United States v. Jimmy Cornett , 471 F. App'x 495 ( 2012 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0654n.06
No. 10-6389 FILED
Jun 20, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
JIMMY D. CORNETT, aka Jimmy D. ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Cornette, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: BOGGS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; BARZILAY, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Jimmy D. Cornett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court judgment
in his criminal case. We affirm. On August 12, 2009, a citizen reported to the police that he had
seen his trailer camper, which had been stolen one week earlier, in Cornett’s backyard. The police
went to Cornett’s home to investigate. Cornett was outside in the yard and his co-defendant was
sitting in a wheelchair next to the camper. The co-defendant was being sought by the police after
absconding from home confinement. Cornett admitted that he had run an electrical cord from the
house to the camper. While attempting to identify the camper, the police discovered evidence of
methamphetamine production and a rifle inside. A search warrant was obtained for the house on the
property and the ensuing search revealed the presence of a shotgun. Checks with local stores showed
*
The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, Senior Judge for the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
No. 10-6389
United States v. Cornett
that Cornett and his co-defendant had purchased Sudafed numerous times in the months before their
arrest, including one occasion when they both purchased Sudafed from a pharmacy within thirty
minutes of each other. The Sudafed was consistent with the ephedrine product used in the
manufacturing operation that the police discovered on Cornett’s property.
Cornett was charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, aiding and abetting
the manufacture of methamphetamine, aiding and abetting the possession of equipment to
manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime,
and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. The co-defendant entered a guilty plea to some
of the charges, while Cornett proceeded to a trial. The jury found him guilty on all six counts.
However, the trial court granted in part a motion for directed verdict, overturning the convictions for
possession of the rifle in the camper in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and possession of the
rifle by a felon. After a remand from this court, the district court sentenced Cornett to ninety-seven
months of imprisonment.
Cornett argues that the trial court erred in denying in part his motion for a directed verdict
because there was insufficient evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine. He argues that
there was no evidence that he planned to distribute the methamphetamine or that the
methamphetamine was manufactured in the camper while it was on his property.
The standard of review of a denial of a motion for acquittal is the same as that for sufficiency
of the evidence. United States v. Abner, 35 F.3d 251, 253 (6th Cir. 1994). When addressing an
argument of insufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, after reviewing “the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
-2-
No. 10-6389
United States v. Cornett
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Contrary to Cornett’s argument, the offense of manufacturing drugs does not require proof of an
intent to distribute. United States v. Miller, 870 F.2d 1067, 1071 (6th Cir. 1989). Moreover, it was
not necessary to establish that the methamphetamine had been manufactured on Cornett’s property.
There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Cornett and his co-defendant
conspired together and aided and abetted each other in manufacturing methamphetamine.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
-3-