Court Opinion

ID: 9378857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 20:00:45.512503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.197707
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11043    Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11043
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        DARREN J. MCCORMICK,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 7:20-cr-00035-WLS-TQL-1
                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11043        Document: 32-1   Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                       Opinion of the Court               22-11043

        Before LUCK, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                After a jury trial, defendant Darren McCormick appeals his
        conviction for possession with intent to distribute over fifty grams
        of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
        (b)(1)(A)(viii). After careful review of the record and the parties’
        briefs, we affirm McCormick’s conviction.
                        I.      FACTUAL BACKGROUND
        A.    Michael Husbands
               In October 2019, Michael Husbands was arrested for
        possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs. After his arrest,
        Husbands gave an interview about his work for Darren
        McCormick. Husbands lived in Nashville, Georgia. Husbands
        made a deal with the Alapaha Circuit district attorney, who agreed
        to let Husbands post bond in exchange for his assistance in
        investigating McCormick.
              Husbands had a close relationship with McCormick, who
        paid Husbands to assist McCormick with various tasks starting in
        2018. These tasks included delivering drugs for McCormick and
        giving McCormick rides to the store and other places. By
USCA11 Case: 22-11043     Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 3 of 11

        22-11043              Opinion of the Court                      3

        Husbands’s estimate, he made 30 to 40 drug deliveries for
        McCormick.
        B.    The Investigation of McCormick
              In 2020, the Berrien County Narcotics Office (“BCNO”),
        which was investigating McCormick, used Husbands as an
        informant.
              Following his release from jail, Husbands returned to
        working for McCormick, who asked Husbands if packages could
        be delivered to Husbands’s residence in Nashville, Georgia.
        Husbands contacted the district attorney’s investigators about
        McCormick’s request. Then, Husbands agreed to receive
        McCormick’s packages at Husbands’s Nashville address.
        C.    McCormick’s Packages Sent to Husbands’s Residence
                Two packages were delivered to Husbands’s address. When
        the first package arrived, McCormick asked Husbands to open it.
        The first package contained marijuana. The investigators
        instructed Husbands to “let it go through” to McCormick.
               McCormick later told Husbands to watch out for another
        package that would arrive in the next few days at his Nashville
        address. Husbands informed the investigators that McCormick
        was expecting a second package. The package then was
        intercepted by a U.S. Postal Inspector in Tallahassee and taken by
        that inspector to the post office in Nashville, Georgia.
USCA11 Case: 22-11043     Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 4 of 11

        4                     Opinion of the Court                22-11043

        D.    The May 8, 2020 Package
               On May 8, 2020, after a law enforcement agent informed
        Husbands that the second package had arrived, Husbands picked
        up the package at the post office in Nashville. The package had
        been sent to an indecipherable name at Husbands’s Nashville
        address. When Husbands returned home, he suggested to the
        investigators that the package be stored in a shed in his backyard.
        However, BCNO Agent Hines Taylor instructed Husbands to
        place the package in the trunk of Husbands’s car for safekeeping.
               On that same day (May 8), Husbands informed McCormick
        that the package had arrived in the mail. Husbands led McCormick
        to believe the package was in Husbands’s shed, where Husbands
        had held packages for McCormick on other occasions.
              When Husbands talked with McCormick about the
        package, Husbands learned McCormick might need a ride from
        Douglas, Georgia, to Nashville.        Husbands then offered
        McCormick a ride, which McCormick accepted. McCormick did
        not ask Husbands to bring the package, and Husbands did not tell
        McCormick the drug package was in the car.
              After Husbands informed the investigators that McCormick
        needed a ride, Agent Taylor directed Husbands to pick McCormick
        up and provided Husbands with a recording device that recorded
        Husbands’s conversations.
USCA11 Case: 22-11043     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 5 of 11

