Opinion ID: 182421
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent to Distribute

Text: To establish a violation of § 841(a)(1), the government must prove the following elements: `(1) knowing (2) possession of a controlled substance (3) with intent to distribute.' Mackey, 265 F.3d at 460 (quoting United States v. Christian, 786 F.2d 203, 210 (6th Cir. 1986)). Defendant argues that, aside from Agent Lewis's testimony that the crack was packaged for distribution and was way too much for personal use and Investigator Bryant's testimony regarding the scales and baggies, there was insufficient evidence that Defendant possessed the crack with intent to distribute. Contrary to Defendant's argument,  all of the evidence is to be considered when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. As discussed above, the admission of Agent Lewis's testimony was not error. Therefore, there is no reason to set aside Agent Lewis's testimony about how the drugs were arranged for distribution in three-gram packages, worth $150 to $200 a piece, and that 37.4 grams, representing a minimum of 370 doses, is too much for personal use. This is competent evidence that well supports the jury's verdict. Additional evidence also supported the conviction. Investigator Bryant testified that the confidential informant made a series of controlled buys from a person he referred to as Ace at 1537 Virginia Avenue. Defendant sports an Ace of Spades tattoo, and was within a locked bedroom at that Virginia Avenue address. Defendant's plan to avoid apprehension was to hide in the closet with more than 37 grams of crack cocaine at his feet. Any reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendant was the same Ace who was selling drugs to the confidential informant. We wonder what jury would not reach that conclusion. Moreover, the jury could have inferred solely from the possession of this large quantity of drugs that Defendant intended to further distribute it. United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 724 (6th Cir.2002) (18 grams of crack cocaine sufficient for an inference of intent to distribute); United States v. Clemons, 9 Fed. Appx. 286, 289 (6th Cir.2001) (8.5 grams of crack cocaine was large enough to draw an inference of intent to distribute). In addition, Investigator Bryant testified that firearms were recovered nearby the drugs, $1,008 was recovered from the bedroom, and no drug paraphernalia to use the crack was recovered. See United States v. Wilson, 27 F.3d 1126, 1133 (6th Cir.1994) (recognizing the connection between guns and drug trafficking); United States v. Collier, 246 Fed.Appx. 321, 330 (6th Cir. 2007) (recovery of $1,900 from the defendant's pocket supported conclusion that the defendant was selling drugs). The evidence presented was more than sufficient to support the jury's finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant was guilty of possessing crack with intent to distribute.