[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
February 28, 2007
No. 06-13243 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00367-CR-T-30-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THEARTIS DANIELS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 28, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Theartis Daniels appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Daniels argues that the
evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Daniels knew of
the conspiracy to rob a stash house of eight to ten kilograms of cocaine and
intended to participate in it. We affirm.
“We review a defendant’s challenge to sufficiency of the evidence de
novo.” United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 2005). We “view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable
inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.” United States
v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371, 373-74 (11th Cir. 1996).
“To convict a defendant for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the evidence
must show (1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the defendant knew of it, and (3)
that the defendant, with knowledge, voluntarily joined it.” United States v. Perez-
Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994). A defendant can be guilty of
conspiracy even though the defendant only played a minor role and was not aware
of “all the details of the conspiracy.” Id. “The test for sufficiency of evidence is
identical regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, and ‘no
distinction is to be made between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial
evidence.’” United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656-57 (11th Cir.
2
1990) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 719 F.2d 1516, 1521 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Daniels argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal because no evidence introduced at trial showed that he knew
of the existence of the conspiracy or agreed to participate in it, but we disagree.
The government presented substantial evidence from which the jury could have
concluded that Daniels was a knowing and voluntary member of the conspiracy.
First, the government presented the testimony of an undercover agent, who
testified that he asked Daniels if they would split the proceeds of the robbery
evenly and heard Daniels reply “yeah.” The undercover agent also testified that he
told Daniels there were eight to ten bricks in response to which Daniels said
nothing, giving rise to an inference that Daniels understood the meaning of the
agent. Second, the government presented the testimony of Daniels’s codefendant
Timothy Williams, who testified that Daniels was a knowing participant in the
conspiracy and that Williams was carrying a firearm for use in the conspiracy.
Although Williams had testified at a previous hearing that Daniels did not know
anything about the conspiracy, the jury was free to credit the testimony of Williams
that he had lied at the previous hearing. We will not disturb the credibility findings
of the jury. See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir.
2002). Third, Daniels testified in his defense that he did not know anything about
3
the conspiracy, he did not hear the police sirens when he fled, and he did not see
the police vehicle before he crashed into it. The jury was free to disbelieve
Daniels’s testimony and consider that testimony as substantive evidence of guilt.
United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 315 (11th Cir. 1995). This deference to the
findings of the jury is especially appropriate “where the elements to be proved for a
conviction include highly subjective elements: for example, the defendant’s intent
or knowledge.” Id.
Daniels’s convictions are
AFFIRMED.
4