Opinion ID: 1485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jones's Argument

Text: Jones acknowledges Officer Witzman testified he observed Jones discard several small baggies containing cocaine base into a toilet; however, Jones contends this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate Jones intended to distribute the cocaine base. We disagree. To establish the offense of distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government is required to establish the defendant (1) knowingly and intentionally distributed a controlled substance, and (2) knew the item was a controlled substance at the time of distribution. Hernandez, 569 F.3d at 896; see also United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967, 979 (8th Cir.1999). An intent to distribute contraband may be established with circumstantial evidence, United States v. Ojeda, 23 F.3d 1473, 1476 (8th Cir.1994), including such things, as quantity, purity, and presence of firearms, cash, packaging material, or other distribution paraphernalia, United States v. Lopez, 42 F.3d 463, 467 (8th Cir.1994). In fact, `[i]ntent to distribute may be inferred solely from the possession of large quantities of narcotics.' Boyd, 180 F.3d at 980 (quoting Ojeda, 23 F.3d at 1476). `The underlying theme of such cases is that defendant possessed a quantity which was more than he would possess for his own use.' Id. (quoting Lopez, 42 F.3d at 467). In this case, Officer Witzman testified he seized 234.98 grams of a substance containing cocaine base from a toilet where Jones had deposited it. Officer Witzman testified such a large quantity of cocaine base constituted a distribution amount. This alone would be sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to conclude Jones possessed with intent to distribute the cocaine base. See id. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. The district court did not err in denying Jones's and Johnson's motions for judgment of acquittal.