Opinion ID: 678895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence for CCE Conviction

Text: 26 Finally, defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial by the government was insufficient to sustain his conviction under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848 for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE). In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a jury's guilty verdict, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government in order to determine whether the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, is substantial enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081, 106 S.Ct. 848, 88 L.Ed.2d 889 (1986); see also United States v. Anderson, 981 F.2d 1560 (10th Cir.1992). 27 Section 848(c) states that an individual engages in a CCE when: 28 (1) he violates any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for which is a felony, and 29 (2) such violation is part of a continuing series of violations of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter-- 30 (A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and 31 (B) from which such person obtains substantial income or resources. 32 Defendant concedes that he is guilty of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, a felony violation of this subchapter. Defendant asserts, however, that he did not occupy a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management with respect to five other persons involved in the conspiracy. He also contends that he did not obtain substantial income or resources from the conspiracy. 33 Addressing the latter claim first, government witness Joseph Newman testified that defendant bought guns, a car, exercise equipment, a mobile home, gold chains, and an eighteen-wheel truck with proceeds from his drug operation. In addition, Agent Woodson testified that defendant boasted that every item in his home had been purchased with proceeds from his marijuana business. The record therefore clearly shows that defendant obtained substantial income from the criminal enterprise. 34 We next turn to the issue of whether defendant organized, supervised, or managed five other persons involved in the enterprise. The terms organizer, supervisor, and manager as used in section 848 are given their nontechnical, everyday meanings. United States v. Jenkins, 904 F.2d 549, 553 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962, 111 S.Ct. 395, 112 L.Ed.2d 404 (1990). [T]he defendant need not be the dominant organizer or manager of the enterprise; he need only occupy some managerial position with respect to five or more persons. Id. Moreover, the defendant need not organize, supervise, or manage five other persons simultaneously but merely at some point during the life of the criminal enterprise. United States v. Smith, 24 F.3d 1230, 1233 (1994). 35 In clarifying the language of section 848, we have stated that [a]n organizer arranges a number of people engaged in separate activities into an essentially orderly operation, Smith, 24 F.3d at 1233, and that  'a relationship of supervision is created when one person gives orders or directions to another person who carries them out,'  United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 426 (10th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Stratton, 79 F.2d 820, 827 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1162, 106 S.Ct. 2285, 90 L.Ed.2d 726 (1986)) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 325, 102 L.Ed.2d 342 (1988). Further, although proof of a buyer-seller relationship alone is insufficient to establish a managerial role, additional evidence of formal or informal authority or responsibility respecting a purchaser's conduct may suffice. Jenkins, 904 F.2d at 553. 36 In light of this guidance, we find that the record demonstrates sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that defendant occupied a position of organizer, supervisor, or manager respect to five other persons in the criminal enterprise--Miguel Montemayor, Michael Martin Hughes, Joseph Newman, Ken Hicks, and Jim Robinson. Miguel Montemayor testified that defendant was the only person to whom he sold drugs, that defendant paid for his expenses incurred in procuring marijuana, and that he and defendant prearranged where and when to meet for their transactions. Michael Martin Hughes testified that defendant would send him and Montemayor sums varying from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars to sustain them and help them in paying bills. Joseph Newman testified that, although he and defendant acted as partners in the drug business, defendant was in charge. Newman stated that defendant controlled the proceeds of their operation, defendant controlled most of the marijuana that they were selling, and that, when he and defendant ended their relationship, defendant kept all of the money and marijuana they had jointly obtained except for $5,000. Jim Robinson testified that defendant used Ken Hicks as his driver during his drug runs to Texas, and this testimony was corroborated by the statements of government witness Kent Clark. Finally, defendant concedes that he supervised and managed Jim Robinson in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. 37 Based on this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that defendant organized, supervised, or managed at least five other persons involved in the criminal enterprise. The jury's verdict that defendant engaged in a CCE pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848 therefore must stand.