Opinion ID: 2658283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Drug Conspiracy Evidence

Text: Marco Perkins, Gage, Liggins, Walters, and Akins challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions for conspiracy under Count 1 of the indictment. Specifically, Marco Perkins, Gage, Liggins, and Walters challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence concerning their involvement in the conspiracy; they do not challenge the jury’s drug-quantity determination. Akins challenges the jury’s finding that he was a knowing member of the conspiracy and also that he should be held responsible for five kilograms or more of powder cocaine, but he does not challenge the jury’s finding that he should be held responsible for 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. All of the defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, and the court allowed them to adopt their earlier Rule 29 motion after resting. Because the defendants “moved for a judgment of acquittal both after the government’s case in chief and at the close of the trial, we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether any rational jury could have found guilt beyond a 16 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 reasonable doubt.”28 “We do not evaluate the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.”29 Appellants’ conspiracy conviction required proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the existence of an agreement to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to manufacture or distribute cocaine, crack, or marijuana, as well as each appellant’s knowledge of and voluntary participation in that agreement.30 A “jury may infer a conspiracy agreement from circumstantial evidence, and may rely upon presence and association, along with other evidence, in finding that a conspiracy existed.”31
Although much of the Government’s proffered evidence with respect to Marco Perkins shows only that he had a fraternal relationship with Shawn Perkins, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that the relationship was one between co-conspirators as well. The jury heard several recorded wiretapped calls that support an inference that Marco Perkins was part of a drug distribution business, at least with his brother Shawn Perkins and with Akins. On a call between Shawn Perkins and Akins on December 13, 2008, Akins said, “I’m right at four now. I don’t know what Marco and them did.” On another call between Shawn Perkins and Akins that same day, Akins said: I mean I’m like this, like 40, like 41. Marco and them, they got something they’ve been working today, so they’ve probably got like five or six hundred. Scooter, I mean, the four is part of the eight that Scooter owe me. He said just hit him and he’ll have it . . . Like I said, 41 with the eight that Scooter owe and – and Marco and them, shoot, they got like 20 of them yards. So then I got like two flippers left . . . . 28 United States v. Hale, 685 F.3d 522, 543 (5th Cir. 2012). 29 United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 445 (5th Cir. 2002). 30 See, e.g., Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d at 461. 31 Id. 17 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 The two mentioned Marco again on a call the following day, in which Akins said to Shawn Perkins, “How many – how much more Marco over there? Huh?,” and then they talk about four or five yards. Two days later, on December 16, Shawn Perkins received a text message from an unknown person saying, “Yall need to fire marco I sware I need three yards aint seem him yet I been waiting since three thirty just tell him to holla[.]” That same day, in a call between Marco Perkins and his brother Shawn, Marco told Shawn, “I can’t got no access to no hard either,” and that “I got five little, JJ want one and Red want two, hell I might break them other two down.” The next day, Shawn asked Marco, “How much bread you got?” to which Marco responded, “Seven.” From these and other similar calls, the jury reasonably could infer that Marco Perkins was actively involved in a drug distribution conspiracy with Shawn Perkins, Kendrick Akins, and perhaps others. There is no basis to disrupt the jury’s finding.
Gage argues that he was a mere buyer and seller of drugs, not linked in a conspiracy relationship to his co-defendants. “[W]hile it is true that a buyer-seller relationship, without more, will not prove a conspiracy, . . . [o]ne becomes a member of a drug conspiracy if he knowingly participates in a plan to distribute drugs, whether by buying, selling or otherwise.”32 The evidence shows Gage purchased drugs from the Paris network regularly and in distribution quantities. Under the facts presented in the record here, it is reasonable for the jury to infer a voluntary and knowing agreement between them to violate the narcotics laws. Gage, who lived in Hugo, Oklahoma, repeatedly purchased cocaine in Paris, Texas, in quantities large enough for redistribution. On a wiretap phone recording between Gage and Shawn Perkins 32 United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 333 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir. 1993)). 18 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 on December 10, 2008, Gage complained that what Perkins sold him was short, at only 78 grams instead of 126, before Gage concluded there was something wrong with his scale. The Government also presented a series of text messages between Shawn Perkins and a phone subscribed to Angela Melton, Gage’s girlfriend, on December 15 to 21, 2008, discussing and coordinating a series of drug transactions in which Gage agreed to purchase drugs from Perkins. Stacy Bellamy, a cooperating witness, testified that he saw Liggins selling “nine to 13 ounces” of crack cocaine to Gage. Another Paris crack dealer and cooperating witness facing conspiracy charges in another case, Terrence Miles, also testified that he sold Gage crack cocaine weekly. Sufficient evidence supports Gage’s conviction here.
