United States v. McDonald , 196 F. App'x 199 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5126
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN MCDONALD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-255)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William J. Dinkin, DINKIN, PURNELL & JOHNSON, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia; Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin McDonald appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base. On appeal, he
asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction. We affirm.
The Government established that Jamal Clark supplied
McDonald with multi-gram quantities of crack cocaine either weekly
or twice a week for approximately seven months, and a substantial
amount of crack cocaine, U.S. currency, and numerous weapons were
seized from McDonald’s apartment that he shared with Clark and from
the distribution location. Moreover, the Government established
that Clark supplied at least three other co-conspirators with crack
cocaine for resale, and the co-conspirators worked out of the same
location, covered each other’s customers when necessary, assigned
lookouts to watch for the police, and provided transportation.
This evidence was sufficient to convict McDonald of
conspiracy. See United States v. Nunez, 432 F.3d 573, 578 (4th
Cir. 2005) (noting that nature of contemporary drug conspiracy is
often a “loosely-knit association of members linked only by their
mutual interest in sustaining the overall enterprise of catering to
the ultimate demands of a particular drug consumption market”); see
also United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir.
2001) (discussing elements of drug conspiracy). In addition,
although McDonald asserts that his relationship with Clark was that
- 2 -
of a seller and buyer, the jury could infer that a conspiracy
existed from the amount, frequency, and circumstances of the drug
sales. See United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 485 n.1 (4th Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, we affirm McDonald’s conviction. 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
- 3 -