UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT A. WILLIAMS, a/k/a V,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TORRY VON ZENON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00047-HEH-10; 3:12-cr-00047-HEH-5)
Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John F. McGarvey, JOHN F. MCGARVEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Glen Allen,
Virginia, for Appellant Vincent A. Williams. Steven P. Hanna,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Torry Von Zenon. Dana J.
Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Peter S. Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Vincent A. Williams (“Vincent”) and Torry Von Zenon
(collectively, “Appellants”) appeal their convictions for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, see 21 U.S.C. § 846,
and attempting to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride, see 21 U.S.C. § 846, 18 U.S.C. § 2. Finding no
error, we affirm.
I.
Appellants were both indicted in a first superseding
indictment. They both pleaded not guilty and were convicted
following a jury trial. Vincent and Zenon were sentenced to 250
months’ and 384 months’ imprisonment, respectively. They now
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their
convictions. Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the
light most favorable to the government, as we must, see United
States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir. 2011), the
record reveals the following.
Vincent’s stepfather Dion Williams (“Dion”) was a drug
dealer in Richmond, Virginia. Beginning in January 2012, he
contacted a man named Hiram Alvarez, who lived in California,
concerning Dion’s interest in purchasing a large quantity of
cocaine. Dion told Alvarez he could raise as much as $2.5
million for the purchase of 100 kilograms of cocaine. Alvarez,
3
in turn, contacted a man known to him by the name “Jose.”
Unbeknownst to Alvarez or Dion, Jose, whose full name was Jose
Burgueno Urias, was working as a confidential source for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and Urias reported the
solicitation to the DEA. The DEA and Urias agreed that Urias
would set up the transaction, even though the drugs would never
actually be delivered.
On that basis, Urias undertook to set up the deal. Dion
offered to allow Alvarez or his representative the chance to
come to the East Coast and make the transaction with Dion.
Alvarez selected Pedro Santana to be his agent. Accordingly,
Urias and Santana, along with one other confidential informant,
flew into Richmond, Virginia on January 26, 2012. Upon
arriving, they rented a car, drove to a Baltimore-area hotel,
and met with Dion in the early morning of January 27. At
approximately 9:30 a.m., Dion led the group to a nearby
apartment in a gated complex. The apartment was leased to
Zenon.
The fact that the apartment was in a gated community made
it difficult for law enforcement to conduct surveillance.
However, almost immediately after Dion brought Urias and Santana
to the apartment, DEA Special Agent Jason Alznauer observed
Zenon standing near the apartment complex’s front gate where he
appeared to be watching cars coming and going through the gates.
4
In fact, Alznauer told his partner that he believed Zenon was
conducting counter-surveillance. Zenon was wearing a black knit
skull cap and black puffy jacket. Zenon was observed soon
thereafter standing at the end of the apartment building talking
on a cellular telephone and then walking around the back of the
building. Within a few minutes, a man matching Zenon’s
description was observed at the other corner of the apartment
complex, standing in the middle of the road, looking around.
The meeting inside the apartment lasted less than an hour,
during which time Dion showed the confidential informants
approximately $300,000 in currency and told them he would need
more time to obtain the rest of the money. 1 At about 10:30 a.m.,
Santana and the confidential informants left the apartment and
returned to the hotel.
Dion later contacted them and they agreed to return to the
apartment around 6:00 p.m. Approximately 10 minutes before the
men arrived, officers observed a green pickup truck drive into
Zenon’s garage, and they saw Zenon exit the vehicle wearing a
black puffy jacket, a reflective vest, and a hardhat. He
removed a plastic trashbag from the truck and placed it in front
1
When the men went upstairs, they encountered Vincent
sleeping on a sofa. Dion told Urias not to worry because
Vincent was his son. Vincent got up and went into the bedroom
and did not come out during that meeting.
5
of the garage, then moved the truck out of the garage and parked
it in a parking space nearby. Zenon next reentered the garage
on foot and shut the outer door.
When Santana, Dion, and the informants arrived a few
minutes later, they parked in the same garage and entered the
apartment through stairs from the garage. Vincent was waiting
in the garage when the men arrived. Vincent picked up a box
containing a large amount of currency and carried it into the
apartment.
Inside the apartment, Dion, Vincent, the two informants,
and Santana spent about two and a half hours counting the
currency, primarily using electronic money counters. Vincent,
who already knew how to operate the machines, was helping
“during the entire time.” J.A. 100. In Vincent’s presence,
Dion proceeded to discuss the drug deal and the future dealings
that Dion anticipated. He specifically noted that Vincent had
not enjoyed studying or working in a restaurant and that the
only thing he did like was “counting kilos and counting
paquetes,” which Urias testified referred to money packages and
cocaine. J.A. 101. Urias testified that he also had
discussions at that time with Dion about the 100 kilograms of
cocaine that Urias was going to give him in exchange for the
money. Urias explained that because the cocaine kilograms were
square in shape, he referred to them as “squares.” J.A. 102.
