Opinion ID: 47920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Charles Samson

Text: 16 Charles Samson argues that evidence at trial was legally insufficient to prove that he was a leader, organizer, or manager of a continuing criminal enterprise, or that he received substantial income or resources from drug activities. 17 Evidence of leadership is strongest against Charles Samson. Hines, Jr., testified with regard to Charles Samson's role in methamphetamine production and distribution that he was was one the key figures in it. He was the figure, really. Hines, Jr., testified that Charles Samson told us where to produce it, how to produce it, you know, helped us produce it, helped us sell it. Hines, Jr., testified that he, Buddy Ford, and other cooks were making methamphetamine for Charles Samson, and that Shane Samson was getting pills for Charles Samson every day. Hines, Jr., named five other people as supplying pills and anhydrous ammonia for Charles Samson. 18 Jordan testified that if we was told to do something, we had to do it because [Charles Samson] was our district captain. If he told us to cook and we didn't cook, we'd get disciplined for it. Persons who were told to cook by Charles Samson were said by Jordan to include Chris Barrandey (Barrandey), Hines, Jr., and Timothy Bishop. Jordan testified that Samson would get a quarter or a half share from most of the cooks that took place, including cooks by Hines, Jr., Barrandey, and Wren. Jordan testified that Samson and Johnny Hines, Sr., beat up Perkins because Perkins refused to cook for Samson. 19 Tony Wilkins (Wilkins) testified that if you cooked methamphetamine in West Odessa, Charlie Samson was going to get his part of the cook and further stated he'd have people bring me out there to his house to get his part, what he felt he was owed. Wilkins testified that he cooked numerous times at Charles Samson's house and that he attended meetings at Charles Samson's house where participants in the methamphetamine business discussed obtaining supplies. He stated that Charles Samson was the boss or the leader at those meetings. 20 There is more testimony regarding Charles Samson, but the preceding excerpts suffice to establish that a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles Samson organized, supervised, or managed at least five people in the drug trade. 21 Samson objects that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that he received substantial income or resources from the drug trade. Section 848 does not specify what level of income or resources qualifies as substantial income or resources. As Samson points out, in many cases where a continuing criminal enterprise conviction was upheld, there was far more evidence of wealth than exists in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 116 F.3d 1066, 1088 (5th Cir.1997) (vacated in part on other grounds by United States v. Brown, 161 F.3d 256 (5th Cir.1998)) (defendant owned eleven cars); United States v. Chagra, 669 F.2d 241, 257 (5th Cir.1982) (overruled on other grounds by Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)) (appellant had lavish personal expenditures). Here, the government did not present evidence regarding cars, real estate, bank accounts, or other items of value owned by Charles Samson. Yet this court has also held that [t]he requirement that a defendant obtain substantial income from drug trafficking is satisfied by showing that many thousands of dollars changed hands, and that some was received by the defendant. United States v. Gonzales, 866 F.2d 781, 784 (5th Cir.1989). The evidence presented at trial leaves no doubt that thousands of dollars of methamphetamine was produced, and by taking a portion of most cooks, Charles Samson obtained a substantial share. The Second Circuit has stated that the substantial income requirement is met where the defendant had no legitimate income and was able to purchase drugs and finance his living expenses. United States v. Joyner, 201 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2000). The record indicates that Charles Samson had no legitimate source of income during the period covered by the indictment, yet paid his living expenses and obtained a steady supply of methamphetamine. A reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Charles Samson obtained substantial income or resources from his drug violations.