Filed: Dec. 08, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-4104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH M. KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr- 00026-FPS-JES-2) Submitted: October 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-4104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH M. KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr- 00026-FPS-JES-2) Submitted: October 27..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-4104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH M. KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr-
00026-FPS-JES-2)
Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elgine H. McArdle, Wheeling, West Virginia; Brendan S. Leary,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, John C.
Parr, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Shawndale D. Saunders and Joseph M.
King of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district court sentenced
Saunders to 100 months in prison. King received an eighteen-
month prison sentence. Both appeal, challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence. Saunders also challenges the district court’s
admission of rebuttal evidence about his banking records. King
contends that the district court erred by granting the
Government’s for-cause strike to remove King’s uncle from the
jury panel. We affirm.
This case arose from the postal delivery of a package
containing 9.65 pounds of marijuana to a house on McColloch
Street in Wheeling, West Virginia. The package, which had a
fictitious Arizona return address, was addressed to Michael
Tompkins at the McColloch Street address. It was mailed March
27, to arrive the next day. Postal agents in Arizona suspected
the package contained contraband and alerted their counterparts
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Law enforcement officials in
Pittsburgh received the package and opened it, finding the
marijuana tightly packed and concealed in a plastic container.
After examining the package, postal authorities repacked the
3
marijuana 1 and set up a controlled delivery to the McColloch
Street address. At the time of the delivery, no one was living
at the house. The owner, Crystal Smith, was allowing Saunders
to renovate the house in exchange for an eventual discount on
the rent. Saunders had shoes, dry-cleaned clothes, and receipts
in the house.
Saunders and King arrived at the house on the
afternoon of March 28 and checked the mailbox. Finding it
empty, the two left and immediately returned after driving past
a postal truck. King then signed a false name to receive the
package of marijuana, with Saunders in the room. King carried
the package to the basement. As King began opening the package,
a beeper alerted law enforcement officials, who entered to
execute an anticipatory search warrant. During their search,
the agents discovered, among other things, a digital scale, and
bank records belonging to Saunders. The agents arrested
Saunders, who had with him over $1600 in cash. During a second
sweep of the home, the authorities found King hiding in the
darkened basement, near the package of marijuana. On this
evidence, as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses, the
jury convicted King and Saunders, who now appeal.
1
The authorities were only able to put seven pounds of
marijuana back in the container.
4
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507
F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 1690
(2008). This court reviews such a challenge by determining
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States
v. Collins,
412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v.
United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We review both direct
and circumstantial evidence, and we accord the Government all
reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be
established. United States v. Harvey,
532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th
Cir. 2008).
In order to prove aiding and abetting the possession
with intent to distribute marijuana, the Government must show
the Defendants: (1) possessed marijuana, (2) had knowledge of
the possession, and (3) intended to distribute the marijuana.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d
195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999).
Viewing the evidence and drawing inferences most
favorable to the Government, a reasonable juror certainly could
have found the Defendants guilty. Direct and circumstantial
evidence supported the allegation that Saunders and King
expected to receive a package containing marijuana at the
5
McCulloch Street house on March 28, and that they intended to
distribute the marijuana within. Defendants presented testimony
to counter this evidence. King claimed he did not know what was
in the package, but simply hoped to steal some clothing. King
also claimed Saunders was in the bathroom when the package
arrived. King further testified that the two returned to the
house because Saunders had to use the restroom, not because they
spotted the mail truck. But clearly, the jury could have chosen
to discount this self-serving testimony. 2
Saunders also claims the court erred in admitting
rebuttal testimony about his banking records. We review the
district court’s decision to admit rebuttal evidence for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 330 (4th
Cir. 2003). At trial, Saunders accounted for his income by
offering testimony from an insurance agent, who stated that
Saunders had money from a personal injury claim. The Government
rebutted this testimony by resort to Saunders’ bank records.
The Government’s rebuttal evidence was both relevant and
2
The Defendants rely on United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d
1091 (4th Cir. 1984), in support of their assertion that the
evidence was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to the
marijuana. The case at hand, however, involves significantly
more evidence that the Defendants were knowing participants in
the receipt of contraband.
6
properly introduced. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in permitting the jury to consider it.
King also challenges the district court’s decision to
strike his uncle from the venire. A reviewing court will not
overturn a trial judge’s decision to remove a juror for cause
absent a “manifest abuse of . . . discretion.” Poynter v.
Ratcliff, 874 F.2d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court
struck King’s uncle after the uncle said that a guilty verdict
might upset his wife and his sister-in-law. Given the close
family relationship and the risk King’s uncle could not be
impartial, the district court did not err.
We affirm Saunders’ and King’s convictions and
sentences. 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
7
