United States v. Cruz

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 2000
Docket98-4471
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Cruz (United States v. Cruz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cruz, (4th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4471

ISRAEL CRUZ, a/k/a Chino, Defendant-Appellant.

v. No. 98-4485

RANDY LEE WOODHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.

v. No. 98-4500 DENNIS ELIJAH JEMISON, a/k/a D.J., a/k/a Larry R. Mathis, Defendant-Appellant.

v. No. 98-4519 ALONZO MATIN WILSON, JR., a/k/a June, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4758 CARLO GARRETTE MALONE, a/k/a Pokie, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-97-117)

Argued: October 27, 1999

Decided: January 27, 2000

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jesse Edgar Demps, Portsmouth, Virginia, for Appellant Cruz; John Michael Babineau, DOYLE & BABINEAU, P.L.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant Malone; Christopher Ford Cowan, COWAN & NORTH, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Jemison; Robert Edward Frank, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant Woodhouse; Jennifer Tope Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant Wilson. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Carlo Garrette Malone, Randy Lee Woodhouse, Dennis Elijah Jemison, Alonzo Matin Wilson, Jr., and Israel Cruz for conspiracy to distribute heroine and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The jury also convicted Malone of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, see 21 U.S.C. § 848, for his role in running a drug trafficking organization. The district court sentenced Malone to 420 months, Woodhouse to 310 months, Jemison to 200 months, Wilson to 155 months, and Cruz to 250 months. The defendants appeal their convictions and sentences on several grounds, and we affirm.

I.

From 1992 to 1997 Malone led a major cocaine and heroin drug ring centered in Norfolk, Virginia. Woodhouse, Jemison, and others worked for Malone; they helped him transport, process, and sell drugs. By 1997 Cruz led a cocaine and heroin distribution ring that was actively conspiring with Malone's organization; Cruz employed Wilson and others to ship cocaine and heroin from Florida and New York to Malone in Virginia. The conspiracy formed from Malone and Cruz's organizations placed thousands of packets of heroin and cocaine into the hands of drug users.

Malone employed Jemison and Woodhouse to help him process and sell drugs in and around Norfolk, Virginia. On Malone's behalf, Jemison prepared thousands of individual-sized packets of drugs and sold them to street dealers. Jemison also accompanied Malone at large-volume drug transactions. Woodhouse did much the same for Malone. Woodhouse, too, cut and bagged drugs and then sold the pre- pared product for retail distribution. Malone himself was heavily involved in preparing the drugs for sale. For example, Carnale James, another Malone employee, testified that he helped Malone prepare

3 thousands of individual packets of heroin several times a week between 1992 and 1995.

Malone made significant leadership decisions during the life of the conspiracy. He arranged for Woodhouse to process and sell drugs from a particular apartment. Malone recruited people to sell drugs on his behalf in Grandy Park, a neighborhood in Norfolk. He once arranged for someone else to rent a car and then used it to drive to New York to buy $24,000 of heroin. He handled and controlled much of the conspiracy's money. He made direct sales of large quantities of drugs to street dealers who later sold the drugs to individual users. Malone fronted drugs for sale in Grandy Park, and the cash proceeds were delivered directly to him.

Cruz controlled a cocaine and heroin distribution ring that partici- pated with Malone's organization in bringing drugs into Norfolk. Spe- cifically, in 1997 Cruz assumed control of a drug distribution operation that had been run by Milton Romero. Before he became the leader, Cruz had worked with Romero. Alonzo Wilson, Leon Garcia, Antonio Jaramillo, Winston Greene, Erik Santos, and Barry Rahman worked with Romero and Cruz. Romero and (later) Cruz repeatedly shipped large quantities of drugs to Malone. These shipments were sent through Garcia, Jaramillo, Santos, and Rahman.

Cruz, like Malone, exercised considerable control over the drug distribution system. Cruz used Greene to distribute literally thousands of individual packets of heroin. At Cruz's direction, Santos packaged drugs, and Santos and Rahman delivered them. Cruz's home was a virtual drug factory: a search turned up the full line of equipment used for processing and dealing drugs, including scales, cutting agents, glassine bags, and handguns.

An informant captured Malone on tape discussing drug debts that Romero owed him, the possibility of future drug sales, and his (Malone's) knowledge of Wilson's drug sales. A search of Malone's grandmother's house turned up Malone's fingerprints on bags used to package drugs for retail sale, 13.4 grams of heroin, scales, and fire- arms. Finally, Malone was arrested in 1995 with 166.4 grams of her- oin and $3,700 dollars in cash.

4 Malone, Cruz, and their associates were prone to violence. Jaramillo was murdered during the course of the conspiracy. He was killed over drug debts generated by the trafficking between the Cruz and Malone segments of the conspiracy. Every defendant except Wil- son was linked to firearms. Malone, Woodhouse, and Jemison carried a gun, and guns were found in Cruz's home.

II.

A.

Malone, Woodhouse, Jemison, Wilson, and Cruz contend that there was insufficient evidence to support their drug conspiracy convic- tions. Specifically, they argue that the government failed to prove that they all belonged to the same conspiracy. We conclude, however, that the evidence was sufficient to convict all five defendants of participa- tion in a single conspiracy.

To prove a single conspiracy, the government had to show an agreement among the defendants to undertake illegal drug trafficking and each defendant's willful joinder in that agreement. Proof of a sin- gle conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996). There was evi- dence that the five defendants were involved in one overall conspir- acy to supply the Norfolk area with illegal drugs. The conspiracy had two wings to be sure, one led by Malone and one led by Cruz (and earlier by Romero). Woodhouse and Jemison worked directly for Malone, and Wilson worked directly for Cruz. There was consider- able communication and dealing between the two wings of the con- spiracy. These dealings culminated periodically when Cruz supplied Malone with wholesale quantities of drugs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Glasser v. United States
315 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court, 1942)
United States v. Kenneth E. Harbour and James G. Blank
809 F.2d 384 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
United States v. William Calvin Johnson
71 F.3d 139 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Ricks
882 F.2d 885 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Cruz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cruz-ca4-2000.