Court Opinion

ID: 9915079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:00:55.378261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:03.847844
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12165   Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024   Page: 1 of 10

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12165
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        QUANTAVIOUS CEDRON ARNOLD,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00244-LMM-CMS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12165      Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2024     Page: 2 of 10

        2                  Opinion of the District Court           22-12165

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Quantavious Cedron Arnold appeals his convictions for pos-
        session of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a ﬁre-
        arm in furtherance of drug traﬃcking. He challenges the suﬃ-
        ciency of the evidence to sustain those convictions. Because there
        was suﬃcient evidence for the District Court to convict Arnold of
        both convictions, we aﬃrm.
                                  I. Background
               In January 2021, Arnold faced multiple federal charges. He
        pleaded guilty to some but requested a bench trial for the counts
        charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, us-
        ing a ﬁrearm in furtherance of drug traﬃcking, and possessing a
        ﬁrearm as a convicted felon.
               As part of his plea, Arnold conceded that in November 2019,
        he used, carried, and brandished a ﬁrearm during a carjacking; and
        that two days later, he possessed and brandished a ﬁrearm while
        robbing a bank. Arnold also conceded that he later recorded him-
        self fanning out hundred-dollar bills and holding two pistols in the
        air. The parties stipulated that Arnold (1) possessed marijuana with
        intent to distribute and had a ﬁrearm on him in November 2018,
        (2) possessed marijuana with intent to distribute in February 2019,
        and (3) possessed a SCCY CPX-1 9mm pistol during the November
        2019 bank robbery.
USCA11 Case: 22-12165     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2024    Page: 3 of 10

        22-12165          Opinion of the District Court                  3

               In December 2021, the District Court tried Arnold, and At-
        lanta Police Department Oﬃcer Matthew Oﬃcer Abad testiﬁed to
        the following: On the evening of November 22, 2019, Oﬃcer Abad
        responded to a call to track someone who had crashed a stolen ve-
        hicle. He searched a wooded area next to the road for anyone who
        matched the driver’s description. After several minutes, he encoun-
        tered Arnold in the woods. When ordered to show his hands, Ar-
        nold tried to ﬂee. Arnold tripped and fell, allowing Oﬃcer Abad to
        arrest him.
               Before and during the arrest, Oﬃcer Abad saw nothing in
        Arnold’s hands. But after arresting Arnold, he located two small
        plastic containers where Arnold was lying when he ﬁrst encoun-
        tered him. Inside the containers were around 39 rocks of cocaine.
        On the outside, they were labeled with blue tape, “5” written on
        one and “10” on the other.
               Oﬃcer Abad also found a gray and black Nike crossbody bag
        on the ground ﬁve to ten feet from Arnold. Inside, he found a
        loaded ﬁrearm and a small digital scale. The ﬁrearm was a gray-
        and-black SCCY CPX-1 9mm pistol. Oﬃcer Abad used the scale to
        weigh the suspected cocaine, which weighed 3.8 grams. In Oﬃcer
        Abad’s experience, about half a gram of crack cocaine was a typical
        personal use amount. He found nothing in the woods or on Ar-
        nold’s person that could facilitate the cocaine’s consumption.
              Arnold accused Oﬃcer Abad of “trying to jack [him] up.”
        While seemingly gesturing toward the cocaine, the Nike bag, the
        ﬁrearm, and the scale, Arnold said, “when you was walking
USCA11 Case: 22-12165         Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 01/04/2024         Page: 4 of 10

        4                     Opinion of the District Court                  22-12165

        through the woods, that’s when y’all were discovering the shit that
        y’all got.”
              The Government introduced evidence that Arnold wore a
        Nike crossbody bag during the November 2019 carjacking and
        bank robbery. Special Agent Elizabeth Urban also testiﬁed to a cell
        phone extraction yielding a video of Arnold with a Nike crossbody
        bag and a ﬁrearm. During closing arguments, Arnold conceded
        there was “proof that there were pictures of [the Nike] bag and
        him.”
               The District Court found Arnold guilty of all counts. It
        found that Arnold’s statements to Oﬃcer Abad after his arrest con-
        stituted an attempt to disclaim the cocaine, the Nike bag, the ﬁre-
        arm, and the digital scales 1 and that Arnold later admitted owner-
        ship of the Nike bag and digital scales. 2
              The District Court concluded that “ample” evidence sup-
        ported a ﬁnding that Arnold actually possessed the cocaine. It cited
        Arnold’s initial false renunciation of the items found in the woods,
        and that the cocaine was found in a remote wooded area in the

