Court Opinion

ID: 9913290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 17:00:49.381319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:47.340278
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2711
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                             Antione Deandre Maxwell

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
                                   ____________

                          Submitted: September 20, 2023
                            Filed: December 27, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Antione Deandre Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy and drug distribution.
He appeals, arguing that the district court1 erred by denying his motions for judgment

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
of acquittal or for a new trial and by denying his request for a jury instruction on
implicit bias. We affirm.

       Law enforcement officers began investigating a drug organization led by
Michael Graham in 2018. The investigation revealed that Graham employed Antione
Maxwell, his brother Charles Maxwell, their father Charleton Maxwell, and Bernard
Davis to sell methamphetamine and heroin. Graham and Davis are Antione and
Charles’s maternal half-brothers. The investigation lasted for approximately two
years, during which law enforcement officers conducted extensive surveillance,
directed multiple controlled purchases, interviewed arrestees and drug users who
were involved with the organization, and ultimately made arrests and searched
various locations, finding substantial evidence of drug distribution.

       Maxwell and his father were charged in the same indictment and tried together.
See United States v. Maxwell, 61 F.4th 549 (8th Cir. 2023) (affirming Charleton
Maxwell’s convictions and sentence). The jury found Antione Maxwell guilty of the
following offenses: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and (C), 846, and 851; three counts
of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A) or (B), and 851; and one count of distribution of heroin, in violation of
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 851. After denying Maxwell’s post-trial motions,
the district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be
served concurrently.2

      2
        These sentences are being served concurrently with Maxwell’s 240-month
sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and 120-month
sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-2653,
slip op. (8th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023).

                                         -2-
       Maxwell argues that the district court should have granted his renewed motion
for judgment of acquittal on all counts. He also seeks a new trial. “We apply the
deferential sufficiency of the evidence standard to the denial of a motion for acquittal,
and we review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.” United
States v. Patterson, 68 F.4th 402, 419 (8th Cir. 2023).

        Maxwell first argues that there was no evidence that he conspired with anyone
to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. For conviction, the government was
required to prove that there was an agreement to distribute drugs, that Maxwell knew
of the conspiracy, and that he intentionally joined the conspiracy. See Maxwell, 61
F.4th at 558–59 (elements of the offense). “An agreement to join a conspiracy need
not be explicit but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Id. at 559 (quoting United States v. Ramirez, 21 F.4th 530, 532–33 (8th Cir. 2021)).
We have said that “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to
sustain a conviction if it is not otherwise incredible or insubstantial on its face.” Id.
(alteration and citation omitted).

       Deputy Frank Hodak of the Cerro Gordo County Sheriff’s Office testified that
he had observed Maxwell so many times during his investigation that if he “passed
him in a grocery store [he] would say, ‘Hey, hi, Antione.” Hodak supervised a
confidential informant (CI) in several controlled buys from Maxwell and from other
members of the organization. Hodak testified that in April 2020 after a buy had been
arranged with Davis, Davis sent the CI to Maxwell, who sold him methamphetamine
and received payment. The CI, a daily heroin user, testified that he had purchased
heroin and methamphetamine directly from Maxwell and that there were times when
he had contacted Davis, and Davis then referred him to Maxwell. Charleyann Mullen
also testified that she regularly purchased heroin from Davis, but that he sometimes
sent Maxwell to complete the sale.

                                          -3-
       Armondo Gray testified that he had supplied Maxwell with methamphetamine
for resale, that he had seen Maxwell repackage pounds of methamphetamine with
Graham for resale, and that he had seen Maxwell sell drugs. According to Gray,
Maxwell was doing “pretty much the same thing I was doing. Getting it from Pops
[Charleton Maxwell] or Tuffy [Graham] or Bernard [Davis], and breaking it down to
a lesser quantity, selling it for more.” Contrary to Maxwell’s contention that he was
merely present when others sold drugs, there was overwhelming evidence that he
intentionally joined the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, and
we reiterate the conclusion “that Mullen’s and Gray’s testimony is not incredible or
unsubstantial.” Maxwell, 61 F.4th at 559.

       Maxwell also challenges his convictions on the four distribution counts. He
argues that the government failed to produce physical evidence of drug distribution,
e.g., photos, videos, phone records, fingerprints, DNA, or serialized currency from
controlled buys. The CI testified that he participated in controlled buys of
methamphetamine and heroin from Maxwell, however. With respect to the three
counts of distribution of methamphetamine, Hodak testified that he supervised the
CI’s controlled buys of the drug from Maxwell on April 13, 14, and 16, 2020. Hodak
identified the location where each transaction took place, he described the car in
which Maxwell arrived on April 13 and 14, and he explained that he observed
Maxwell during each transaction. With respect to the distribution-of-heroin count,
Hodak testified that the CI made arrangements with Maxwell to buy heroin and that
Maxwell directed an associate to complete the sale. The government also entered into
evidence the lab reports indicating the weight and purity of the drugs involved in each
transaction. That officers did not find methamphetamine or heroin during the
searches of Maxwell’s home or another residence he frequented does not render the
evidence insufficient to convict him, particularly in light of the fact that officers
seized approximately three pounds of methamphetamine, 80 grams of heroin, four
firearms, and more than $18,000 in cash from Davis’s home, where Maxwell visited

                                         -4-
immediately before completing the April 16 transaction and where he visited
regularly during the year leading up to the search.

       We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Maxwell’s motion for
judgment of acquittal or abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial. For the
reasons set forth in United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-2653, slip op. at 10–11 (8th Cir.
December 27, 2023), we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Maxwell’s requested instruction that the jury be instructed on
implicit racial bias.

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -5-