United States v. Daniels ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50024 Document: 00516039787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-50024
Summary Calendar FILED
October 4, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ashley Nicole Daniels; Ronnie Lee Hightower,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:20-CR-204
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ashley Nicole Daniels and Ronnie Lee Hightower were convicted
after a jury trial of one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to
distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. On appeal,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50024 Document: 00516039787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
No. 21-50024
Daniels and Hightower challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support
their convictions.
Because Daniels and Hightower preserved their sufficiency challenges
in the district court, our review is de novo. See United States v. Carbins, 882
F.3d 557, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2018). In reviewing preserved sufficiency claims,
we determine whether “after viewing the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the [Government], any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th
Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
To convict Daniels and Hightower of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, the Government was required to
establish at trial: “(1) the existence of an agreement between two or more
persons to possess with intent to distribute [the charged amount of
methamphetamine], (2) that [the defendants] knew of the conspiracy and
intended to join it, and (3) that [they] participated in the conspiracy.” United
States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007). “The jury may infer any
element of conspiracy from circumstantial evidence.” United States v.
Zamora-Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 832 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks,
citation, and brackets omitted).
The trial record reflects that a confidential informant advised law
enforcement that Daniels and Hightower were selling methamphetamine out
of their fifth-wheel trailer, and a controlled buy was arranged. Daniels and
Hightower were both present and actively participated in the buy, which was
recorded and surveilled by law enforcement. During the buy, Daniels and
Hightower discussed prior purchases of methamphetamine which suggested
their involvement in larger drug trafficking activities. The search of the
trailer two days later yielded almost an ounce of actual methamphetamine,
2
Case: 21-50024 Document: 00516039787 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/04/2021
No. 21-50024
baggies, and digital scales, which the Government’s expert witness in the
field of narcotics testified was indicative of drug trafficking. Contrary to their
contentions, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to make a reasonable
inference that Daniels and Hightower had exclusive control or custody over
the trailer and the floor safe where the methamphetamine was found.
Finally, Daniels asserts that the audio recording of the controlled buy
was “hard to hear,” and she challenges the sufficiency of Detective Stephen
Standage’s voice identification. The evidence, here, was sufficient to show
that Detective Standage had “some familiarity” with Daniels’s voice to form
the basis for his identification. United States v. Jones, 873 F.3d 482, 495 (5th
Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The jury was
responsible for determining the weight to accord his identification testimony.
See United States v. Cuesta, 597 F.2d 903, 915 (5th Cir. 1979).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government and with all reasonable inferences
made in favor of the verdict, was sufficient to support Daniels’s and
Hightower’s convictions for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. See Vargas-
Ocampo, 747 F.3d at 301.
AFFIRMED.
3