NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 19-1900
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD WOMACK, SR.,
a/k/a ROCK,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-14-cr-00496-002)
District Judge: Honorable Gerald A. McHugh
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 6, 2022
Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 22, 2022)
_______________
OPINION
_______________
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Donald Womack, Sr., challenges his conviction for conspiracy, and, with respect
to his sentencing, also challenges the attribution of eighteen kilograms of cocaine to him
for his part in that conspiracy. Because his arguments lack merit, we will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In January 2014, federal authorities in the midst of a narcotics investigation in
Chester, Pennsylvania uncovered what the District Court described as “a conspiracy to
import several kilograms of cocaine from Mexico[.]” (App. at 11.) The plot came to
their attention when they intercepted a text message that Womack sent to his cousin Paris
Church on January 27.1 That text message included a phone number for a person named
Daniel who Womack believed was a cocaine supplier in Mexico, and it instructed Church
to “[l]et [Daniel] know you’re my cousin[.]” (App. at 332.)
Church made multiple attempts to get in touch with Daniel that day. His first few
efforts involved some miscues: for example, the number Womack gave him was missing
a digit. Womack checked in with Church multiple times throughout the day to see if
Church had gotten through to Daniel and to remind Church to “tell him you [sic] my
1
Federal agents had been authorized to wiretap Church’s phones in December
2013, after he had been identified as part of a separate, larger investigation. That wiretap
enabled federal agents to intercept both calls and text messages to and from Church’s
phones, capturing data about the intercepted communications, including dates, times,
phone numbers, and audio in the case of calls. The District Court limited the
government’s ability to introduce evidence of the larger investigation at the trial in this
case, and we do not address it here. Womack’s appeal of his conviction resulting from
that investigation is separately pending before us in appeal No. 16-1682.
2
cousin.” (App. at 347.) Womack also told Church that Womack expected the cocaine
deal with Daniel to be in “joints,” which an agent with the Drug Enforcement
Administration testified was a slang term for kilograms. (App. at 348.) Because Church
had not yet made contact, Womack and his associate Nathaniel Coles separately reached
out to Daniel, with each of them successfully getting in touch with him.
Church finally received a call from Daniel that evening. They discussed a plan for
Daniel to get a shipment of cocaine across the border into the United States, where his
courier would pass it off to Church in Houston. Daniel promised to have his courier
deliver eighteen to twenty “pieces” (App. at 384) – another slang term for kilograms,
according to the testifying DEA agent – and said he would follow up once he finalized
the plans for his courier to get to Houston.
Minutes later, Womack called Church, who told him that “it’s the real deal,” that
when Daniel “hit[s] me” – i.e., calls me back – “I’m gone,” and things were “about to be
popping[.]” (App. at 389-90.) Womack responded, “Say no more. I’m going to talk to
you tomorrow.” (App. at 390.) Church, along with his associate Michael Pinkney, then
began to make arrangements to transport the cocaine from Houston to the Philadelphia
and City of Chester area, where Church, Womack, Pinkney, and Coles were all based.
Daniel called Church two days later, and Daniel told him that the courier could be
in Houston the following evening. But, said Daniel, Church first had to wire $300 to the
courier via Western Union for expenses. Minutes later, Church and Womack had two
calls in quick succession about the propriety of Daniel’s request for $300. Womack
expressed skepticism about paying the money but ultimately agreed with Church that
3
they were willing to run the risk that the deal was fraudulent. Church spoke to Daniel
again later that day and completed the wire transfer.
Daniel then called Church two days later, saying that the courier was almost ready
to depart and promising to call again once the car had crossed the border. After that,
however, none of the conspirators heard from Daniel again. Church, Womack, and Coles
made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact him over the next several days, and they
realized that he had taken the money without carrying out his part of the deal.
Pinkney, Church, Womack, and Coles were charged on September 17, 2014, in a
single-count indictment for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least five
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The
government relied on the conversations federal authorities had intercepted, as well as
testimony from Pinkney, who struck a plea deal. All three remaining defendants were
eventually convicted of conspiracy, and the District Court denied Womack’s and Cole’s
mid-trial and post-trial motions for judgments of acquittal.
In calculating Womack’s sentencing range, the District Court found, over
Womack’s objection, that Womack’s base offense level included 18 kilograms of
cocaine, given his role in the conspiracy. It sentenced him to 216 months’
imprisonment.2 Womack timely appealed.
2
The District Court consolidated Womack’s sentencing for the conviction that is
the subject of this appeal with his conviction before us in appeal No. 16-1682, which
presents discrete issues and does not involve a challenge to his base offense level. See
supra note 1.
4
II. DISCUSSION3
Womack argues that, because of his limited role in the conspiracy, there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction. For similar reasons, he also says the
District Court erred in attributing eighteen kilograms of cocaine to him at sentencing.
The evidence showed, however, that his role in the cocaine conspiracy was not as limited
as he claims.
A. There is Sufficient Evidence to Sustain Womack’s Conviction
Womack first argues that he, at most, introduced Church and Daniel to each other,
and so there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was part of a conspiracy to
distribute cocaine. We review the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a conviction to
see if, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) (emphasis in
original). Our review is “highly deferential,” and we take care “not to usurp the role of
the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting
[our] judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418,
430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (alteration in original). Where the record may support
“multiple possibilities,” we draw all rational inferences in the prosecution’s favor. Id. at
430-32.
