he was renting and living on the premises, Hodges had the power and intent to exercise control over the premises on which the guns were located. See id. (explaining to establish constructive possession, the government must show that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion, or control over the firearm, or that the defendant had the power and intent to exercise dominion or control over it). Officers also found .38 caliber bullets and an ammunition box for .22 caliber bullets inside the same room in which they found Hodges’ wallet and a dollar bill marked with Hodges’ alias, “Gator.” In Hodges’ backyard, police found two .38 caliber revolvers and one .22 caliber handgun. Because the bullets and ammunition box found in the bedroom matched the calibers of three of the four 11 Case: 14-11994 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 12 of 13 guns found in Hodges’ backyard, a reasonable jury could infer Hodges had the power and intent to exercise control over those guns and therefore constructively possessed the guns. Additionally, in one of the videos admitted during trial, Hodges waved around an apparently loaded revolver similar to one of the revolvers found outside, further suggesting he had the power and intent to exercise control over at least one of the guns found outside. The district court did not err in denying Hodges’ renewed motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count Two.
Finally, Hodges contends he should have been acquitted of Count Three because the Government did not present any evidence suggesting the guns furthered a drug trafficking crime. To support a conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, the government must show the firearm helped, furthered, promoted, or advanced the drug trafficking. United States v. Timmons, 283 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir. 2002). The government must establish a nexus between the firearm and the drug trafficking. Id. at 1253. The Government’s evidence supported a finding there was an ongoing marijuana distribution operation at Hodges’ house and that Hodges had constructive possession of the guns. The guns were found in the same backpack as several mason jars full of marijuana and a large digital scale. Officers also found .38 caliber bullets and a .22 caliber ammunition box next to marijuana and a digital 12 Case: 14-11994 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 13 of 13 scale in the same room as other implements commonly used in marijuana distribution, such as vacuum sealed bags and small plastic bags. While the guns were not immediately accessible to anyone in the house given that the backpack was found near the property line, they were just as accessible as the drugs, and a reasonable jury could find a sufficient nexus between the guns and the drug trafficking offense. The district court did not err in denying Hodges’ renewed motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count Three.