Opinion ID: 2649557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timothy Baukman4

Text: Baukman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for participating in a CCE, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking conspiracy, money laundering, maintaining a storage facility for a controlled substance, and conspiracy. He also argues that his sentencing was improper because the jury did not find the amount of drugs attributable to him personally. 1. Conviction for Continuing Criminal Enterprise Baukman argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for engaging in a CCE in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a). To obtain a conviction for this offense, the Government was required to prove: (1) a felony violation of the federal narcotics law; (2) as part of a continuing series of violations; (3) in concert with five or more persons; (4) with respect to whom the defendant occupies a position of organizer, supervisor, or any other position of management; (5) from which he derives substantial income or resources. United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 283-84 (3d Cir. 1986). We apply a “particularly deferential standard of review when deciding whether a jury verdict rests on legally sufficient evidence.” United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 1998). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and we “will sustain the verdict if ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 4 Baukman moved in this Court to waive counsel and proceed pro se, and to file a pro se supplemental brief, which was denied because he refused to sign a waiver of counsel form and attest that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. Baukman moved for appointment of new counsel by letter postmarked on October 11, 2013. Under this Court’s local rules, the most recent counsel of record from the District Court must continue on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances. 3d Cir. LAR Misc. 109.1. Because Baukman’s motion was filed after briefing was complete in this case and he has not identified any extraordinary circumstances, we will deny his motion. 4 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996)). Baukman contends that the Government did not prove the third and fourth elements: that he was an organizer or supervisor of five or more individuals. The socalled “organizer or supervisor” and “numerosity” requirements are “obvious manifestation[s] of Congress’s concern to fight the growth of large-scale profit-making drug enterprises.” United States v. Aguilar, 843 F.2d 155, 157 (3d Cir. 1988) (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). These requirements thus “distinguish minor enterprise employees from those who conceive and coordinate enterprise activities.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The five individuals need not be “under the direct and immediate control or supervision of [the] defendant.” United States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885, 891 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the defendant “need not have had personal contact with each of the five persons involved,” and “the delegation of managerial and supervisory duties will not defeat an individual’s ultimate status as organizer, supervisor, or manager.” United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 426 (10th Cir. 1986). Baukman argues that the government failed to prove that he was an organizer or supervisor because the evidence consisted only of testimony of co-conspirators that Baukman was Coles’s trusted associate and that Baukman merely engaged in some drug transactions with the other individuals. While a mere buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to support a CCE conviction, see id., the evidence here, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the conclusion that he was a manager of at least five individuals. 5 Kristina Latney, Coles’s paramour, testified that Baukman was Coles’s “right hand man,” Supp. App. 333, in the drug organization. Moreover, the evidence showed that Baukman: (1) leased the Essex Avenue apartment, which was used to store, process, and package cocaine, in the name of his four-year-old son, and paid the rent and utilities from an account in his son’s name; (2) consulted with Coles about the pricing of drugs, and work conditions, including the fact that one conspirator had not worn gloves or a mask while preparing the cocaine and subsequently tested positive for drug use; (3) was contacted to secure a lawyer when a conspirator needed one; and (4) supervised at least two street-level managers, Custis and “Bub,” in part by providing cocaine on a consignment basis; see United States v. Becker, 892 F.2d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 1989) (“A consignment arrangement has been held to give the provider of the substance the necessary supervisory control of the participants.”). These managers, Custis and “Bub,” in turn supervised numerous street-level sellers, including Troy Wilson, Leroy Perkins, Barry White, Alfonso Kearny, as well as two others referred to as “Ezz,” and “Seneca.” In short, there was considerable evidence from which the jury could conclude that Baukman was a manager or supervisor of at least five people involved in this drug enterprise. Accordingly, we will affirm the conviction on the CCE count. 2. Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Baukman also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on Count 63 for possession of firearms in furtherance of the drug trafficking conspiracy charged in Count 1. Baukman contends that there is an insufficient nexus between the guns, which were found during a search of Baukman’s personal residence on School 6 House Lane in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the drug trafficking conspiracy, because no controlled substances were found in the residence with the guns and no direct evidence links the residence to drug trafficking. We apply a non-exclusive list of eight factors to determine if there is a sufficient nexus between the possession of guns and the predicate crime to warrant a conviction under § 924(c). United States v. Sparrow, 371 F.3d 851, 853 (3d Cir. 2004). Those are: the type of drug activity that is being conducted, accessibility of the firearm, the type of the weapon, whether the weapon is stolen, the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal), whether the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances under which the gun is found. Id. (citation omitted). Applying these factors, there was sufficient evidence linking the guns to the drug trafficking. The guns were found near bundles of cash and a money counting machine. See United States v. Reyes, 930 F.2d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 1991) (affirming a § 924(c) conviction where the guns were found near drug money but not near drugs). Moreover, the guns were accessibly located in closets in the entryway and living room, the guns included a fully automatic machine gun and a semi-automatic pistol, the serial number on one gun had been removed, and, while the guns were not loaded, they were stored with fully-loaded magazines. On these facts, together with evidence that Baukman delivered drug money to Coles, the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the money found was from drug sales and his “possession of the firearm[s] advanced or helped forward [Baukman’s] drug trafficking crime.” Sparrow, 371 F.3d at 853. 7 3. Conviction for Money Laundering Baukman’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for thirty-two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (promotion money laundering) involving the lease payments for the Essex Avenue apartment (Counts 89-120), and fifty-five counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (concealment money laundering) involving the lease payments for his residence on School House Lane and his car (Counts 121-175) also fails. The elements of promotion money laundering are: (1) the defendant knowingly conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction; (2) the defendant knew that the funds or property involved in the financial transaction involved the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; (3) the transaction in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; and (4) the defendant engaged in the financial transaction with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Omoruyi, 260 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir. 2001). The elements of concealment money laundering are identical as to the first three elements but the fourth element requires instead that the defendant knew “that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” Id. at 294-95 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)). On appeal, Baukman argues that the Government failed to prove the fourth element as to each charge—his intent to promote drug trafficking by the Essex Avenue apartment lease payments, and concealment of the drug trafficking proceeds by placing 8 his School House Lane residence and car in the name of nominees. In his Rule 29 motion, however, Baukman moved for judgment of acquittal on the money laundering counts on the grounds that the Government had not established that he engaged in the transaction using illegal funds—that is, he challenged the second and third elements of the offenses. The argument he now raises therefore was not preserved by a timely Rule 29 motion, and we will review the conviction for plain error. United States v. Thayer, 201 F.3d 214, 219 (3d Cir. 1999). A defendant bears the burden of establishing plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b), and must prove that: (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was “plain,” meaning that it was “clear” or “obvious”; and (3) the error affected substantial rights. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). If these three prongs are met, then the appellate court may “exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 467 (quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). A conviction based on insufficient evidence is plain error “only if the verdict constitutes a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Thayer, 201 F.3d at 219 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, there was no miscarriage of justice, as the Government’s evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. First, there was considerable evidence from which the jury could properly infer that Baukman made the lease payments on the Essex Avenue apartment with the intent to promote drug trafficking. The evidence established that Baukman rented the Essex Avenue apartment in his young son’s name and paid the 9 bills for the apartment through an account in the child’s name,5 and that Baukman kept personal items at the apartment and visited it. In addition, law enforcement officers found evidence of drug production in the apartment, including masks, goggles, latex gloves, cutting agents to dilute the cocaine, and drug packaging paraphernalia, as well as firearms. