Opinion ID: 619103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Miller's Motions for Acquittal or a New Trial

Text: Miller first argues that there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that he was guilty on Count One, conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack. The jury acquitted him on Counts Two, Three and Five, which charged Miller with possessing with intent to distribute the crack found in the truck, possessing the handgun found in the truck in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Accordingly, he argues, the jury did not believe any testimony linking him to that crack and there was no other evidence of his involvement in his co-defendant's crack-selling conspiracy. The elements of conspiracy with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack are: (1) an agreement with one other person to possess with intent to distribute at least [50 grams of crack]; (2) defendant's knowledge of the agreement; and (3) defendant's voluntary participation in the conspiracy. United States v. Percel, 553 F.3d 903, 910 (5th Cir.2008). A conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence. Id. The jury heard a phone call during which Dalton asked Miller you got somethin' to keep yourself goin' huh? Miller responds, Ye-, yeah. DB: Well then you good. You, you like still able to do things? DM: Yeah. DB: Oh, you good then, man. You know it's good when I come out there. DM: Right, I ain't trippin' DB: But still man, you should be tryin' to get to the four spot, man. Just [UI] . . . DM: I already know, I'm . . . DB: Yeah . . . DM: Yeah. DB: . . . meet me halfway on some shit, yeah. DM: Yeah, you know I'm tryin' it. DB: Yeah, halfway and I give you the other half of it, ya heard me. DM: Yeah. DB: Yeah, man. `Cause you know, Black . . . DM: Fuckin' right. DB: . . . gotta be like, yeah, by the time I get, y'all should be four strong man, on that. DM: Yeah, I know. Williams testified that this conversation was about drugs, that Dalton was asking Miller whether he still had drugs to sell, and that Miller should work up to four and a half ounces of crack (about 127 grams) by the time Dalton gets out. From this conversation, a reasonable jury could infer that Dalton and Miller had an agreement to sell crack together, Miller knew about that agreement, and Miller voluntarily took part in that conspiracy. See id. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller's motion for acquittal or a new trial. Miller next attacks his conviction for obstructing an official proceeding, arguing that it is impossible to know which official proceeding the jury had in mind when it convicted him. [7] Miller's appeal on this issue lacks merit because in explaining the elements of obstructing an official proceeding, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the trial of the United States versus Dalton Bennett, Lance Bennett, and Danquell Miller is an official federal proceeding and is a trial of a criminal case.