Opinion ID: 2975781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Black’s Trial

Text: -5- Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black Black raises three challenges on appeal. First, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain his convictions for conspiracy and for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Next, he argues that the district court erred by allowing the Government to introduce evidence regarding a prior incident under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Finally, he argues that the district court erred in using his past conviction to enhance his sentence. For the reasons stated below, each argument fails.
The district court correctly found the Government’s evidence sufficient to support jury convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base. This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir. 2002). “The standard for evaluating claims that a conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence presents a very difficult hurdle for the criminal appellant . . . .” United States v. Maxwell, 160 F.3d 1071, 1077 (6th Cir. 1998). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Following the close of the Government’s case, Black moved for a judgment of acquittal on counts one and three of his indictment (alleging violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846) on the theory that the Government had neither established that he possessed cocaine base nor produced -6- Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black sufficient evidence that he was part of a conspiracy. Regarding Black’s possession of “cocaine base,” the district court concluded that crack cocaine was “cocaine base” and that cocaine base had been referred to as “crack cocaine” for “as many years as I can recall.” JA at 220. The district court also concluded that the Government had produced evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy, noting that Black and Lofton lived together and that drugs and drug paraphernalia were in the common areas of the apartment. JA at 221. To obtain a conspiracy conviction, the Government must prove: (1) an agreement to distribute, or an agreement to possess with intent to distribute, drugs; (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy; and (3) participation in the conspiracy. United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 750 (6th Cir. 2006). “In order to show a conspiratorial agreement, only a tacit understanding among the participants is required,” United States v. Hamilton, 263 F.3d 645, 652 (6th Cir. 2001), and “a defendant’s knowledge of and participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from his conduct and established by circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 330 (6th Cir. 2005). This court has been careful to note, however, that, absent additional facts, a conspiracy cannot be inferred from “mere association” with a drug dealer or other conspirator: [M]ere presence at the crack houses was insufficient to establish participation in a conspiracy. Furthermore, mere association with a conspirator does not make one a co-conspirator. Knowing that drugs are present in a dwelling one occupies is insufficient to establish an individual’s membership in a conspiracy. Even if one knows of and acquiesces in the object of a conspiracy, this alone is insufficient to make one a conspirator. -7- Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black United States v. Young, 1990 WL 142348, at -4 (6th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Barrera, 547 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Waddy, 536 F.2d 632 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Hyson, 721 F.2d 856 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Williams, 503 F.2d 50 (6th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 422 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Pearce, 912 F.2d 159, 162 (6th Cir. 1990). While the evidence introduced by the Government supporting the existence of a conspiracy was not overwhelming, it was sufficient to sustain a jury verdict against Black. Evidence was introduced that: Lofton drove Black and two others to the Dutch Inn; Black removed two bags from Lofton’s car; Black and Lofton spoke while Black continued to hold the bags; Black walked back and forth between the Plum Street apartment and the Dutch Inn multiple times, leading Officer Fegan to suspect drug trafficking; Black had four bags of marijuana on him when he was arrested at the Dutch Inn; officers found one of the two bags from Lofton’s car in the Plum Street apartment with marijuana in it; the bag found in the apartment had such a strong odor that any person in the general vicinity would notice it contained drugs; Black and Lofton lived together and exercised control over the Plum Street apartment; drugs and supplies for distribution and manufacturing were found in the common, unsecured areas of the Plum Street apartment, including openly visible areas such as the kitchen counter; distribution quantities of drugs were found in both bedrooms, in unsecured locations; Black and Lofton had been seen together many times on Fourth Street, a high drugtrafficking area; and the Plum Street apartment had security and surveillance cameras on the front and back doors with a monitoring system that was located in Lofton’s bedroom. Viewing this -8- Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have inferred a conspiratorial agreement between Black and Lofton beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Black’s challenge to the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence of conspiracy fails. Because the evidence was sufficient to support Black’s conviction for conspiracy, his conviction for possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base also stands. First, a rational juror could conclude from the same evidence sustaining Black’s conspiracy charge, combined with the existence of the conspiracy, that he constructively possessed the 6.333 grams of crack cocaine found in Lofton’s bedroom, thus putting his total drug quantity above the 50-gram mark alleged in his indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 150 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Cobbs, Nos. 06-1136, 06-1137, 2007 WL 1544207, at  (6th Cir. May 25, 2007) (unpublished). Second, Black’s argument that the Government failed to establish that he possessed “cocaine base” fails. This court has previously held that the phrase “cocaine base” includes crack cocaine. United States v. Levy, 904 F.2d 1026, 1033 (6th Cir. 1990). While Black argues that “synthetic crack cocaine” – as it was called by the Kentucky State Police chemist – is not “cocaine base,” he has failed to articulate a persuasive reason for distinguishing “synthetic crack cocaine” from either “crack cocaine” or “cocaine base.” Thus, Black has failed to demonstrate that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to sustain his possession conviction.
