United States v. Danny Reavis ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10737      Document: 00515461306         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/22/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10737                           June 22, 2020
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    DANNY CARL REAVIS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:18-CR-299-1
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Danny Carl Reavis, federal prisoner # 57926-177, was convicted by a jury
    of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and punishable under § 841(b)(1)(A), and
    sentenced below the guidelines range to 240 months of imprisonment and a
    five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Reavis contends that the
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-10737     Document: 00515461306      Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/22/2020
    No. 19-10737
    evidence was insufficient for conviction because the Government did not
    demonstrate that he intended to distribute methamphetamine.
    “We review the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
    acquittal de novo.” United States v. Klein, 
    543 F.3d 206
    , 212 (5th Cir. 2008)
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[R]eview for sufficiency of
    the evidence following a conviction is narrow,” and “[w]e will affirm if a rational
    trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential
    elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted). “[T]he evidence, all reasonable inferences drawn
    therefrom, and all credibility determinations” are considered “in the light most
    favorable to the prosecution.”
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks and citation
    omitted).      Relevant    here,    possession    with      intent   to   distribute
    methamphetamine is established where a defendant knowingly possessed
    methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it.            See United States v.
    Vinagre-Hernandez, 
    925 F.3d 761
    , 764 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 
    140 S. Ct. 897
    (2020).
    “[A] rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established
    the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
    Klein, 543 F.3d at 212
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The amount of
    methamphetamine discovered on Reavis’s property is significant evidence of
    distribution. Approximately half a pound of methamphetamine, or 225 grams,
    was found on Reavis’s property, but he told law enforcement that he personally
    used only one gram per week and re-upped his supply every few weeks. Trial
    testimony indicated that a user quantity of methamphetamine would be less
    than seven grams.      The amount of methamphetamine found on Reavis’s
    property was therefore far in excess of his stated and the typical personal use,
    and “mere possession of a quantity of drugs inconsistent with personal use will
    2
    Case: 19-10737     Document: 00515461306      Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/22/2020
    No. 19-10737
    suffice for the jury to find intent to distribute.” United States v. Mays, 
    466 F.3d 335
    , 341 (5th Cir. 2006). In addition to the methamphetamine, which had a
    high degree of purity, distribution paraphernalia—packaging material, drug
    ledgers, and multiple digital scales—and more than $9,000 was found on
    Reavis’s property. “Proof of intent to distribute may be inferred from the
    presence of distribution paraphernalia, large quantities of cash, or the value
    and quality of the substance.” United States v. Munoz, 
    957 F.2d 171
    , 174 (5th
    Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Williamson, 
    533 F.3d 269
    , 278 (5th Cir.
    2008) (stating that intent can be inferred from, among other factors, the
    presence of distribution paraphernalia like digital scales).
    Trial testimony regarding law enforcement’s observations of Reavis’s
    home, the ensuing traffic stops, and Reavis’s text messages also support
    conviction. Approximately 10 cars per night, over a period of four months,
    came to Reavis’s residence during nighttime hours. During these visits, Reavis
    would meet with individuals, walk to a shed on the property where he would
    remain for approximately five to 10 minutes, and then return to the residence.
    Three bags of more than 50 grams of methamphetamine each and a large
    amount of currency were found in the shed. Two traffic stops of drivers after
    leaving Reavis’s house yielded methamphetamine. One of the stops found one
    gram of methamphetamine in the possession of a woman named Racheal
    Turner, whom law enforcement believed had previously texted Reavis about
    obtaining methamphetamine. Text messages on Reavis’s cell phone contained
    evidence of at least two conversations on the day of the search about drug
    transactions, including the aforementioned conversation with Racheal.
    Reavis’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10737

Filed Date: 6/22/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/23/2020