Opinion ID: 727068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Text: 28 Robinson argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), because the government failed to show that there were five or more other persons with respect to whom [he] occupie[d] a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management. 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(2)(A). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), we reject Robinson's claim. 29 Robinson concedes on appeal that there was sufficient evidence to show he controlled Edward Osborne (one of his primary drug couriers) and Osborne's sidekick, Charles Bonds, for purposes of § 848(c). Thus, only three other persons need to have been organized, supervised, or managed by Robinson in order for § 848(c)(2)(A) to apply, and they are easily found. First, Osborne was not the only person hired by Robinson to kill Sherman Christian. Carl Burrell, Little Mike Abernathy, and Lopez Moore (Pez) also participated. Burrell dropped out of the job after a short while, but Little Mike and Pez were there for the actual shooting. As mentioned earlier, Robinson supplied the weapons and paid the expenses and salaries for the mission. Indeed, Little Mike complained on at least one occasion of riding around every day, and he demanded more money from Robinson. J.A. at 1219. As Burrell, Little Mike, and Pez were essentially hired guns, the jury could very reasonably have concluded that they were organized, supervised, or managed by Robinson for the purpose of killing Christian. Although the argument might be raised that the shooting was not a part of the CCE, the jury could have found otherwise, and it apparently did so when it convicted Robinson on the drug-related homicide charge. 30 Additionally, Osborne testified that West, Teresa Sweeney, Devonna Rollins, and someone named Judy all worked under [Robinson's] command at his office, doing anything he directed. J.A. at 1114. Indeed, Sweeney, Rollins, and someone else named Rich were identified as specializing in manipulating documents for money-laundering purposes. Robinson contends that there was no evidence that these office employees knew they were participating in a drug conspiracy. Osborne's testimony is to the contrary, however. At trial, Osborne stated that the entire reason for falsifying these documents was more than apparent to him, even before he became involved in drug trafficking: the customers all had enormous amounts of cash but no legitimate jobs, giving rise to the inference that they were involved in narcotics. In addition, word of mouth and personal observation compounded the suspicion that these customers were drug dealers. J.A. at 1093. Certainly, the jury was entitled to infer that Sweeney, Rollins, Judy, and Rich knew the purposes for which they engaged in wholesale forgery for a living. The jury could have decided that Robinson's scenario--in which these workers came to the office, falsified documents all day, and then went home without ever knowing why they did what they did--was the far less probable one. 31 Adding together Osborne, Bonds, Burrell, Little Mike, Pez, West, Sweeney, Rollins, Judy, and Rich, we count 10 people--undoubtedly more than enough for purposes of § 848(c)(2)(A). 32