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that Baukman made the lease payments with the intent to promote drug trafficking.6 Second, the Government introduced evidence that the School House Lane residence was placed in the name of Baukman’s young son and paid for by checks drawn on an account in the son’s name, and the car was placed in the name of Baukman’s cousin, who testified that she never used the car and that Baukman regularly drove the car. We have previously observed that “[e]vidence of a purpose to conceal can come in many forms, including . . . using third parties to conceal the real owner . . . .” United States v. Richardson, 658 F.3d 333, 340 (3d Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 359 (6th Cir. 2005) (relying on the defendant’s use of nominee owners as evidence of concealment money laundering). The jury was entitled to infer from Baukman’s role in a drug organization that his use of nominees to lease his residence and car was intended to conceal his use of illegal funds. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 31 5 An IRS special agent testified that approximately $150,000 in cash was deposited into the account in Baukman’s son’s name, during a time period in which Baukman’s and Coles’s legitimate business, a record and entertainment company, lost over $160,000, and during a time when Baukman did not file income tax returns. In light of this fact and the ample evidence of Baukman’s participation in the lucrative drug enterprise, the jury could infer that the cash deposits and money used to pay the rent were the proceeds from drug distribution. 6 Baukman also asserts that his conviction presents the merger problem identified in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008). He is incorrect. Unlike the lottery payments in Santos, where the winning bettor’s payment involved the receipts of the illegal lottery, id. at 515, paying rent for the apartment is not integral to drug trafficking. United States v. Richardson, 658 F.3d 333, 340 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Purchasing real property is neither integral to nor an expense associated with the crime of drug trafficking.”). 10 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 1994) (relying in part on a defendant’s participation in a drug conspiracy to establish the defendant’s motive for engaging in money laundering). For these reasons, we will affirm Baukman’s convictions for all eighty-seven counts of money laundering. 4. Conviction for Maintaining a Storage Facility7 Baukman challenges his conviction on Count 61 for managing and controlling the Essex Avenue apartment and “knowingly and intentionally . . . mak[ing] available for use . . . the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). Specifically, he contends that the Government did not establish his knowledge of drug activity at the Essex Avenue apartment. As explained above, there was significant evidence that Baukman rented the apartment, paid bills for it, kept personal items there, and visited it. Baukman rented the apartment for his cousin to reside and work in. Specifically, there was evidence Baukman “coach[ed]” his cousin to cook crack, Supp. App. 701, and evidence of crack production was found there. Agents discovered masks, goggles, latex gloves, cutting agents to dilute the cocaine, and drug packaging paraphernalia in the apartment. Indeed, one agent observed white powder “sprayed across some parts of the carpet in the living room,” and testified that the powder came up from the carpet when the agents walked through the room. Supp. App. 44-45. Finally, agents searching Baukman’s personal 7 Baukman argued in a pro se submission to the District Court that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the storage facility and conspiracy counts. The District Court evidently and appropriately did not consider these submissions in light of the prohibition on “hybrid representation,” as Baukman was still represented by his trial counsel at that time. United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 2012). These arguments were thus not preserved, and we will therefore apply plain error review. Thayer, 201 F.3d at 219. As we explain in the text, however, these arguments are without merit. 11 residence on School House Lane recovered letters addressed to the Essex Avenue apartment, further linking Baukman to the Essex Avenue apartment. Accordingly, the jury was entitled to infer Baukman intended that the property be used for manufacturing and storing controlled substances. 5. Conviction for Conspiracy Baukman also contends that there was insufficient evidence of an agreement between him and Coles to support a conspiracy conviction pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 846. Although the District Court vacated his conviction on this charge as a lesser included offense of the CCE conviction, the § 846 conviction could (and did) nevertheless serve as a predicate offense under the CCE statute. There was ample evidence from which a jury could infer an agreement to distribute drugs, including the intercepted phone calls between Coles and Baukman concerning the pricing, production, and distribution of cocaine, Baukman’s role renting and supervising the operation at the Essex Avenue apartment where the organization produced drugs for sale, Baukman’s supervision of the street-level drug distribution by Custis and “Bub,” his role as Coles’s “right hand man,” and his delivery of bags of money and drugs to Coles’s home. Accordingly, the District Court did not err by denying the motion for a judgment of acquittal on this count. 6. Sentencing Baukman’s contention that his sentencing on Count 1 violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the jury did not determine the amount of drugs 12 attributable to him personally also fails.8 The District Court vacated his conviction on this Count as a lesser included offense of his CCE conviction so it had no effect on his sentence, as he concedes in his brief, and thus there is no basis for the relief he seeks.9