Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-4550
DWAYNE
SMITH,
a/k/a
Mackie,
a/k/a
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4560
No. 06-4613
ANGEL MANUEL
a/k/a To,
GONZALEZ,
a/k/a
Genito
Carr,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00007-WCB)
Submitted:
Decided:
Kevin T. Tipton, CLAGETT & TIPTON, White Hall, West Virginia; Barry
P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
Edmund J. Rollo, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellants. Sharon
L. Potter, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Matthew Dwayne Smith, Ernest Van Carr,
and Angel Gonzalez of conspiracy to distribute more than fifty
grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000), and
various substantive offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)
(2000), and 18 U.S.C. 2 (2000).
Finding no
I.
On
appeal,
Carr
Carr
asserts
that
the
evidence
was
We
United States v.
Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 197
(2006).
- 3 -
failure is clear.
Cir.)
(internal
quotation
marks
and
citation
omitted),
cert.
prove
conspiracy
under
21
U.S.C.
846,
the
United
States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2001); United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy without knowing all the
conspiracys
details,
as
long
as
he
joins
the
conspiracy
Once the
Although Carr
- 4 -
government.
2002).
Next, Carr asserts that the evidence was insufficient to
prove that he aided and abetted Smiths distribution of crack on
July 20, 2004 (Count 9).
informant contacted Smith for crack and that Carr was simply
present at the drug deal but did not aid, abet, or assist.
We
conclude
that
the
evidence
presented
at
trial
United
(4th
States
v.
Alerre,
430
F.3d
681,
689
Cir.
2005)
the
drugs
were
found.
Although
Carr
challenges
his
- 5 -
distribute.
controlled
buy
with
confidential
informant.
See
United
States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
elements of offense of possession with the intent to distribute).
By assisting Smith in the actual distribution of crack (the offense
charged in Count 9), it was reasonable for the jury to infer that
Carr knew Smith was involved in the illegal distribution of a
controlled
substance
and
knowingly
participated
in
Smiths
See
him
below
the
advisory
sentencing
guideline
range
Carr
of
this
court
cannot
overrule,
explicitly
or
Only
- 6 -
Thus,
540,
However,
546
(4th
Cir.
2005).
in
imposing
sentence
This court
range
and
is
reasonable.
Id.
at
433
(internal
- 7 -
Carr
In
We
therefore
conclude
that
the
district
court
II.
Gonzalez
contends
Gonzalez
that
the
district
court
erred
in
Gonzalez
correctly
notes
that,
before
trial,
the
We
have held that [a] defendant must show prejudice in order for the
- 8 -
courts
ruling
prejudice
to
exists
constitute
if
the
an
jury
abuse
could
of
discretion,
make
individual
and
no
guilt
See United
States v. Williams, 461 F.3d 441, 451 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. 616 (2006).
We may address
record.
Applying these
This
at 233-34.
III.
Smith
- 10 -
IV.
Conclusion
We
also
decline
to
review
Gonzalezs
ineffective
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
are
AFFIRMED
- 11 -