Opinion ID: 1034195
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Thomas—Counts 6 and 7

Text: Thomas argues that the Government failed to offer sufficient evidence to support his convictions on Counts 6 and 7. On Count 6, Thomas was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a detectable amount of powder cocaine on July 2, 2010, in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). On Count 7, Thomas was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of powder cocaine on July 13, 2010, in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii). To convict a defendant of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of § 841, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed cocaine that he intended to distribute. See United States v. Cain, 440 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the quantity alleged under § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) triggers a sentence enhancement, the Government was required to prove that the quantity of cocaine alleged in Count 7 was equal to or greater than 500 grams beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. GamezGonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699-700 (5th Cir. 2003). With respect to Count 6, the Government offered evidence that Mejorado, and JeCarlos met on the evening of July 1, 2010, to conduct a cocaine deal. The next day, Thomas drove to Shreveport to deliver the cocaine obtained from that deal. Officers followed Thomas to several locations, and they observed Mims drive into a driveway and park behind Thomas’s car. Agent Sarpy observed Mims and Thomas meet at a doublewide trailer located on Miller Street, and observed Mims retrieve a package from Thomas’s car. Wire intercepts of conversations between Mims, Thomas, and JeCarlos corroborate the 20 The term “soda” indicates that baking soda or a similar substance had been used to “cut” the cocaine. The term “hard” indicates that the cocaine had been cooked into crack, i.e., it was “hard.” 22 Case: 12-30413 Document: 00512310475 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 No. 12-30413 Government’s theory that JeCarlos had arranged for Thomas to deliver cocaine to Mims on July 2, 2010. With respect to Count 7, the Government presented evidence that the CI purchased cocaine from Pugh on July 13, 2010. Pugh testified that he thought he had received a half-kilogram of cocaine from Thomas that day, and sold half of what he received to the CI. Yet Thomas argues that this testimony is inconsistent with the crime lab finding that the net weight of the cocaine that the CI obtained from Pugh on July 13 weighed only 225.8 gross grams. Thus Thomas contends that because the lab finding yielded only 225.8 grams, if Pugh sold half of what he received to the CI, then Pugh had only 451.6 gross grams of cocaine total to begin with; less than the 500 grams for which Thomas was convicted. However, it is entirely possible that Pugh did not accurately weigh the amount he sold the CI. It is also possible that Pugh was shorting his customers and holding some back. Regardless, Pugh testified that he received a half of a kilogram from Thomas. The jury was free to credit Pugh and chose to do so regarding this transaction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find that Thomas was guilty of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine as described in Counts 6 and 7.