UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 00-20787
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
BOBBY JOE WILLIAMS, II; MAY BELLE WILLIAMS,
also known as May Belle Slough,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-98-CR-209)
February 5, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and LAKE, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:**
The appellants, Bobby Joe Williams (Bobby Joe) and his mother
May Belle Williams (May Belle), were convicted of conspiracy to
commit money laundering and with money laundering. In addition,
*
District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Bobby Joe was charged with conspiring to possess methamphetamine
with the intent to distribute, and with possessing methamphetamine
with the intent to distribute. We affirm the judgments against
both appellants.
In 1996, Bobby Joe, a resident of Spring, Texas, started to
manufacture pills made with methamphetamine, which is a controlled
substance. The pills were manufactured using pharmaceutical
punches and dies purchased by Bobby Joe from Advanced Engineering.
Robert Forrester, general manager of Advanced Engineering, showed
Agent Mary Gallogly the master hobs for the punches that were made
for Bobby Joe during a routine check by the DEA. The punches and
related records were then turned over to Gallogly.
After it was determined that Advanced Engineering had mailed
the punches to Bobby Joe's and May Belle's addresses, surveillance
was conducted on their residences between January and May 1998.
The surveillance resulted in the issuance of search warrants for
Bobby Joe's residence and rented storage facility, and May Belle's
residence. Search warrants also were issued for Andy Lewis'
residence and rented storage facility. Lewis was one of Bobby
Joe's drug dealing partners.
The searches produced substantial evidence against the
appellants. For example, the search of Bobby Joe's storage
facility resulted in the seizure of a machine capable of making up
to 15,000 tablets in an eight-hour period. There also was a tally
counter to count the tablets as they were produced. In addition,
2
a number of punches were recovered from the storage unit. Among
the punches were ones producing a peace sign, “69,” smiley face,
butterfly, star, “X,” “EX.CT,” and a skull and crossbones. The
area was covered with dust, which tested positive for
methamphetamine. Authorities seized a vacuum cleaner bag, which
was later determined to contain a mixture of methamphetamine. A
brownish chunk substance also was recovered that was determined to
contain methamphetamine. Ten plastic baggies containing 40 grams
of methamphetamine was seized along with numerous pills containing
methamphetamine. A total of 2.9 kilograms of mixtures containing
methamphetamine were recovered from the storage unit.
On May 13, 1998, Bobby Joe was arrested. On May 21, 1998,
search warrants were executed on two safety deposit boxes at World
Savings & Loan Bank. One of the boxes was in the names of May
Belle and Bobby J. Williams. Only documents were recovered when
that box was searched, most of which bore the names of May Belle
Williams and May Belle Slough. Notably, May Belle had entered the
box on May 16. The second box was in the names of Bobby Williams
and Juanita Ray. Ray is May Belle's mother and Bobby Joe's
grandmother. That box contained $27,950 in 13 envelopes marked on
the outside with an amount corresponding to the amount inside.
A Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) forensic chemist trained to
determine whether tablets are clandestinely manufactured analyzed
samples of the tablets seized. Tablets seized from Bobby Joe's
3
storage unit were determined to have been made by the same punches
that were used to make methamphetamine tablets seized from Lewis'
Federal Express shipment in Houston on April 28, 1998. They also
matched methamphetamine tablets seized in Georgia on August 28,
1997, and in Colorado on September 12, 1997. In addition, a match
was made with tablets seized in Louisiana on January 25 and 26,
1998, and in Florida on June 25 and August 20, 1998. Matches also
were made with dextromethorphan tablets seized in New Jersey on
February 21, 1998, and in New York on March 18, 1998. A match also
was made with tablets seized in Seattle, Washington.
In August 1998, Calvin Sowa, Bobby Joe's supplier of
methamphetamine, decided to cooperate with authorities, and he had
his attorney contact the DEA. Sowa agreed to record a meeting with
May Belle on September 3, 1998. During the meeting, May Belle
commented about the evidence against Bobby Joe and Lewis. She also
referred to removing money from a bank. In addition, she said that
she had removed money from her safety deposit box and put in “deeds
and stuff.” She also indicated her intent to hide money in
different bank accounts from the authorities, and that she would
tell them that the money was hers and not Bobby Joe's.