        22-11043               Opinion of the Court                       5

        E.    McCormick’s Recorded Conversation with Husbands on
              May 8, 2020
               Later the same day (May 8), Husbands picked up
        McCormick in Douglas, Georgia. McCormick’s conversation with
        Husbands on this trip was recorded by the agents and played for
        the jury.
               Soon after McCormick entered the car, he asked Husbands,
        “You put it up good, didn’t you?” Husbands responded, “Yeah. I
        got it put up. I know better than that.” Husbands testified that,
        during this exchange, McCormick was referring to the package that
        came in the mail.
               McCormick also said, “Told my boy I don’t know how the
        f*** I’m gone sell this dope but I told em um sh*t cost a lot of
        f***ing money you know what I am saying $600 you hear me Unc?”
        and “My a** gonna make a lot of money off this sh*t cause um we
        gonna be havers not have nots.” McCormick then described the
        purity of the methamphetamine, stating, “It’s real ice you feel me.”
        Husbands testified that “ice” refers to the purest form of
        methamphetamine.
               During the recorded conversation, McCormick detailed his
        plans to “cut” and otherwise prepare the drugs for sale so that he
        could preserve the purity needed to make a profit. McCormick and
        Husbands discussed the prices they could get for different
        quantities of the drugs, including a gram, a “zip” (one ounce), and
        an “8 ball” (3.5 grams or an eighth of an ounce). McCormick told
        Husbands, “This first round right here we grinding this
USCA11 Case: 22-11043     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court               22-11043

        mother***er,” which Husbands understood to mean that
        McCormick planned to sell the drugs as quickly as possible.
              On the way back from Douglas, Husbands’s car was
        stopped, and the package in the trunk was seized. Law
        enforcement later confirmed that: (1) the package contained two
        substances; (2) the first substance weighed 6.971 grams and
        contained 47.8 percent pure methamphetamine; and (3) the second
        substance weighed 215.115 grams and contained 47.8 percent pure
        methamphetamine.
        F.    Indictment and Trial
               In 2020, McCormick was charged with possession with
        intent to distribute methamphetamine weighing in excess of fifty
        grams, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii)
        (Count 1).
               During the three-day trial, the government presented
        testimony from Husbands and several law enforcement officers, as
        well as other evidence, including audio recordings, that established
        the facts recounted above. At the close of the government’s
        evidence, McCormick moved for judgment of acquittal under
        Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district court reserved
        ruling on the motion.
               The jury found McCormick guilty of the charged drug
        offense. The district court denied McCormick’s motion for
        judgment of acquittal. Ultimately, the district court sentenced
        McCormick to 195 months’ imprisonment.
USCA11 Case: 22-11043      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 7 of 11

        22-11043               Opinion of the Court                        7

                   II.    SUFFICENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
               To convict a defendant under § 841(a) of possession with
        intent to distribute, the government must prove the defendant
        (1) knowingly (2) possessed a controlled substance, and (3) with
        intent to distribute it. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297
        (11th Cir. 2013).
              “Possession may be actual or constructive, joint or sole.”
        United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008)
        (quotation marks omitted). This case involves only constructive
        possession.
               To establish constructive possession, the government must
        demonstrate that the defendant (1) “knew the identity of the
        substance,” and (2) owned it or exercised dominion and control
        over it. United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1525 (11th Cir.
        1985); see also Capers, 708 F.3d at 1306 (“To prove constructive
        possession, the government must produce evidence showing
        ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband . . . .”
        (quotation marks omitted)); Woodard, 531 F.3d at 1360 (“A
        defendant’s constructive possession of a substance can be proven
        by a showing of ownership or dominion and control over the
        drugs . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)).         “‘[C]onstructive
        possession’ of a thing occurs if a person doesn’t have actual
        possession of it, but has both the power and the intention to take
        control over it later.” Capers, 708 F.3d at 1297 (quoting United
        States v. Cochran, 683 F.3d 1314, 1316 (11th Cir. 2012)).
        “Constructive possession need not be exclusive, and may be
USCA11 Case: 22-11043        Document: 32-1        Date Filed: 03/13/2023        Page: 8 of 11

