Opinion ID: 772867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harrison's Convictions

Text: 7 Numerous witnesses testified that they saw Harrison at C.J. Stockman's bar selling crack cocaine. Harrison arranged for two co-defendants, Corissa Murray and Jennifer Sarutzki, to rent the house where members of the conspiracy were to live. In fact, several witnesses described Harrison as being the leader of the group; he was the boss and enforced the rules regarding whose turn it was to sell cocaine at the bar. Harrison told Autrie Kimble, whom he had previously supplied with drugs, that only Palmer Block could sell from the bar. Harrison, Bradford, and Boswell later told Kimble to slow down his drug sales because it was cutting into their business; Harrison did most of the talking at that confrontation. 8 In his appellate brief, Harrison disputes the credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial. Determining the credibility of the witnesses, however, is a function of the jury. See United States v. Harris, 193 F.3d 957, 958 (8th Cir. 1999). There was ample evidence presented to sustain Harrison's conspiracy conviction. 9 As to his money laundering conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), Harrison argues that a wire transfer of $900 he received from Larry Williams in December 1997 had no relation to drug dealing or drug profits. That argument is belied by the evidence. Both Williams and Harrison were active participants in the drug conspiracy. Further, the government presented evidence that neither Williams nor Harrison had any legitimate source of income. In proving that drug proceeds were used to promote illegal drug activity, the government need not trace the proceeds to a particular drug sale and may instead rely on defendant's lack of any legitimate income source and involvement in drug trafficking to raise the inference that the money wired . . . represented proceeds from drug distribution. See United States v. Eastman, 149 F.3d 802, 804 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Blackman, 904 F.2d 1250, 1257 (8th Cir. 1990)). Although Harrison argues that the wire transfer represented money for funeral expenses and not the proceeds of drug dealing, the only mention of funeral expenses at trial was that a separate transfer occurred in November 1997, arranged by Andrews and Van Noort on Harrison's behalf.