Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-4230
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00028-jpj-pms-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Tyrone Gardner appeals his jury conviction
and
sentence
on
charges
of
conspiracy
to
distribute
cocaine
and
Gardner
ten
years
challenges
total
the
supervised
district
courts
release.
On
admission
of
We affirm.
Government
from
introducing
evidence
of
Gardners
not
engaged
relevant
conspiracy
to
between
whether
August
he
and
in
October
the
2006,
charged
and
that
drug
the
such
discretion.
rulings
on
appeal
absent
clear
abuse
of
Cir. 1994).
showing
of
arbitrariness
or
irrationality.
United
Evidence is
admission
of
Gardners
prior
crimes.
not-guilty
plea
crime
charged.
See
Sanchez,
118
F.3d
at
196.
Prior
narcotics
offenses
is
an
accepted
means
of
establishing
311-12 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 448
(4th Cir. 1991).
to
possess
with
the
intent
to
distribute
and
were probative of his knowledge of the drug trade and refute any
3
the jury in this case was adequate such that the jury would not
rely improperly on the prior bad act evidence.
See generally
Mark, 943 F.2d at 449; United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 87
(4th Cir. 1980).
Gardners final claim of error is that the evidence
was
insufficient
to
convict
him
of
the
drug
distribution
statements
as
charged
in
Counts
Three
and
Four.
In
315
U.S.
that
60,
80
(1942).
reasonable
finder
Glasser v. United
Substantial
of
fact
evidence
could
accept
is
as
F.3d
(en
849,
862
(4th
Cir.
1996)
banc).
We
consider
In evaluating
the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court does not review the
credibility
of
the
witnesses
and
assume[s]
that
the
jury
Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1690 (2008); United States
v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002).
record
discloses
sufficient
evidence
presented
at
Gardners
Government
presented
record
reflects
that
the
to Gardner, the meeting was set up, and the informant approached
a vehicle in which Gardner was a passenger.
The confidential
informant gave the female driver $150, and Gardner then handed a
piece of crack cocaine to the driver, who then handed the crack
cocaine to the informant.
Following his arrest, Gardner was interviewed by Drug
Enforcement Administration Agent Brian Snedeker.
During that
period
testified
of
approximately
that
Gardner
told
three
him
months.
that
Agent
Gardener
Snedeker
would
find
Gardner $200.
one ounce of crack cocaine for $1000, and that the transactions
occurred approximately five to six times a week and at different
locations
in
Bristol,
Virginia
and
in
Bristol,
Tennessee.
barbershop
in
Bristol,
Virginia.
Based
on
Gardners
Following
his
statements
to
Agent
Snedeker,
Gardner
number
purpose.
of
However,
introduced
at
recorded
no
trial
deal
phone
was
calls
to
Norman
accomplished.
corroborated
Gardners
for
Phone
that
records
confession,
and
revealed that numerous phone calls had been made from Gardners
cellular telephone to the cellular telephone of Norman prior to
October 27, 2006, and included the recorded phone calls placed
at Snedekers direction.
Gardner
challenges
this
evidence,
claiming
that
the
anyone,
because
neither
Alonzo
Norman
nor
anyone
else
nor
was
there
any
evidence
of
specific
transaction
he
failed
to
tape
record
Gardners
incriminating
statements.
As
evidenced
by
the
finding
of
guilt,
the
jury
the
Governments
witnesses
7
to
be
sufficiently
circumstantial
and
direct
evidence
of
guilt.
or
not
outweighed
credible,
their
or
that
the
credibility,
are
witnesses
self-
insufficient
to
of
substantial
evidence,
this
sufficient
to
court
does
not
weigh
support
the
jurys
conclusion
beyond
with
the
rather
than
as
memory.
willful
a
intent
result
of
to
provide
confusion,
false
mistake,
testimony,
or
faulty
Here,
drug
deals
week
for
Alonzo
8
Norman,
and
denied
being
involved
in
any
crack
cocaine
transactions
on
either
the
made
incriminating
admissions
to
Agent
Snedeker,
the
at
in
apparently
the
revocation
convicting
believed
statements
to
Agent
that
hearing.
Gardner
of
Gardner
Snedeker.
As
conspiracy,
made
Just
discussed
as
the
this
above,
the
jury
incriminating
court
will
not
conspiracy
conviction,
it
will
not
set
aside
the
jurys
See
affirm
Gardners
conviction
and
contentions
the
we
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
9