Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 1 of 18
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13501
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cr-00031-RWS-JCF-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KECOLE DUKES,
a.k.a. Kecode Dukes,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 21, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 2 of 18
After a jury trial, defendant Kecole Dukes appeals his convictions for one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 846, and three counts of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
and (b)(1)(C). Dukes argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
convict him. After review, we affirm Dukes’s convictions.1
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
According to the trial evidence, between August 20, 2015 and March 9,
2016, a task force with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(“ATF”) used two confidential informants (“CI”), Lecorey Goss and his girlfriend,
Lacasarine Young, to conduct a series of controlled buys of cocaine base (i.e.,
crack cocaine) from defendant Dukes and his identical twin brother, Kemeca
Dukes, either directly or through a middleman, Xavier Johnson. CIs Goss and
Young both knew the Dukes brothers, and Goss had engaged in drug transactions
with them before he began cooperating with law enforcement.
A. CI Young’s Two Controlled Buys Using Middleman Johnson
The first controlled buy, which the task force used as a test run, occurred on
August 20, 2015. CI Young met with Xavier Johnson at his house to buy some
crack cocaine, ostensibly for one of her customers. Task force officers surveilled
1
Defendant Dukes does not challenge his sentence.
2
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 3 of 18
Johnson’s house from a car and listened to Young’s conversation with Johnson
through Young’s cellphone. When Young arrived, Johnson did not have any crack
cocaine and told Young he would make some calls to find some. After Johnson’s
first call was unsuccessful, he told Young he was going to call “the Duke boys.”
One of the task force officers who was listening testified that he overheard Johnson
say, “I’ll call Kecole,” and Young respond, “Oh, the Duke boys.” The defendant
here is Kecole Dukes.
After placing this call, Johnson told Young he was going to see the Dukes
brothers at the Summit Street Apartments (where she knew the Dukes lived), and
Young gave Johnson her money. 2 Johnson left Young waiting in his house and
drove away. About fifteen minutes later, Johnson returned with .6 grams of crack
cocaine, which he gave to Young. During a debriefing after the controlled buy,
Young told a task force officer that Johnson got the crack cocaine from “the Duke
boys,” and specifically mentioned “Kiko,” whom the officer knew to be the
defendant Kecole Dukes.
On August 31, 2015, Young encountered defendant Kecole Dukes at a gas
station. Young explained to defendant Dukes that her customer was not satisfied
2
The apartment on Summit Street, also called the Lanier Terrace Apartments, was the
home of the Dukes brothers’ mother, Peggy Dukes. Defendant Dukes’s sister testified that he
lived with his sister and her children on Smallwood Road until sometime in 2016, when he
moved in with his mother.
3
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 4 of 18
with the amount of crack he had received for the price and that she did not want to
go through Johnson anymore because she was not getting her fair cut. Defendant
Dukes responded that Young needed to go through Johnson and gave her
Johnson’s phone number.
The next day, September 1, Young conducted another controlled buy, this
time wearing an audio recording device. A surveillance team followed as Young
met Johnson at an automotive center, and then she and Johnson drove in separate
cars toward Johnson’s house. On the way, Johnson pulled over and told Young to
wait at his house while he picked up the crack for her, and Young gave Johnson
her money. Johnson then drove to the parking lot of the Summit Street
Apartments, where two members of the surveillance team observed him by driving
through the parking lot in separate unmarked cars. The first officer saw defendant
Kecole Dukes standing in front of Johnson’s front passenger door, and the second
officer saw defendant Kecole Dukes first sitting in the passenger seat of Johnson’s
car and, on a second pass, walking away from Johnson’s car. The officers knew
the Dukes brothers from previous encounters and were able to identify defendant
Kecole Dukes because he is physically heavier than his twin brother, especially in
the face. Johnson then returned to his house, where he gave Young 2.6 grams of
crack cocaine.
