Opinion ID: 1034195
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mims—Count 6

Text: Mims argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on Count 6, for possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Mims argues that the Government failed to prove that he actually possessed cocaine on July 2, 2010. As support, he states that although the Government presented evidence that Thomas traveled to Shreveport on July 2 and communicated and met with him and JeCarlos, the Government did not observe, seize, or purchase any cocaine that day. He concludes from the lack of evidence showing that he actually possessed cocaine on July 2, 2010, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that a rational juror could find that Mims was guilty of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine as described in Count 6. As discussed above,23 the Government offered evidence that Mejorado, and JeCarlos met on the evening of July 1, 2010 and the next day Thomas drove to Shreveport to deliver the cocaine obtained from that deal. Officers followed Thomas to several locations, and they observed Mims park behind Thomas’s car in a driveway. Agent Sarpy observed Mims and Thomas meet at a doublewide trailer and observed Mims retrieve a package from Thomas’s car. Wire intercepts of 22 “Breaking it down with a hammer” usually refers to a kilogram quantity of cocaine such that one uses a hammer to bust it open. 23 See supra II.A.4. 25 Case: 12-30413 Document: 00512310475 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 No. 12-30413 conversations between Mims, Thomas, and JeCarlos corroborate the Government’s theory that JeCarlos arranged for Thomas to deliver cocaine to Mims on July 2, 2010.