United States v. Brenda McCall ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 27, 2008
No. 06-13896
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00153 CR-C-S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRENDA McCALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
(May 27, 2008)
Before DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District
Judge.
____________________
*Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
A federal indictment charged Appellant, Brenda McCall (“McCall”), with
three crimes: two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of
pseudoephedrine with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine – one for an April 10, 2003 sale, and another for an April 17,
2003 sale – and one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. A
jury found McCall not guilty on the conspiracy charge and the April 10 charge,
but found her guilty of the April 17, 2003 sale.
The issues presented on appeal are:
(1) Whether the Government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to conclude that McCall knew the pseudoephedrine she sold on April 17
would be used to manufacture methamphetamine;
(2) Whether the district court erred in charging the jury with a “deliberate
ignorance” instruction; and
(3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the
testimony of Investigator Tony Helms.
“We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of
acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” United States v. Dulcio,
441 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). In determining whether the Government
2
presented sufficient evidence, the court “must review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the [G]overnment and draw all reasonable factual inferences in
favor of the jury’s verdict.” Id. “Where an appellant has objected to a jury
instruction at trial, we review the court’s decision to use that instruction for abuse
of discretion.” United States v. Dean, 487 F.3d 840, 847 (11th Cir.2007), cert.
denied, 128 S. Ct. 1444 (2008). We review for abuse of discretion the district
court’s admission of evidence. See United States v. Maragh, 174 F.3d 1202, 1204
(11th Cir.1999).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the
arguments McCall makes in this appeal and, accordingly, we affirm her
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3