3
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
5
To prove that Womack was a member of a drug-trafficking conspiracy in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government needed to establish “(1) a shared unity of purpose
between the alleged conspirators, (2) an intent to achieve a common goal, and (3) an
agreement to work together toward that goal.” United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 108
(3d Cir. 2016). That last element – the requirement of an agreement – is “the essence of
the [conspiracy] offense.” United States v. Tyson, 653 F.3d 192, 206 (3d Cir. 2011)
(alteration in original). Because conspirators “rarely leave evidence of an explicit
understanding or common goal[,]” circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish the
existence of a conspiratorial agreement. Id. at 208. Even so, merely introducing a buyer
to a seller does not, without more, give rise to an agreement. United States v. Pressler,
256 F.3d 144, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2001).
Here, there is ample evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find that
Womack did not merely introduce Church to Daniel, but rather agreed with Church and
others to work toward obtaining large quantities of cocaine from Mexico in order to
distribute it. Rather than stopping at sharing Daniel’s number with Church, Womack
persisted in working to put Church in touch with Daniel and told Church to make Daniel
aware of Womack’s and Church’s familial relationship. Indeed, when Church could not
get through to Daniel, Womack personally reached out to Daniel. Moreover, Church
spoke with Womack minutes after arranging the deal with Daniel for eighteen to twenty
kilograms of cocaine. Although Womack responded by telling him to “[s]ay no more”
because Womack would talk to him the next day (App. at 390), a reasonable juror could
infer that Womack wanted to hear the details of Church’s call with Daniel in person
6
because he was being cautious for fear of surveillance. And, finally, Womack and
Church spoke twice about Daniel’s demand for pre-payment of $300, with Womack
ultimately agreeing with Church that it was worth it to send the money. All that evidence
was sufficient to allow a rational jury to infer not only that Womack was being kept
abreast of developments with the deal but also that he had himself agreed to help obtain
the cocaine from Daniel and was actively working to make the deal happen.
Womack argues that he was “never privy” to Church’s conversations with Daniel
about the details of the transaction. (Opening Br. at 22.) But “common sense suggests,
and experience confirms, that illegal agreements are rarely, if ever, … verbalized with the
precision that is characteristic of a written contract.” Tyson, 653 F.3d at 208. The fact
that Womack was “very careful” and used “guarded and coded language” and “cryptic”
references would not have prevented a rational jury from inferring, based on the totality
of the evidence, that Womack had agreed to participate in the conspiracy. United States
v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 322-23, 325-26 (3d Cir. 1992).
B. The District Court Did Not Err in Attributing 18 Kilograms to Womack
for Purposes of Sentencing
Womack next argues that, even if he is considered to be a conspirator, his role in
the conspiracy was limited and the District Court erred in attributing to him eighteen
kilograms of cocaine – the minimum amount Church and Daniel discussed. “We review
for clear error the District Court’s findings of fact regarding the relevant quantities of
drugs attributable to the defendant.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 352 (3d Cir.
2002). There is no clear error here.
7
In determining the drugs attributable to a defendant at sentencing, a court may
consider “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded,
induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant[.]” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A).
For conspiracies, a court may also look to “all acts and omissions of others” within the
scope of the joint undertaking, in furtherance of the crime, and which are reasonably
foreseeable. Id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). In doing so, the court may not base its calculations on
“mere speculation[.]” United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985, 998 (3d Cir. 1992).
“While some degree of estimation must be permitted, the district court must satisfy itself
that the evidentiary basis for its estimate has sufficient indicia of reliability.” United
States v. Douglas, 885 F.3d 145, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted). Courts may estimate drug quantity using a variety of evidentiary
sources, including intercepted telephone conversations, Collado, 975 F.2d at 999, and the
testimony of co-defendants. United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 203-04 (3d Cir. 1999).
Womack’s primary claim of error – that he simply introduced Church to Daniel
and then, effectively, washed his hands of the affair and so is not responsible for their
dealings – repeats the same points made in his sufficiency-of-the evidence argument, as
he admits. (Opening Br. at 28 (directing us to his “extensive[]” discussion on
sufficiency).) As addressed above, however, that theory mischaracterizes the extent of
the evidence of Womack’s involvement in the scheme.
Moreover, contrary to Womack’s assertion, the District Court conducted the
necessary “searching and individualized inquiry into the circumstances surrounding [his]
involvement in the conspiracy[.]” Collado, 975 F.2d at 995. Such an inquiry requires
8
that the court, before relying on a disputed point at sentencing, resolve the dispute after
hearing the parties’ positions and considering appropriate evidence. United States v.
Metro, 882 F.3d 431, 442 (3d Cir. 2018); United States v. Kluger, 722 F.3d 549, 563 (3d
Cir. 2013).
The District Court ably met that standard here, after evaluating the record and the
parties’ arguments. It relied in significant part on Church’s discussion with Daniel about
acquiring eighteen to twenty kilograms of cocaine and Womack’s subsequent promise to
talk to Church the next day, as well as testimony from Pinkney that the deal would be at
least ten to twenty kilograms. (App. at 925-26.) The Court considered Womack’s efforts
to recharacterize the record but ultimately found “that there was a persistent effort to
develop that connection [with Daniel] … and that the intent was to bring in substantial
quantities in a range of 18 to 20 kilograms, if not more.” (App. at 925-26.) Womack
does not identify any clear errors of fact in that analysis. The sentencing challenge he
brings here therefore fails.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm.
9