UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLIE EMANUEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00307-JRS-2)
Submitted: May 10, 2012 Decided: May 29, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, N.G.
Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Emanuel appeals the sixty-month sentence
imposed following his jury convictions of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (Count Six); two counts of
possession with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine
base and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2006), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts Seven and Eight); and
distribution of cocaine base and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Nine).
On appeal, Emanuel argues that there was insufficient evidence
to support his convictions. Finding the evidence to be
sufficient, we affirm.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence de novo. United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 617 (2010). We will uphold the
jury verdict “if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government, to support it.” United
States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006).
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. King, 628 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). In resolving issues
2
of substantial evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or
reassess the factfinder’s determination of witness credibility
and must assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in
testimony in favor of the Government. See United States v.
Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008).
To obtain a conviction for a drug conspiracy, the
Government must prove the following elements: (1) an agreement
between two or more people to distribute the drug or possess it
with the intent to distribute; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of
the conspiracy; and (3) his knowing, voluntary participation in
the conspiracy. United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th
Cir. 2010). A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy without
knowing all of its details and even if he plays only a minor
role. Id. at 367-68; United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To establish possession with intent to distribute, the
Government must show “(1) possession of the controlled
substance; (2) knowledge of the possession; and (3) intent to
distribute.” United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257, 267 n.10 (4th
Cir. 2009). Possession may be actual or constructive. United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992). “A person
may have constructive possession of contraband if he has
ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband or the
premises or vehicle in which the contraband was
3
concealed.” United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352, 358 (4th
Cir. 2010).
To establish an aiding and abetting charge under 18
U.S.C. § 2, “the [G]overnment must show that the defendant
knowingly associated himself with and participated in the
criminal venture.” United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197
(4th Cir. 2009). “To be convicted of aiding and abetting,
participation in every stage of an illegal venture is not
required, only participation at some stage accompanied by
knowledge of the result and intent to bring about that
result.” United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d 701, 705 (4th
Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Finally, to establish distribution in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally
distributed a controlled substance. United States v. Yearwood,
518 F.2d 220, 227 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all four counts. The
evidence showed that Emanuel opened up his home for drug
transactions, acted as a middleman in contacting dealers for
customers, and was present for and participated in the
transactions. Although Emanuel testified to the contrary, we
4
will not second-guess the jury’s credibility
determinations. See Brooks, 524 F.3d at 564.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5