United States v. Hollis

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 29 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 99-7009
v. (E.D. Oklahoma)
WARREN DALE HOLLIS, JR., (D.C. No. CR-98-40-S)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Following a jury trial, Warren Dale Hollis, Jr., was convicted on three
counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine with
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
intent to distribute, and maintaining a place for the manufacture of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 856. He was also
convicted on one count of possessing a firearm after a previous felony conviction
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). In this appeal, Hollis contends that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on all drug counts. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 1998, Oklahoma police officers executed a search warrant on
Hollis’s home. When they knocked and announced themselves, Hollis answered
the door and admitted them. R. Vol. III at 34. In Hollis’s bedroom, the officers
noted a shotgun beside the night stand next to Hollis’s bed. Id. at 38. On top of
the night stand, the officers found a small, approximately one-inch square, baggie
containing methamphetamine, and they also found several similar unused, i.e.,
empty, baggies in the dresser drawer. Id. at 37, 47-48. Hollis admitted that the
methamphetamine on the night stand was his. Id. at 64-65. Under Hollis’s bed,
officers discovered a sheath of papers which set out a recipe for manufacturing
methamphetamine. Id. at 56-57, 104. The last step of the recipe stated, “start
making money.” Id. at 204. In the bedroom closet, the officers found a large bag
of a white powder, which they believed to be a cutting agent for
-2-
methamphetamine. Id. at 45-46, 85-86, 103, 206-07. Additionally, in the living
room, the officers found a jacket with Hollis’s name on the label. Id. at 100. The
jacket pocket contained a small baggie of methamphetamine. Id. at 100, 185-86.
A search of a second bedroom which was sometimes used by friends of Hollis
revealed no drugs or drug paraphernalia. Id. at 97-99.
A search of the area surrounding Hollis’s house disclosed glassware on the
grounds and empty hydrogen peroxide bottles in an open outbuilding. Id. at 58-
59; 105-09; 118-22. Additionally, officers noted a second locked outbuilding.
When they asked Hollis for a key, he directed them to a key located on the dresser
in his bedroom. Id. at 59-60. After unlocking and entering the second
outbuilding, the officers observed the following equipment and chemicals which
they believed to be related to the manufacture of methamphetamine: coffee filters
holding a red-colored substance, a can with a tube sticking out, muriatic acid,
acetone, Coleman fuel, hydrochloric acid, and a bottle containing a two-layer
liquid. Id. at 123, 125-33. Tests of the substance in the coffee filters and of the
two-layer liquid were positive for methamphetamine. Id. at 188-89, 200. A
laboratory analyst testified that the two-layer liquid represented a final step in the
methamphetamine manufacturing process, i.e., the methamphetamine had already
been formed, and only its conversion to powder remained. Id. at 206.
-3-
Hollis presented witnesses who testified that he had been confined to his
bed with flu-like symptoms for a few days preceding the search. They also
testified that other persons who had been “busted” previously for operating a
methamphetamine lab were present on Hollis’s premises while he was sick.
DISCUSSION
On appeal Hollis claims only that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction on the drug counts. Thus, he claims, the evidence regarding
others’ access to his premises created reasonable doubt as to his control and
operation of the property. We review the record for sufficiency of the evidence
de novo, determining whether, “‘after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v.
Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Instead of examining the
evidence piecemeal, we consider the collective inferences drawn from the
evidence as a whole. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir.
1997). We may not use this evaluation in order to second-guess the jury’s
credibility determinations, nor may we reassess the jury’s conclusions about the
weight of the evidence presented. See United States v. Yoakam, 116 F.3d 1346,
-4-
1348 (10th Cir. 1997). Rather, if the jury’s resolution of the evidence is within
the bounds of reason, we must accept it. See id. The evidence supporting a jury’s
verdict must be substantial, however, raising more than a mere suspicion of guilt.
See United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786, 794 (10th Cir. 1997). That is,
although the jury may draw reasonable inferences from direct and circumstantial
evidence, in order to be reasonable, those inferences must be more than
speculation and conjecture. See id.
A conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires proof that a defendant
(1) possessed methamphetamine; (2) knew he possessed it; and (3) intended to
distribute it. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1997).
To obtain a conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance under § 841, and
for maintaining a place for the manufacture under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), the
government must prove that a defendant knowingly produced the controlled
substance and knowingly maintained a place for that purpose. See United States
v. Wood, 57 F.3d 913, 918-19 (10th Cir. 1995).
In this case, the government presented substantial evidence of Hollis’s
guilt. Hollis admitted ownership of a small baggie of methamphetamine—other
identical baggies for storing street quantities of the drug were located in his
dresser drawer. A recipe for manufacturing methamphetamine, with the notation
-5-
“start making money” was located under his bed. A probable cutting agent was
located on the closet shelf of his bedroom. Finally, Hollis possessed and directed
the officers to a key to the lab. Even if others might also have had access to the
lab, that access does not obviate the evidence which overwhelmingly links Hollis
to the crimes charged. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence permitted the
jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hollis manufactured and possessed
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and he maintained a place for the
manufacture of methamphetamine.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-6-