Case: 18-13373 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13373
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00463-MHH-JEO-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFF MORRIS BEAM, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 17, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13373 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Jeff Beam appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A). Beam argues that the evidence was insufficient to
establish he “knew of . . . or knowingly and voluntarily joined any conspiracy” to
distribute methamphetamine. We affirm.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence and view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government by making reasonable inferences and
credibility choices consistent with the jury’s verdict. United States v. Jiminez,
564
F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009). “We will uphold a district court’s denial of a
motion for a judgment of acquittal if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the
evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United
States v. Green,
818 F.3d 1258, 1274 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v.
Taylor,
480 F.3d 1025, 1026 (11th Cir. 2007)).
To prove Beam conspired to distribute drugs, the government had to
establish “that two or more persons agreed to commit a drug-related offense, that
[Beam] knew of the conspiracy, and that he agreed to become a member.” United
States v. Louis,
861 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017). The government could
establish “the existence of an agreement . . . [using] inferences from the conduct of
the alleged participants or from circumstantial evidence of [the] scheme.” United
2
Case: 18-13373 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 3 of 4
States v. Gonzalez,
834 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v.
Mateos,
623 F.3d 1350, 1362 (11th Cir. 2010)).
Uncorroborated testimony from an accomplice can be sufficient to support a
conviction. United States v. Diaz,
248 F.3d 1065, 1093–94 (11th Cir. 2001). The
determination of whether an accomplice’s testimony is credible rests within the
exclusive province of the jury and we accept that determination “unless the
testimony is incredible as a matter of law.”
Green, 818 F.3d at 1274 (quoting
United States v. Flores,
572 F.3d 1254, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009)). “Testimony is not
considered incredible as a matter of law unless it is unbelievable on its face, that is,
testimony as to facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events
that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.”
Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Ample evidence proved that Beam led a conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine. Testimony from Beam’s codefendant, Richard Edmonson, and
a confidential informant, Justin Lowe, and surveillance video recordings of
transactions between Beam and Lowe established that Beam had access to large
quantities of methamphetamine, recruited sellers, and profited from purchasing the
drug for his sellers on consignment. Edmonson developed a relationship with
Beam while accompanying Beam’s sister regularly to meet Beam to collect
methamphetamine that he received in FedEx packages shipped from California.
3
Case: 18-13373 Date Filed: 05/17/2019 Page: 4 of 4
Later, Beam recruited Edmonson to help Beam’s sister track and collect the FedEx
packages and to remove packages of drugs from the inside of stuffed animals that
were used to conceal the drugs for shipping. When buying from California became
impossible, Beam agreed to provide Edmonson money to purchase drugs from a
supplier in Georgia every other day in exchange for which Edmonson, after selling
the drugs, gave Beam whatever percentage of the proceeds that he demanded.
Beam also sold methamphetamine to Lowe for personal use, supplied the drug to
Lowe to resell, and invited Lowe to follow other sellers returning from Georgia to
retrieve drugs that they might have to abandon. A jury readily could infer Beam
was knowingly involved in the conspiracy based on the “concert of action”
between Beam and his cohorts. See United States v. Westry,
524 F.3d 1198, 1212–
13 (11th Cir. 2008). Beam argues there was “no credible evidence” to prove his
participation, but he fails to identify any testimony from his cohorts that was
incredible as a matter of law so we must accept the jury’s finding that the
testimony was credible. See
Green, 818 F.3d at 1274.
We AFFIRM Beam’s conviction.
4
