United States v. Brannan ( 2022 )

Case: 21-40534 Document: 00516424222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40534 August 8, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
William Randall Brannan,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-77-1
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
A jury convicted William Randall Brannan of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and punishable
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), (count one); brandishing, discharging, and
using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40534 Document: 00516424222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-40534
of § 924(c), (count two); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, also in violation of § 924(c) (count three). Brannan
appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed
a firearm in the Eastern District of Texas and that he possessed
methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
When the defendant has preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence by moving for a judgment of acquittal at trial, we review the
issue de novo. See United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306, 313 (5th
Cir. 2013). In order to preserve a challenge to venue, the defendant’s motion
must be sufficient to alert the district court and the Government that venue
is being challenged. See United States v. Kiekow, 872 F.3d 236, 243 n.3 (5th
Cir. 2017). Venue need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
See United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 309 (5th Cir. 2016).
Because Brannan did not specifically challenge venue in his motions
for judgments of acquittal, we review his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove proper venue for plain error, meaning that Brannan must
show a clear and obvious error that affected his substantial rights. United
States v. Smith, 878 F.3d 498, 502-03 (5th Cir. 2017). For insufficient
evidence to rise to the level of plain error, there must have been a “manifest
miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir.
2007) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
As to counts one and two, the evidence showed that Brannan visited
the home of Jeremiah and Christian Woolard in the Eastern District of Texas
and provided the Woolards with methamphetamine. According to the
Woolards’ testimony and Brannan’s police interview, he brandished and
discharged a firearm on this occasion. Further, as to count three, the jury, in
considering all the evidence presented, reasonably could have inferred that
Brannan possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in
2
Case: 21-40534 Document: 00516424222 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-40534
the Eastern District of Texas in mid-January 2019. Accordingly, he has not
shown error, much less a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Phillips, 477
F.3d at 219.
Next, Brannan argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
§ 924(c) convictions because there was no proof that he intended to
distribute the methamphetamine he possessed. He preserved this claim, and
our review is de novo. See United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir.
2013). Accordingly, we must determine whether “after viewing the evidence
and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [Government],
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299,
301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
The Woolards testified that Brannan asked them to sell
methamphetamine for him and that he discharged the firearm at their house
after they used methamphetamine that he provided. Jeremiah testified that
he gave Brannan a gun in exchange for methamphetamine and $350. Text
messages from the Woolards’ phones corroborated their statements. In his
interview with investigators, Brannan confirmed the Woolards’ statements
and admitted that he purchased and sold methamphetamine and brought a
firearm with him while selling drugs. Further, at trial, federal law
enforcement agents testified that drug dealers often used firearms and that
the items found in Brannan’s car and in a plastic bin labeled with Brannan’s
nickname in the Woolards’ house, including baggies, scales, and other
paraphernalia, were indicative of drug trafficking. See also United States v.
Munoz, 957 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1992). Viewing this evidence in a light
favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found the
elements of the § 924(c) offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See Vargas-
Ocampo, 747 F.3d at 301.
3
Case: 21-40534 Document: 00516424222 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2022
No. 21-40534
AFFIRMED.
4