As a result of the money reflected in bank and tax records
recovered during the investigation, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) was asked to assist in the investigation. IRS Agent Nancy
Anderson reviewed the records, most of which were in Bobby Joe's
name. She also obtained records from financial institutions and
4
analyzed records from approximately 25 accounts. The records
revealed that during 1997, a net amount of $177,479.88 was
deposited into accounts in Bobby Joe's name or in his and May
Belle's name. In 1998, the net deposits were $242,115.31.
However, Bobby Joe did not file tax returns in 1994 or 1997.
In 1995, Bobby Joe reported only $717 in total income, and he
reported no taxable income in 1996. Furthermore, according to his
tax returns, Bobby Joe received no disposable income from Williams
Home Improvement in 1995 or 1996. Moreover, a financial statement
prepared in October 1995 indicated that Bobby Joe had cash assets
of only $43,000 and a residence valued at $85,000. In January
1998, Bobby Joe made two monetary transactions involving the
purchase of two Mercedes Benz vehicles from Intercontinental
Motors. The down payments were $34,500 and $35,507.82, made with
cash in excess of $9,000 in each instance and cashier's checks in
excess of $22,000 in each instance.
Records also showed that during 1997 and 1998, more than
$400,000, excluding May Belle's payroll checks, was deposited into
numerous bank accounts containing drug proceeds. These accounts
were controlled by both Bobby Joe and May Belle. May Belle
admitted to moving $200,000 from these accounts after Bobby Joe was
arrested. She also made frequent deposits into these accounts and
made regular payments of $3,000 on Bobby Joe's house note and $597
on his car notes.
Bobby Joe and May Belle were charged by superseding indictment
5
on October 7, 1998, with conspiracy to commit money laundering and
with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and 1956(h). Bobby Joe was additionally charged
with: conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to
distribute, possessing methamphetamine with the intent to
distribute, and with additional counts of money laundering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
A jury found both appellants guilty as charged. The district court
sentenced Bobby Joe to 360 months’ confinement, to five years of
supervised release, and imposed a $25,000 fine and a $1,000 special
assessment. The district court sentenced May Belle to 97 months’
confinement, to three years of supervised release, and imposed a
$12,500 fine and a $600 special assessment.
Both Bobby Joe and May Belle now appeal. Bobby Joe raises the
following issues in his pro se brief: (1) whether his conviction
for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine must be reversed for the government's failure to
allege the drug amount in the superceding indictment, and for the
government's failure to prove the drug amount beyond a reasonable
doubt at trial as required by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000); (2) whether the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense of
conspiracy to commit money laundering as alleged in the superceding
indictment; (3) whether the evidence at trial was insufficient to
6
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense of
money laundering as alleged in the superceding indictment; and (4)
whether the district court abused its discretion for failing to
grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In addition,
the brief submitted by counsel before Bobby Joe chose to proceed
pro se, presented the argument that the district court erred in
finding Bobby Joe competent to stand trial.1
The following issues have been raised by May Belle: (1)
whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain her conviction; (2)
whether the district court erred in refusing to grant a new trial;
(3) whether the district court erred in allowing the government to
vouch for the credibility of Calvin Sowa; and (4) whether the
district court erred in assessing a sentence based upon the amount
of proceeds laundered and her knowledge that the money laundered
was derived from illegal drug trafficking activity.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record of this case, and
having fully considered the parties' respective briefings on the
above issues, we are persuaded that there are no reversible errors
1
Bobby Joe moved this Court to enter an order withdrawing his
counsel of record on appeal and to strike the brief that had been
submitted on his behalf. Although this Court granted Bobby Joe's
motion to withdraw his counsel and proceed pro se, we did not grant
his motion to strike his counsel's brief. Rather, we allowed Bobby
Joe to submit a supplemental brief. Bobby Joe's supplemental brief
does not address the issue regarding his competency to stand trial,
which was in his counsel's brief. Nevertheless, because we did not
strike his counsel's brief from the record, we have considered that
issue in this appeal.
7
in the district court's disposition of this case. Therefore, the
district court is in all respects AFFIRMED.
8