Opinion ID: 810773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Campbell’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

Text: Campbell argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the cocaine conspiracy charge in Count 15 because there was no evidence that Campbell knew about the conspiracy.6 5 Campbell presents no argument regarding the § 924(c) firearm conviction and thus has abandoned his challenge to it. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that a defendant abandons an issue by failing to offer argument on it). 6 This Court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and making all 15 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 16 of 41 To prove the conspiracy offense, the government had to establish: (1) an agreement existed between two or more persons to possess and distribute cocaine; (2) Campbell knew of the goal of the conspiracy; and (3) Campbell knowingly joined or participated in the conspiracy. United States v. Matthews, 168 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 1999). Because “conspiracies are secretive by nature, the existence of the agreement and the defendant’s participation in the conspiracy may be proven entirely from circumstantial evidence,” which includes “inferences drawn from the participants’ conduct.” United States v. U.S. Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195, 1203 (11th Cir. 2009). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Campbell’s cocaine conspiracy conviction. Campbell provided the car that he, Augustus, and McClain used for transportation to the robbery. During the September 17 discussion with the agents prior to the robbery, Campbell was present when Agent Neal stated that 25 kilograms were stored at the house and that he had ordered one kilogram of cocaine as planned. Further, during that same discussion, Campbell inquired whether the house’s occupants reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Descent, 292 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir. 2002). To uphold the denial of the motion, we must determine “that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). 16 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 17 of 41 would be armed and whether they were “Cubans,” which shows Campbell knew about and expressed interest in the plot to rob the stash house. Indeed, Campbell affirmatively nodded his head in response to Agent Neal’s question, “[e]verybody up for that shit?” And, in the post-arrest conversation in the police vehicle, Campbell asked Augustus whether the pistol in the trunk of the gold Pontiac had been wiped clean. Based on the evidence at trial, a reasonable jury could have found that the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Campbell was guilty of the cocaine conspiracy offense.