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

Heading: Daniels—Count 8

Text: Daniels challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction on Count 8 for the unlawful use of a communication facility—specifically, a cell phone—in facilitating the conspiracy alleged in Count 1, in violation of § 843(b). Under § 843(b), the Government was required to prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally used a communication facility to facilitate commission of a drug offense. United States v. Mankins, 135 F.3d 946, 949 (5th Cir. 1998). Daniels was convicted on this count for use of a cell phone in furtherance of the conspiracy on the evening of July 13, 2010. As discussed above, the Government presented recordings of a series of calls between Daniels and JeCarlos at trial. In the intercepts, Daniels and JeCarlos discussed, on their cell phones, drug deals involving co-defendant Mims and an individual named “White,” and they referenced drug quantity (a “quarter”; an “E.Z.”), drug money 19 See also United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir.2001) (finding that in the 21 U.S.C. § 846 context, the Government need not prove that a defendant knew the quantity and type of controlled substance involved in the conspiracy, but rather, “[t]he government need only prove that the defendant was aware that some controlled substance was involved”) (citing United States v. Fragoso, 978 F.2d 896, 902 (5th Cir. 1992)). 21 Case: 12-30413 Document: 00512310475 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 No. 12-30413 (“bread”), and drug quality (“soda,” and “hard”).20 The evidence on this count was sufficient for the jury to convict Daniels.