United States v. Michael Stevenson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 19, 2011
• Docket: 10-4327
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Rehearing granted, August 31, 2011

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL CARL STEVENSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00057-BO-3)

Submitted: April 26, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Denise Walker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, Michael Carl Stevenson was

convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). On appeal, Stevenson claims

the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. We

affirm.

This court reviews de novo the denial of Stevenson’s

motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Green,

599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 271

(2010). “[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Government,” United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 166 (4th

Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 130 S.

Ct. 3442 (2010), the court is to determine whether the

conviction is supported by “substantial evidence,” where

“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. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2010)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The ultimate question is

whether “any rational trier of facts could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bynum, 604 F.3d at

166 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 Conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics

under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt

of three elements: “(1) an agreement between two or more persons

to engage in conduct that violates a federal drug law, (2) the

defendant’s knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant’s

knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy.” United

States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 139 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

130 S. Ct. 657 (2009). “Because a conspiracy is by nature

clandestine and covert, there rarely is direct evidence of such

an agreement . . . [C]onspiracy is usually proven by

circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d

220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Evidence supporting an agreement may consist of the

defendant’s relationship to the other conspirators and his

conduct and attitude during the course of the conspiracy. United

States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to show

that Stevenson entered into a conspiracy with Beatty and

Patterson. Stevenson knew Beatty had a history of dealing drugs

and had allowed him to store drugs on his property. On the day

of the transaction, Stevenson provided Beatty with drug testing

kits, drove him and Patterson to the location of the drug deal,

kept his plans private from other individuals, discussed with

the other two men that they needed to be on the same page if

3 anything went wrong and agreed to accept payment of $1000 for

driving. We conclude that this evidence of Stevenson’s conduct

and attitude shows that he was in agreement with the other men

to purchase narcotics for the purpose of distribution.

Accordingly, 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