United States v. Hunt , 262 F. App'x 491 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONNIE WILLIAM HUNT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-REP)
Submitted: January 11, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles
Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia;
Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie W. Hunt appeals his jury convictions and 171-month
sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000); possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2000); and possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of
controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
(2000). Hunt’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but asking this court to review
whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Hunt was guilty of possession with intent to distribute
marijuana. Hunt was given an opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we
affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
“bears a heavy burden.” United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “The verdict of a jury must be sustained if
there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). This court “ha[s] defined ‘substantial evidence,’
in the context of a criminal action, as that evidence which ‘a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
- 2 -
doubt.’” United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th
Cir. 1996) (en banc)). In evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the
witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved all contradictions in
the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer,
148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). The court reviews both direct
and circumstantial evidence and permits “the government the benefit
of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought
to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021
(4th Cir. 1982).
In order to establish a violation of § 841(a), the
Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
(1) knowingly; (2) possessed the controlled substance; (3) with the
intent to distribute it. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873. Possession may
be actual or constructive. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868,
878 (4th Cir. 1992). “A person has constructive possession of a
narcotic if he knows of its presence and has the power to exercise
dominion and control over it.” United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d
336, 340 (4th Cir. 1985). Possession need not be exclusive but may
be joint and “may be established by direct or circumstantial
evidence.” Id. Mere presence in a residence where narcotics are
discovered is not sufficient to establish possession, nor is
association with another individual who possesses drugs. See
- 3 -
United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 1091, 1096 (4th Cir. 1984).
However, joint tenancy of a residence where drugs and drug
paraphernalia are stored in common areas may be sufficient to
establish possession with intent to distribute. See United
States v. Morrison, 991 F.2d 112, 114-15 (4th Cir. 1993).
Hunt asserts that the evidence failed to demonstrate he
knowingly possessed the narcotics in question, as he contends he
was unaware of the large amount of marijuana in his home and that
the drugs belonged to his housemate. However, when taken in the
light most favorable to the Government, we find that the evidence
is sufficient to uphold Hunt’s conviction. In a bedroom near the
kitchen, officers found a large black plastic bag that contained
four smaller bags of marijuana. In that same room, officers found
various documents with Hunt’s name on them, including a number of
envelopes addressed to him. At trial, Hunt stated that while that
bedroom had previously been used by his daughter, both he and his
housemate had access to it.
The police also uncovered two digital scales, one of
which was located in the living room, as well as seven boxes of
storage bags that were found on the kitchen table. Officers also
recovered a pistol-grip shotgun used by Hunt, which was described
by police as an “assault shotgun” that would only be used for
personal protection. In addition, trial testimony indicated that
Hunt was not only aware of the drugs in his residence, but was
- 4 -
actively involved in selling drugs to others, as two witnesses
testified that Hunt sold them marijuana from January 2005 until
November 2005. While Hunt attempted to discredit their testimony,
credibility determinations are not reviewable on appeal. See
Romer, 148 F.3d at 364.
While there is some evidence that Hunt’s housemate also
possessed drugs, possession is not necessarily exclusive, as it may
be shared with others and can be established by circumstantial
evidence. United States v. Laughman, 618 F.2d 1067, 1077 (4th Cir.
1980). Not only were large amounts of marijuana found in common
areas of the residence, but the presence of firearms, packaging
materials, and digital scales constituted additional circumstantial
evidence to support the conviction. See United States v. Fisher,
912 F.2d 728, 730-31 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we conclude
there was sufficient evidence to support Hunt’s conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Hunt’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
- 5 -
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the
client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 6 -