United States v. Gregory Fields ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 4, 2008
No. 06-16605 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20101-CR-AJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY FIELDS,
a.k.a. Black,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 4, 2008)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Fields appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, see id. § 841(a)(1). Fields argues that the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Fields and co-defendant, John Denson, were indicted by a grand jury for
conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base, possession with the
intent to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base on September 19, 2005, and
possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base on
September 22, 2005. After Denson requested new counsel near the trial date, the
charges against Denson were severed. Denson later pleaded guilty.
At the trial of Fields, law enforcement agents testified that on September 19
and 22, 2005, they used a confidential informant to investigate the transportation of
narcotics. Each day the law enforcement officers searched the confidential
informant to ensure that he was free of money or illegal substances, equipped him
with an audio/visual recording device and transmitter, and sent him out to attempt
to purchase narcotics. The government presented the video recordings obtained by
the confidential informant for both days.
The video from September 19, 2005, showed the confidential informant
meet a man identified by a government witness as John Denson. The confidential
2
informant and Denson had a conversation during which Denson stated, “I can get it
for you soft . . . and they can cook it for you.” The confidential informant then
followed Denson to a place where they encountered Fields. Denson and the
confidential informant then entered a convenient store, where the confidential
informant purchased a shirt and placed it on over the recording device. The
remainder of the video was obstructed by the shirt. The government presented
testimony from law enforcement officers that the confidential informant returned to
the officers and presented them with cocaine base.
The video from September 22, 2005, showed the confidential informant
approach Denson in front of the same store where he had purchased the shirt three
days earlier. The confidential informant and Denson entered the store and had
unspecified discussions. The confidential informant then left the store, returned to
the law enforcement agents, and received money to purchase cocaine. The
confidential informant returned to Denson and then reentered the store alone.
After Denson returned to the store, the video showed the confidential informant
exit the store and follow Fields to an adjacent apartment building. The confidential
informant and Fields entered the apartment building and remained inside an
apartment for approximately one hour. The video showed Denson enter the
apartment on two occasions. The video showed Fields take a plastic bag with
3
white substance from his pocket and place it on a kitchen table. The confidential
informant asked “how much” and handed $40 to Fields. Fields poured the white
substance out of the bag into a glass, added other substances, and poured the white
substance onto newspaper. After about an hour, Fields told the confidential
informant, “She’s ready man.” Fields placed the white substance into a plastic bag
and handed it to the confidential informant. The confidential informant exited the
building, returned to the law enforcement officers, and presented them with a
plastic bag containing over 60 grams of cocaine base.
The jury convicted Fields of all three charges. The district court upheld the
charges of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine on
September 22, 2005, but the district court concluded that the evidence was
insufficient to support the charge of possession with intent to distribute on
September 19, 2005, and entered a judgment of acquittal for that charge.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Garcia,
405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). We must determine whether “a reasonable
fact-finder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Pistone, 177 F.3d 957, 958 (11th Cir.
1999). We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government” and
4
draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the government.
United States v. LeCroy, 441 F.3d 914, 924 (11th Cir. 2006).
III. DISCUSSION
Fields argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
To support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, the government
must establish (1) an illegal agreement existed to possess with the intent to
distribute cocaine, (2) the defendant knew of the agreement; and (3) the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily joined in, or participated, in the agreement. See United
States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). “[A] defendant can be
convicted even if his or her participation in the scheme is ‘slight’ by comparison to
the actions of other co-conspirators.” United States v. Tolor, 144 F.3d 1423, 1428
(11th Cir. 1998). Mere presence at the scene of a crime will not support a
conviction for conspiracy to distribute. United States v. Villegas, 911 F.2d 623,
627–28 (11th Cir. 1990). To convict a defendant of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, the government must establish “(1) knowledge, (2) possession,
and (3) intent to distribute.” See United States v. Gamboa, 166 F.3d 1327, 1331
(11th Cir. 1999).
The government presented evidence sufficient to support Field’s convictions
for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
5
Based on the sequence of events shown in the videos and the testimony of the law
enforcement officers that the confidential informant returned from his encounter
with Fields and Denson on September 22, 2005, with over 50 grams of cocaine
base, a reasonable jury could have found that Fields possessed and conspired with
Denson to distribute cocaine base.
IV. CONCLUSION
Fields’s convictions are
AFFIRMED.
6