        1 While it is not abundantly clear that Arnold’s statement was intended as an

        attempt to disclaim all of the property found in the woods, he does not chal-
        lenge this finding on appeal.
        2 The District Court’s order does not cite where Arnold explicitly admitted

        ownership over these items. This finding is seemingly derived from Arnold’s
        concession during closing arguments that photographs linked Arnold to the
        Nike bag, along with Arnold’s failure to dispute his ownership of the Nike bag
        and its contents during the trial or pretrial proceedings. Arnold does not chal-
        lenge this finding on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12165         Document: 37-1         Date Filed: 01/04/2024   Page: 5 of 10

        22-12165              Opinion of the District Court                     5

        exact spot where Arnold was lying when Oﬃcer Abad ﬁrst encoun-
        tered him. It also found that Arnold’s prior drug dealings and con-
        temporaneous possession of a loaded ﬁrearm and digital scale ne-
        gated any inference that his proximity to the cocaine was acci-
        dental.
               The District Court concluded that the trial evidence sup-
        ported a ﬁnding that Arnold intended to distribute the cocaine. In
        support, it cited the amount of cocaine, Arnold’s possession of a
        digital scale, the lack of any items to consume cocaine, his prior
        drug dealings, and his attempted ﬂight from Oﬃcer Abad.
               The District Court also concluded that the evidence sup-
        ported a ﬁnding that Arnold possessed a ﬁrearm in furtherance of
        drug traﬃcking. It found that seven out of the eight factors out-
        lined in Timmons 3 weighed against Arnold. It found that the ﬁre-
        arm here was loaded, easily accessible, illegally possessed, kept in
        the same bag as a digital scale, and kept near a controlled substance.
              The District Court sentenced Arnold to 300 months of im-
        prisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
                                       II. Discussion
                    A. Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute
               Arnold argues there is insuﬃcient evidence on which to sus-
        tain his convictions because the Government can’t show he pos-
        sessed the cocaine found in the woods or intended to distribute it.

        3 United States v. Timmons, 283 F.3d 1246, 1253 (11th Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 22-12165         Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 01/04/2024         Page: 6 of 10

        6                     Opinion of the District Court                  22-12165

        We review suﬃciency of the evidence claims de novo. 4 United
        States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009). To determine
        whether evidence can support a conviction, we must view the evi-
        dence in the light most favorable to the Government and draw all
        reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. Id.
               Suﬃcient evidence exists to support a conviction if a reason-
        able trier of fact could ﬁnd that it establishes the defendant’s guilt
        beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1284–85. In rebutting the Gov-
        ernment’s evidence, it is insuﬃcient for a defendant to merely pro-
        pose a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 1285. The crux
        of the matter lies not in whether a jury could reasonably have ac-
        quitted but in whether it could reasonably have established guilt
        beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
               The test for suﬃciency of the evidence is the same whether
        the evidence is direct or circumstantial. United States v. Martin, 803
        F.3d 581, 587 (11th Cir. 2015). But where the Government relied on
        circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences must support the
        conviction. Id. A conviction will not be aﬃrmed if it turns on
        “conjecture.” United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1433 (11th Cir.
        1998).
              To support a conviction for possession of a controlled sub-
        stance with intent to distribute, the evidence must show that the

        4 A defendant in a bench trial need not make a motion for judgment of acquit-

        tal to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal. United States
        v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359, 1368 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 22-12165       Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024      Page: 7 of 10