6
Urias further testified that Dion had told him at this time that
it would be Vincent who would be coming to the apartment to
receive future cocaine purchases. Urias testified that Dion had
advised him that they were safe and secure because Dion had
people outside “guarding and to make sure no police came.” J.A.
104.
As the amount of money the men had counted approached $1.5
million, Urias told Dion that they would begin the process of
retrieving and bringing up the 100 kilograms of cocaine, and
Urias, Santana, and the other informant left the apartment.
Shortly thereafter, a S.W.A.T. team made entry into the
apartment through the front door and officers executed a search
warrant on the apartment. The first officer to enter observed
Vincent flee the living room to the back of the apartment
carrying what appeared to be a handgun. Officers found Vincent
hiding in a bathroom, and they located a .45 caliber handgun
along the path Vincent had taken toward the bathroom. Officers
found Dion and Zenon hiding in the pantry in the kitchen.
The officers also found approximately $1.5 million stacked
in plain view on the carpet in the living room; two money
counting machines, both of which were turned on, in the kitchen;
a .44 caliber revolver on the kitchen counter near where the
officers had found Zenon; 15 cellular telephones; packing tape
to package the cash; and a black puffy coat, hard hat, and
7
reflective vest, matching the description of those that Zenon
had been seen wearing earlier.
II.
A.
Vincent argues that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain his conspiracy conviction. We disagree.
The “jury verdict must be sustained if there is substantial
evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to
support it.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (emphasis and internal quotation marks
omitted). “Substantial evidence is evidence that 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. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“To prove conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to
distribute, the Government must establish that: (1) an
agreement to possess cocaine with intent to distribute existed
between two or more persons; (2) the defendant knew of the
conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
became a part of this conspiracy.” United States v. Wilson, 135
F.3d 291, 306 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Proof of a conspiracy may of course be by
circumstantial evidence; it need not and normally will not be by
8
direct evidence.” United States v. Mabry, 953 F.2d 127, 130
(4th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Once it
has been shown that a conspiracy exists, the evidence need only
establish a slight connection between the defendant and the
conspiracy to support conviction.” United States v. Brooks, 957
F.2d 1138, 1147 (4th Cir. 1992). To prove the crime of
attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the
government must establish
that (1) the defendant had the requisite intent to
commit a crime; (2) the defendant undertook a direct
act in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his
commission of the crime; (3) the act was substantial,
in that it was strongly corroborative of the
defendant’s criminal purpose; and (4) the act fell
short of the commission of the intended crime due to
intervening circumstances.
United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2003).
Vincent does not dispute that the evidence was sufficient
to show that he agreed to and in fact did intentionally aid Dion
in a criminal undertaking by assisting in counting the currency.
However, Vincent claims that the evidence was not sufficient to
create a reasonable inference that he knew the particular
illegal purchase to which the currency was to be put, i.e., that
it was going to be used to purchase cocaine. We disagree.
Urias testified regarding Dion’s discussions with him
during the approximately two and a half hours that Dion, Urias,
and Vincent spent counting the currency in the apartment. Urias
9
testified that Dion told Urias, in front of Vincent, that
Vincent had not liked working in a restaurant and studying and
that the only thing Vincent liked was “counting kilos and
counting paquetes,” which Urias explained referred to money
packages and cocaine. J.A. 101. He testified that he also had
discussions at that time with Dion about the cocaine that Urias
was going to give Dion in exchange for the money as well as the
fact that it would be Vincent who would be coming to the
apartment to pick up future drug deliveries. Especially in
light of those discussions, a jury could have reasonably
concluded that Vincent was well aware of the purpose for which
the currency was to be used.
B.
Zenon also maintains that the evidence was insufficient to
support his involvement in the charged crimes. We disagree.
Zenon was the lessee of the apartment where the initial
meeting and the money counting took place, and he was found in
the kitchen of the apartment hiding with Dion in the pantry
while approximately $1.5 million dollars was stacked up on the
floor of the living area, in plain view. Additionally, a jury
could reasonably conclude that Zenon had been operating as a
lookout for the morning meeting and that he had been preparing
for the afternoon meeting when he arrived at the apartment
10
minutes before the informants and backed the truck out of the
garage and parked it in a nearby parking space.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ convictions are
affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. 2
AFFIRMED
2
We have reviewed the additional arguments contained in the
supplemental pro se brief.
11