United States v. Saunders , 355 F. App'x 714 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-5109
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 09-4104
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH M. KING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge.  (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr-
    00026-FPS-JES-2)
    Submitted:    October 27, 2009              Decided:   December 8, 2009
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elgine H. McArdle, Wheeling, West Virginia; Brendan S. Leary,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellants.   Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, John C.
    Parr, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    A jury convicted Shawndale D. Saunders and Joseph M.
    King    of   aiding   and    abetting        the      possession      with       intent    to
    distribute    marijuana,       in       violation     of      
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1),
    (b)(1)(D); 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (2006).                   The district court sentenced
    Saunders to 100 months in prison.                     King received an eighteen-
    month prison sentence.          Both appeal, challenging the sufficiency
    of the evidence.         Saunders also challenges the district court’s
    admission of rebuttal evidence about his banking records.                               King
    contends     that     the    district        court         erred     by     granting      the
    Government’s for-cause strike to remove King’s uncle from the
    jury panel.     We affirm.
    This case arose from the postal delivery of a package
    containing    9.65    pounds       of    marijuana       to    a   house    on   McColloch
    Street in Wheeling, West Virginia.                       The package, which had a
    fictitious     Arizona      return       address,      was     addressed      to   Michael
    Tompkins at the McColloch Street address.                          It was mailed March
    27, to arrive the next day.                Postal agents in Arizona suspected
    the package contained contraband and alerted their counterparts
    in     Pittsburgh,    Pennsylvania.             Law      enforcement        officials      in
    Pittsburgh     received      the    package        and     opened     it,    finding      the
    marijuana tightly packed and concealed in a plastic container.
    After    examining    the    package,       postal       authorities        repacked      the
    3
    marijuana 1 and set up a controlled delivery to the McColloch
    Street address.         At the time of the delivery, no one was living
    at the house.         The owner, Crystal Smith, was allowing Saunders
    to renovate the house in exchange for an eventual discount on
    the rent.       Saunders had shoes, dry-cleaned clothes, and receipts
    in the house.
    Saunders       and    King     arrived    at    the    house    on     the
    afternoon      of    March    28    and    checked    the   mailbox.       Finding    it
    empty, the two left and immediately returned after driving past
    a postal truck.          King then signed a false name to receive the
    package of marijuana, with Saunders in the room.                          King carried
    the package to the basement.                As King began opening the package,
    a   beeper     alerted       law   enforcement       officials,     who    entered   to
    execute an anticipatory search warrant.                      During their search,
    the agents discovered, among other things, a digital scale, and
    bank       records   belonging       to    Saunders.         The    agents    arrested
    Saunders, who had with him over $1600 in cash.                      During a second
    sweep of the home, the authorities found King hiding in the
    darkened      basement,      near    the    package    of    marijuana.       On   this
    evidence, as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses, the
    jury convicted King and Saunders, who now appeal.
    1
    The authorities were only able to put seven pounds of
    marijuana back in the container.
    4
    “A   defendant        challenging       the    sufficiency    of     the
    evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 
    507 F.3d 233
    , 245 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 
    128 S. Ct. 1690
    (2008).    This    court    reviews    such    a   challenge    by    determining
    whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential
    elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.                 United States
    v. Collins, 
    412 F.3d 515
    , 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v.
    United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).                   We review both direct
    and circumstantial evidence, and we accord the Government all
    reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be
    established.      United States v. Harvey, 
    532 F.3d 326
    , 333 (4th
    Cir. 2008).
    In order to prove aiding and abetting the possession
    with intent to distribute marijuana, the Government must show
    the Defendants:      (1) possessed marijuana, (2) had knowledge of
    the possession, and (3) intended to distribute the marijuana.
    See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1); United States v. Randall, 
    171 F.3d 195
    , 209 (4th Cir. 1999).
    Viewing    the       evidence   and     drawing     inferences      most
    favorable to the Government, a reasonable juror certainly could
    have found the Defendants guilty.                  Direct and circumstantial
    evidence   supported       the    allegation       that    Saunders     and    King
    expected   to   receive     a    package   containing        marijuana    at   the
    5
    McCulloch Street house on March 28, and that they intended to
    distribute the marijuana within.                  Defendants presented testimony
    to counter this evidence.              King claimed he did not know what was
    in the package, but simply hoped to steal some clothing.                             King
    also       claimed   Saunders    was    in   the       bathroom    when    the   package
    arrived.        King further testified that the two returned to the
    house because Saunders had to use the restroom, not because they
    spotted the mail truck.           But clearly, the jury could have chosen
    to discount this self-serving testimony. 2
    Saunders   also    claims         the   court   erred      in   admitting
    rebuttal testimony about his banking records.                          We review the
    district court’s decision to admit rebuttal evidence for abuse
    of discretion.         United States v. Higgs, 
    353 F.3d 281
    , 330 (4th
    Cir. 2003).          At trial, Saunders accounted for his income by
    offering      testimony   from    an     insurance        agent,    who    stated    that
    Saunders had money from a personal injury claim.                       The Government
    rebutted this testimony by resort to Saunders’ bank records.
    The    Government’s       rebuttal       evidence        was   both       relevant    and
    2
    The Defendants rely on United States v. Samad, 
    754 F.2d 1091
     (4th Cir. 1984), in support of their assertion that the
    evidence was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to the
    marijuana.   The case at hand, however, involves significantly
    more evidence that the Defendants were knowing participants in
    the receipt of contraband.
    6
    properly introduced.        Thus, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in permitting the jury to consider it.
    King also challenges the district court’s decision to
    strike his uncle from the venire.                A   reviewing       court    will    not
    overturn a trial judge’s decision to remove a juror for cause
    absent a “manifest abuse of . . . discretion.”                              Poynter v.
    Ratcliff, 
    874 F.2d 219
    , 222 (4th Cir. 1989).                    The district court
    struck King’s uncle after the uncle said that a guilty verdict
    might upset his wife and his sister-in-law.                        Given the close
    family   relationship       and    the   risk     King’s     uncle    could     not    be
    impartial, the district court did not err.
    We     affirm      Saunders’       and     King’s      convictions        and
    sentences.       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
    7