Filed: Mar. 15, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-15-2006 USA v. Lee Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3349 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Lee" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1427. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1427 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Cou
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-15-2006 USA v. Lee Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3349 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "USA v. Lee" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1427. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1427 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Cour..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-15-2006
USA v. Lee
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3349
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Lee" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1427.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1427
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
AMEEN LEE
a/k/a “MEENIE”
Ameen Lee,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00172-13)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 2, 2006
Before: SLOVITER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
(Filed: March 15, 2006)
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
1
_______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Ameen Lee (“Lee”) appeals his conviction and sentence arising from a multi-
defendant drug conspiracy case. Lee argues that there is insufficient evidence to support
his conviction, and he challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm his conviction but vacate his
sentence and remand this matter for resentencing in accordance with Booker.
I. Background
As we write solely for the parties, our recitation of the facts will be limited to those
necessary to our determination. Lee, along with 36 co-defendants, was indicted for
participating in a massive cocaine and crack conspiracy that spanned Philadelphia,
western Pennsylvania, Delaware, and other locations. Lee was charged with, and
convicted of, the following: conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846; possession of 4.34 grams of crack cocaine on February 2,
2001, with intent to deliver, and possession of that crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a
school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 860; possession of 35.95 grams of crack
cocaine on March 29, 2001, with intent to deliver, and possession of that crack cocaine
within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 860; and possession of
2
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Lee received a sentence of 195 months’ imprisonment.
II. Discussion
Lee challenges his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to establish: (1) that he intended to distribute the 4.34 grams of crack cocaine
found on his person on February 2, 2001; (2) that he possessed the 35.95 grams of crack
cocaine found in the house in which he resided along with at least five other people; and
(3) that he was a participant in a single, all-encompassing conspiracy to distribute crack
cocaine.
In order to determine whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence,
“we must determine whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to the government,
there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict.” United States v.
Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 90 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80
(1942)). The “strict principles of deference to a jury’s findings” compel us “to draw all
reasonable inferences . . . in the government’s favor.” United States v. Ashfield,
735 F.2d
101, 106 (3d Cir. 1984). We must sustain the verdict if “any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States
v. Voigt,
89 F.3d 1050, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307,
319 (1979)). A claim of insufficiency of the evidence therefore places “a very heavy
burden” on the appellant. United States v. Gonzalez,
918 F.2d 1129, 1132 (3d Cir. 1990)
3
(citation omitted).
Lee has not demonstrated that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support his conviction. The Government presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate
Lee’s intent to distribute the 4.34 grams of crack cocaine found on his person on February
2, 2001. When Lee was arrested that day, he was in possession of 30 packets of crack
cocaine packaged into $10 packets and stuffed into his waistband, as well as $746 in
United States currency. The crack cocaine packets were identical in appearance to those
which were found filled with crack at Lee’s home on March 29, 2001. Furthermore,
witnesses at Lee’s trial testified that Lee was, in fact, a seller of crack cocaine and
marijuana at that time at 56th and Catherine Streets, which is where Lee was arrested and
searched. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, we find that there is substantial evidence from which the jury could
conclude that Lee intended to distribute the crack cocaine found on his person on
February 2, 2001.
Lee’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he possessed the
35.95 grams of crack cocaine found at 5541 Catherine Street on March 29, 2001 is also
without merit. Upon searching the residence at that address, law enforcement officials
recovered, among other things, over 35 grams of crack cocaine, packaging materials, a
scale, a loaded gun, and ammunition. Although Lee lived at the residence along with at
least five other people, there was no evidence that any of the other people were involved
4
with the distribution of crack. In fact, in the drawer in the dining room in which law
enforcement officials found a clear plastic bag containing numerous packets of crack
cocaine, the loaded gun, and ammunition, the officers also recovered two photo
identification cards in the name of Ameen Lee. Thus, the jury’s guilty verdict was based
upon sufficient evidence.
Lee next argues that there was insufficient evidence of his involvement in a single,
all-encompassing conspiracy. We disagree. At trial, the Government presented testimony
from law enforcement officials and co-conspirators, as well as physical and electronic
evidence, that supported its argument that Lee and his co-defendants engaged in a single,
cohesive conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Viewing this
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find that there is substantial
evidence from which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee was engaged
in the conspiracy charged in the indictment.
Finally, Lee argues that his sentence should be vacated and this matter should be
remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). It
is undisputed that the District Court, in determining Lee’s sentence, treated the
Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory. Lee is therefore entitled to
resentencing. See United States v. Davis,
407 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Accordingly, we will vacate Lee’s sentence and remand this matter for resentencing
consistent with Booker.
5
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm Lee’s conviction, vacate his sentence,
and remand this matter for resentencing pursuant to Booker.
6