Liggins urges that the evidence fails to show he was a part of, or even knew of, a larger drug distribution conspiracy and at most only establishes that he tangentially assisted his brother Shawn Perkins. Only a few of the hundreds of calls played for the jury involve Liggins, but we hold that these reasonably give rise to an inference of his participation in the drug distribution conspiracy. On a wiretapped call on November 26, 2008, Shawn Perkins directed Liggins to go over to [co-defendant Andre Dunkins’s location] and get “that three hundred he owe me,” and Liggins agreed. Perkins then called Dunkins to tell him that “that nigger, Black, fixin’ come through there.” On December 1, 2008, Liggins told Shawn Perkins that “Little Earl” wanted a “quarter” and that he “told them about 250,” to which Perkins replied, “Yeah, I’ll just give it for 225 and you can go ahead and make that 25.” In a wiretap conversation on January 9, 2009, Liggins asked Shawn Perkins: “Hey whatchu do with my work fool?” and Perkins responded that he had left it on the living room table. Later that day a female called Perkins from Perkins’ mother’s house on Campbell Street, and Perkins directs the female to a table for something and told her to “hide it somewhere real good.” 19 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 Additionally, cooperating witness James Liggins testified that he bought cocaine or crack from Shantez Liggins most weeks, and that he had asked Shantez to sell him drugs on credit, but Shantez said James would have to “speak to his brother to see would that be all right.” Cooperating witness Terrence Miles, a Paris crack dealer, testified that Shantez worked with “his brother, um, Marco and Shawn” in the crack business. The jury’s inference from this evidence that Liggins was a knowing member of the drug distribution conspiracy is not unreasonable.
The evidence also is sufficient to support Walters’ conspiracy conviction. A wiretapped phone call on December 13, 2008, captured Walters complaining to Perkins that the crack cocaine he had gotten from Perkins was of lower quality than in the past, and that this was causing problems with Walters’ customers. That same day, in a call between Akins and Shawn Perkins, Akins complained that he was waiting on Walters, also known as “Scooter,” to pay him some money he owed him. Previously, on December 1, Shawn Perkins and Akins had a call accounting for outstanding drugs and debts, and mentioned that “Scooter still owe me the eight.” Stacy Bellamy, a cooperating witness, testified that he would sell Walters “anywhere from an ounce to two ounces of crack” once a week in the summer of 2007, and that this quantity was consistent with the buyer being a dealer. From this and other evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could conclude that Walters was a knowing member of the drug distribution conspiracy here.
Akins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding both that he was a knowing member of the conspiracy and that he is responsible for five kilograms or more of powder cocaine. He does not challenge the jury’s finding that he is responsible for 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. 20 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 Evidence from wiretapped calls supports the jury’s determination that Akins was a member of the conspiracy. The calls are too numerous to list here. As an example, Akins and Shawn Perkins accounted for drugs and money on an intercepted call on December 1, 2008. Akins asked Shawn Perkins, “How much of that work you got left?” and Perkins replied, “About almost three ounces. Two ounces for sure. Something like that.” Perkins asked, “You want me to split that up? If you’re gonna come back Tuesday, you can probably just leave Marco some or something.” Akins asked, “I’m saying do I need to do that other one?” and Perkins replied, “[Expletive] no, I don’t think there’s gonna be till Monday or Tuesday.” In another example, on December 9, Perkins told Edwards that he was “gonna send Kendrick [Akins]” over and directed Edwards to “hand him two of mine.” Shortly before Akins returned with the drugs, he said, “he gave me a biat though–I can’t really tell what yours is–yours looks like it may be a nine.” The record shows many similar calls, and sufficiently supports the jury’s conviction. Akins also argues that the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that he is responsible for five kilograms or more of powder cocaine. The jury found Akins, along with his co-defendants, guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment, which charged a conspiracy to manufacture or distribute or intent to manufacture or distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, and 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. Then, pursuant to a special verdict form, the jury was instructed to “determine the quantity of cocaine, cocaine base (crack) and/or marijuana attributable to each defendant found guilty of Count One.” The jury determined that Akins was responsible for five kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of crack, and less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The Government’s burden at trial was to prove the existence of a conspiracy, Akin’s involvement in it, and the requisite drug quantity involved in 21 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.33 This Court has explained that even post-Apprendi,34 the burden does not extend to the “individualized question of what drug quantity was attributable” to a particular defendant as a coconspirator.35 The Government “need only allege and prove to the jury the bare facts necessary to increase the statutory sentencing maximum for the conspiracy as a whole.”36 Of course, a “defendant will not necessarily be held responsible for the full amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy,” but rather only “those amounts of drugs that he knew or reasonably could have known or believed were involved in the conspiracy,” considering “the co-conspirator’s role in the conspiracy, his relationship to the other conspirators, and any other information with ‘sufficient indicia of reliability.’”37 Here, the jury determined that the conspiracy as a whole involved more than five kilograms of powder cocaine, and confirmed via the special verdict form that Akins is responsible for this entire amount as a member of the conspiracy. The substantial evidence showing Akins’ active and knowing role in the conspiracy leaves us no reason to disrupt this determination. That the evidence shows Akins’s direct dealings focused on crack cocaine38 does not, in light of his substantial role in the conspiracy and his relationship to the other co- 33 See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir. 2003). 34 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 35 See Turner, 319 F.3d at 722. 36 Id. (quoting Derman v. United States, 298 F.3d 34, 42–43 (1st Cir. 2002)). 37 United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 415 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 942 (5th Cir. 1994)). 38 Evidence also indicated that Akins had at least some direct dealings in powder cocaine as part of the drug distribution conspiracy. Trentargus Holt, a cocaine dealer and cooperating witness, testified that he bought half an ounce to an ounce of powder cocaine a couple of time per week from Akins from the early part of 2006 to that summer. 22 Case: 12-40515 Document: 00512575405 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 No. 12-40515 conspirators, absolve him of responsibility for the conspiracy’s foreseeable distribution of powder cocaine.