-9- Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black It was also proper for the district court to allow Officer Fegan’s testimony about a prior incident under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In 2003, Officer Fegan arrested Black after finding a cigar box, near where Black had been standing, that contained five baggies of cocaine and a bag of marijuana. Black eventually pled guilty to a charge of cocaine possession arising from the incident. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of a defendant’s “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” may be admitted to establish, inter alia, intent or knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); see also United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 1985) (stating that Rule 404(b) “is actually a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion, since only one use is forbidden and several permissible uses of such evidence are identified”). To be admissible as other-acts evidence under Rules 404(b) and 403, the evidence must be probative of a material issue other than character, and the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 596 (6th Cir. 2003). Evidence of the 2003 incident was probative of Black’s intent and knowledge in the instant case. This court “review[s] de novo whether the district court correctly determined that the evidence was admissible for a legitimate purpose.” United States v. Comer, 93 F.3d 1271, 1277 (6th Cir. 1991). Although Black argues that the Government should not have been allowed to introduce evidence of the 2003 incident because knowledge and intent were not at issue, this court has held that “[w]here the crime charged is one requiring specific intent, the prosecutor may use 404(b) evidence to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent notwithstanding any defense the defendant might raise.” United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1192 (6th Cir. 1994). - 10 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black Additionally, the 2003 incident was both sufficiently similar and reasonably near in time to the specific-intent offense at issue in the instant case. To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts must be substantially similar and reasonably near in time to the charged offense. United States v. Wynn, 987 F.2d 354, 357 (6th Cir. 1993). At the time of the 2003 incident, Black only possessed 3 grams of cocaine. Importantly, those 3 grams were separated and packaged into several individual baggies, indicating that he intended to distribute them. Although that amount is consistent with personal use and is significantly less than the amount he is charged with possessing and intending to distribute in the instant offense, the facts surrounding the 2003 incident are sufficiently similar to the charges underlying the instant case. We held in United States v. Jones, Nos. 91-6005, 91-6032, 1993 WL 11832, at  (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 1993) (unpublished), that the defendant's separation of 4.1 grams of crack cocaine into a number of smaller, precisely weighed allotments allowed the jury to infer the defendant's intent to distribute. And our opinion in United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 722 (6th Cir. 2002), suggests that where the Government seeks to introduce evidence of past possession of a small quantity of drugs in a case involving charges of possession with intent to distribute, the substantial-similarity test turns on whether the defendant intended to distribute the small quantity of drugs in the earlier incident. Nor does the 29-month gap between the prior incident and the events underlying the present offense render the 404(b) evidence inadmissible. This court has held that there is “no absolute maximum number of years that may separate a prior act and the offense charged[,]” United States v. Ismail, 756 F.2d 1253, 1260 (6th Cir. 1985), and has allowed 404(b) evidence dating back many - 11 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black more than 29 months. See, e.g., United States v. Murphy, No. 90-6400, 1993 WL 15102, at -4 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 1993) (unpublished) (3-4 years); Ismail, 756 F.3d at 1260 (up to 4 years). Finally, the probative value of the 2003 incident was not outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. This court “review[s] for abuse of discretion the district court’s determination that the ‘other acts’ evidence is more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403.” Comer, 93 F.3d at 1277. Although Black correctly argues that the availability of other evidence is a factor in Rule 403's balancing analysis, the testimony of Agent Price regarding quantities indicative of distribution was the only other evidence of intent in the present case. “The district court has broad discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudicial impact.” Ismail, 756 F.2d at 1259. Black has not established that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the probative value of the 2003 incident was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Moreover, the district court properly instructed the jury regarding the use of such evidence, mitigating any potential prejudice. See United States v. Myers, 123 F.3d 350, 363-64 (6th Cir. 1997). Consequently, Black’s 403 argument also fails.
It was proper for the district court to use Black’s prior drug felony conviction to enhance his sentence. Before trial, the Government filed notice that it would use Black’s prior conviction for cocaine possession to seek an enhanced sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841. JA at 40. Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Black to 20 years in prison on counts one and three of his - 12 - Nos. 06-5810, 06-5811 United States v. Lofton and Black indictment, the statutory mandatory minimum required due to his prior drug felony conviction. Black argues that it was improper under the Sixth Amendment for the court to enhance his sentence without first proving to a jury the fact of his prior conviction. As Black concedes, however, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Hill, 440 F.3d 292, 299 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 524-25 (6th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Watford, 468 F.3d 891, 915 (6th Cir. 2006). Consequently, this challenge fails.