        22-12165           Opinion of the District Court                      7

        defendant knowingly possessed the controlled substance with the
        intent to distribute it. United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1345
        (11th Cir. 2006). Possession “may be constructive as well as actual
        and may be proven by circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Kin-
        cade, 714 F.2d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1983). Actual possession re-
        quires the Government to prove that the defendant had either phys-
        ical possession of or personal dominion over the thing allegedly
        possessed. United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177, 1185 (11th Cir. 1996).
               While physical proximity to an unlawful drug alone cannot
        establish actual possession, proximity plus other circumstantial ev-
        idence showing dominion or control may be suﬃcient, even with
        no evidence of physical contact between the defendant and the
        drug. See United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 909 (11th Cir. 1998).
        We also recognize a connection between ﬁrearms and illegal drugs
        and have described ﬁrearms as tools of the trade in drug traﬃcking.
        United States v. Martin, 794 F.2d 1531, 1533 (11th Cir. 1986) (per cu-
        riam).
                As for intent to distribute, that “can be proven circumstan-
        tially from, among other things, the quantity of cocaine and the
        existence of implements such as scales commonly used in connec-
        tion with the distribution of cocaine.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d
        1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
               The District Court’s ﬁnding that Arnold knowingly pos-
        sessed cocaine is supported by suﬃcient evidence. Arnold was dis-
        covered near the cocaine in a secluded wooded area, with a loaded
        ﬁrearm and digital scale nearby. The cocaine was located precisely
USCA11 Case: 22-12165      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024     Page: 8 of 10

        8                  Opinion of the District Court            22-12165

        where Arnold had been lying before encountering Oﬃcer Abad.
        While Arnold contends that our precedents linking ﬁrearms to
        drug traﬃcking often involve large-scale operations, he cites no de-
        cision rendering them inapplicable in his case. Moreover, Arnold’s
        attempted ﬂight, past involvement in drug dealings, and initial false
        denial of the items found in the woods collectively strengthen the
        inference that he knowingly possessed the cocaine.
                Likewise, the District Court’s determination of Arnold’s in-
        tent to distribute cocaine is supported by suﬃcient evidence. The
        court appropriately considered both Arnold’s possession of a digi-
        tal scale and the quantity of cocaine as circumstantial evidence of
        intent to distribute. Any suggestion that the cocaine was for per-
        sonal use is undermined by the lack of items that could be used to
        consume it. Additionally, the District Court rightly regarded Ar-
        nold’s prior drug dealings as “highly probative” of his intent to dis-
        tribute. See United States v. Cardenas, 895 F.2d 1338, 1344 (11th Cir.
        1990).
            B. Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Traﬃcking
               Arnold asserts that the Government failed to present evi-
        dence suﬃcient to establish a nexus between his possession of the
        ﬁrearm and drug traﬃcking activity. To support a conviction under
        18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), the Government must prove that Arnold
        (1) knowingly (2) possessed a ﬁrearm (3) in furtherance of a drug
        traﬃcking crime, meaning the ﬁrearm “helped, furthered, pro-
        moted, or advanced” drug traﬃcking. United States v. Timmons, 283
        F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir. 2002). Ultimately, the Government must
USCA11 Case: 22-12165      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024      Page: 9 of 10

        22-12165           Opinion of the District Court                     9

        show “some nexus between the ﬁrearm and the drug selling oper-
        ation.” Id. at 1253 (quotation marks omitted). Factors used to de-
        termine the presence of a suﬃcient nexus include (1) “the type of
        drug activity that is being conducted,” (2) “accessibility of the ﬁre-
        arm,” (3) “the type of the weapon,” (4) “whether the weapon is sto-
        len,” (5) “the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal),”
        (6) “whether the gun is loaded,” (7) “proximity to the drugs or drug
        proﬁts,” and (8) “the time and circumstances under which the gun
        is found.” Id. (quoting United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409,
        414–15 (5th Cir. 2000)).
               The District Court’s conclusion that Arnold’s possession of
        the ﬁrearm was in furtherance of drug traﬃcking ﬁnds suﬃcient
        support in the evidence. Arnold’s possession of a digital scale along
        with 3.8 grams of cocaine strongly implies involvement in drug dis-
        tribution. Moreover, he illegally possessed a loaded and easily ac-
        cessible ﬁrearm, discovered near a substantial quantity of co-
        caine—well beyond what typically relates to personal use—in a se-
        cluded wooded area late at night.
               While the District Court correctly noted the inapplicability
        of one Timmons factor—whether the ﬁrearm was stolen—this is
        just one of eight factors pertinent to the analysis. Arnold’s argu-
        ment that the Timmons analysis should be conﬁned to large-scale
        drug operations lacks merit, as our precedent does not endorse
        such a restrictive interpretation.
USCA11 Case: 22-12165     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024    Page: 10 of 10

        10                 Opinion of the District Court           22-12165

                                 III. Conclusion
               Because there is suﬃcient evidence to sustain Arnold’s con-
        victions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and pos-
        session of a ﬁrearm in furtherance of drug traﬃcking, the District
        Court’s judgment is
              AFFIRMED.