United States v. Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Michael Deans,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00133-HEH-2)
Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 30, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick H. Marsh, HILL, TUCKER & MARSH, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States
Attorney, Peter S. Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Williams was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (Count One), and
use of a communication facility in the commission of a felony
drug offense, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2006) (Count Two). He was
sentenced to 145 months on Count One and forty-eight months,
concurrent, on Count Two. Williams now appeals his convictions.
We affirm.
I
Williams contends that the district court erroneously
denied his motion to impeach prosecution witness Derrick
Christian with a conviction that was over ten years old. Under
Fed. R. Evid. 609, evidence of a prior conviction punishable by
more than one year of imprisonment is admissible for impeachment
purposes “if the court determines that the probative value of
admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the
accused.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1). If, however, “a period of
more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction
. . . ,” evidence of the conviction is inadmissible “unless the
court determines, in the interests of justice, that the
probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts
and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial
effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). Impeachment using remote
2
convictions is permitted “very rarely and only in exceptional
circumstances.” United States v. Cavender, 578 F.2d 528, 530
(4th Cir 1978). “We review a district court’s evidentiary
rulings for abuse of discretion and subject such rulings to
harmless error review.” United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625,
637 (4th Cir. 2009).
Here, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the impeachment of
Christian using a twelve-year-old conviction. Williams failed
to show that the conviction bore special significance worthy of
excepting it from the general rule barring the use of remote
convictions to impeach witnesses.
II
Williams next contends that there was insufficient
evidence to convict him. A jury’s verdict “must be sustained if
there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315
U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “Substantial evidence is that evidence
which a ‘reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378,
390 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d
849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)).
3
To convict Williams of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the Government had to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) two or more
persons agreed to distribute cocaine base; (2) Williams knew of
the conspiracy; and (3) he “knowingly and voluntarily became a
part of” the conspiracy. See United States v. Yearwood, 518
F.3d 220, 227 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 137 (2008). To convict him of a
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), the Government had to establish
that Williams: (1) used a communication facility (here, a
telephone); (2) used the communication facility to facilitate
the commission of a drug offense; and (3) did so knowingly and
intentionally. See 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); United States v.
Johnstone, 856 F.2d 539, 542-43 (3d Cir. 1988).
Christian testified that he began purchasing cocaine
from Bailey Daniels in 2006. Daniels introduced Christian to
Williams, whom Daniels described as “my boy” and “my stickman.”
Typically, Christian called Daniels to place an order for drugs,
Daniels had Williams call Christian to make arrangements to
consummate the deal, and Williams and Christian then met in a
pre-determined location to complete the transaction.
By July 2007, Christian was working with law
enforcement officers, and a controlled purchase of cocaine base
was arranged. Several days before the July 19 transaction,
4
Christian contacted Daniels to discuss the purchase of 125 grams
of the drug for $4000. Recordings of telephone conversations
between Christian and Daniels and between Christian and Williams
related to the transaction were played for the jury.
It was initially agreed that Williams and Christian
would meet in Jarrett, Virginia, to complete the deal.
Christian testified that, while en route to Jarrett, Williams
called him and told him that the location had changed to a
Waffle House in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. The reason
given was that Daniels had said he liked the Waffle House.
Law enforcement agents placed the Waffle House under
surveillance, and a videotape of the transaction was played at
trial. Christian identified his car as it pulled into the
parking lot and said that he was the person seen exiting his car
and getting into Williams’ vehicle. Christian testified that
Williams was the occupant of that vehicle and that he paid
Williams for the cocaine base, as arranged. Christian left the
area and turned the drugs he had purchased from Williams over to
the authorities.
The above evidence is sufficient to establish the
existence of a conspiracy between Williams and Daniels to
distribute cocaine base. Further, the evidence was sufficient
to convict Williams of using a communication facility (a
telephone) to facilitate a felony drug crime. In addition to
5
the above evidence, a Drug Enforcement Agent testified about
telephone records in the names of Denise Daniels, Bailey
Daniels’ mother, and Chemeka Williams, Timothy Williams’ wife.
The telephone numbers corresponded with the numbers Christian
called when he wanted to communicate with Daniels or Williams
about drug transactions. On July 19, records showed that
whenever Christian called Williams, the call was either
immediately preceded by, or followed by, a call between the
Williams and Daniels telephones.
III
We therefore affirm. 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
6