        8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-11043

        proven through circumstantial evidence that shows ownership,
        dominion, or control over the drugs[.]” Holmes v. Kucynda, 321
        F.3d 1069, 1080 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Poole, 878
        F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989)).
               Here, there was ample evidence to convict McCormick on a
        constructive possession theory. The evidence showed that:
        (1) McCormick had knowledge that the package delivered to
        Husbands on May 8, 2020 contained methamphetamine;
        (2) McCormick both owned the drug package and had the ability
        and intent to exercise control over the drugs; and (3) McCormick
        had the intent to distribute them. 1 As to the knowledge element of
        § 841(a), there was more than sufficient evidence that McCormick
        knew the package contained methamphetamine. McCormick
        asked Husbands if packages could be delivered to Husbands’s
        address and told Husbands to watch out for the package a couple
        of days before it arrived. Then, on May 8, 2020, McCormick asked
        if Husbands had “put it up good,” to confirm that Husbands had
        hidden the drugs in a safe location. In the same conversation with
        Husbands, McCormick (1) described the purity of the
        methamphetamine, (2) detailed his plans to prepare the
        methamphetamine for sale, (3) discussed the prices he could get for

        1 This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
        conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
        government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in
        favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th
        Cir. 2018).
USCA11 Case: 22-11043      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        22-11043               Opinion of the Court                         9

        different quantities of drugs, and (4) indicated that he planned to
        sell the drugs quickly. These facts clearly support the jury’s finding
        that McCormick knew the package contained methamphetamine.
               The same facts show that McCormick both owned the
        package and had the ability and intent to exercise control over the
        methamphetamine. Because McCormick asked Husbands if
        packages could be delivered to Husbands’s address and later told
        Husbands to watch out for the package shortly before it arrived, a
        reasonable jury readily could find that McCormick owned the
        package and arranged for this package to be sent to Husbands’s
        address. As noted above, McCormick later told Husbands about
        his plans to sell the methamphetamine during their recorded
        conversation on May 8, 2020. This evidence, taken together,
        allowed the jury to conclude that McCormick exercised dominion
        and control over the drugs, which in turn allowed the jury to infer
        he constructively possessed the drugs. See Woodard, 531 F.3d at
        1361 (concluding that sufficient evidence showed the defendant
        constructively possessed marijuana when he told a co-conspirator
        that he planned to sell the marijuana once it arrived in the mail).
                Turning to § 841(a)’s third element (intent to distribute),
        McCormick’s recorded statements about his plans to sell the drugs
        clearly demonstrated his intent to distribute the
        methamphetamine. Accordingly, the evidence was more than
        sufficient to convict McCormick of possession with intent to
        distribute methamphetamine.
USCA11 Case: 22-11043     Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court               22-11043

               McCormick argues that he was a mere passenger in
        Husbands’s car and had no knowledge that there were drugs
        hidden in the truck. McCormick stresses that Husbands did not tell
        him drugs were in the truck. Even so, this argument is beside the
        point here. First, this is not a case where the government seeks to
        show constructive possession by a defendant’s presence in a vehicle
        or house where drugs are found during a search. Rather this case
        is about ownership of a drug package sent through the mail to a
        designated location during a specific time period. To establish
        constructive possession in that situation, the government needed
        to prove only that: (1) McCormick knew the package contained
        methamphetamine and (2) he owned the drug package or had
        dominion and control over it. See Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1525;
        Capers, 708 F.3d at 1306. The evidence recited above proved a
        strong ownership nexus between McCormick and the
        methamphetamine that he constructively possessed. That
        McCormick did not know the drugs were hidden in the car trunk,
        not Husbands’s shed, does not negate the force of the other
        evidence that McCormick owned the methamphetamine and
        intended to sell it.
              McCormick also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
        support his conviction because there were no circumstances
        evidencing his “consciousness of guilt.” See United States v.
        Stanley, 24 F.3d 1314, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the
        evidence was insufficient to sustain a defendant’s § 841(a)
        conviction when: (1) she was a passenger in a vehicle where drugs
USCA11 Case: 22-11043   Document: 32-1    Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        22-11043             Opinion of the Court                   11

        were hidden, and (2) there were no “circumstances evidencing a
        consciousness of guilt,” such as evidence that she made
        incriminating statements).      We disagree. McCormick’s
        incriminating statements during his recorded conversation with
        Husbands proved that he knew the package contained
        methamphetamine.
             In sum, we conclude sufficient evidence supported
        McCormick’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute
        methamphetamine.
              AFFIRMED.