4
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 5 of 18
At a Labor Day party on September 5, 2015, Young saw defendant Kecole
Dukes’s brother Kemeca and complained again that she did not want to go through
Johnson. Like his brother, Kemeca Dukes told Young that she had to go through
Johnson to buy the crack.
B. CI Goss’s Four Controlled Buys at the Dukes Brothers’ Apartment
In December 2015 and January 2016, CI Goss, while wearing an audio and
video recording device, conducted several controlled buys directly from the Dukes
brothers at the Summit Street Apartments. During the first transaction on
December 10, 2015, Special Agent Spence Burnett drove Goss to the Dukes’s
apartment, where they saw defendant Kecole Dukes in the parking lot when they
arrived. While Special Agent Burnett waited in the car, Goss entered the
apartment building and purchased 3.14 grams of crack cocaine from Kemeca
Dukes, defendant Kecole Dukes’s brother. Meanwhile, defendant Kecole Dukes
remained in the parking lot and looked around, and Special Agent Burnett believed
defendant Kecole Dukes was acting as a lookout. When Goss left the apartment,
he greeted defendant Dukes in the parking lot and told defendant Dukes that he
would be selling drugs to earn money until he returned to prison on pending
charges.
On December 16, 2015, Goss made a second controlled buy from Kemeca
Dukes at the Summit Street Apartments. Young drove Goss to the apartments with
5
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 6 of 18
a surveillance team following. When Goss first entered the apartment, neither of
the Dukes brothers was home. Another man named Wayne Tate was there and
asked Goss if he was waiting for “Keko,” meaning defendant Kecole Dukes. Goss
responded, “Yeah, Kemeca, Keko, either one.” At trial, Goss testified that he had
engaged in drug transactions with both Dukes brothers in the past and that it did
not matter to him which brother he dealt with during the December 16 transaction.
Because neither brother was there, Goss returned to Young’s car and called
Kemeca. After Kemeca Dukes arrived in a white Dodge Charger registered in his
name, Goss reentered the apartment and purchased 5.5 grams of crack cocaine
from him.
During the third controlled buy on January 25, 2016, both Dukes brothers
were present at the Summit Street apartment, as well as their mother and a family
friend. After Goss purchased a “slab” of crack cocaine from Kemeca Dukes,
defendant Kecole Dukes entered the room and handed Kemeca an extra “love slab”
to give to Goss as a reward for being a good customer. Goss told the Dukes
brothers that he had been breaking off small pieces from his customer’s slab to sell
for himself. Goss asked the Dukes brothers if they could sell him a gun for
protection, and Kemeca Dukes said he would try to find one.
On January 27, 2016, Kemeca Dukes called Goss and said that he had found
a firearm, and Goss arranged to buy the firearm and more crack cocaine. On
6
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 7 of 18
January 29, 2016, Young and Goss drove to the Summit Street apartment, again
followed by a surveillance team. As they pulled into the parking lot, Kemeca
Dukes also pulled up in his white Dodge Charger, and defendant Kecole Dukes
drove out of the parking lot in a red Dodge Charger that was registered in his
name. Goss went into the Dukes’s apartment and purchased 7.45 grams of crack
cocaine from Kemeca, but Kemeca did not have a firearm to sell to Goss.
C. CI Goss’s Fifth Controlled Buy at a Gas Station
On March 9, 2016, Goss made a final controlled buy, this time at a gas
station. Special Agent Burnett, posing as Goss’s customer, drove Goss in an
undercover vehicle to the prearranged gas station and parked in a parking space.
Kemeca Dukes pulled up beside them in his white Dodge Charger, followed by a
red Dodge Charger, which stopped between two gas pumps, facing the undercover
vehicle. When Goss got out of Special Agent Burnett’s car, he saw that defendant
Kecole Dukes and another man named Swan were in the red Charger and that
defendant Dukes was the driver. Goss got into Kemeca Dukes’s white Charger
and purchased 14.47 grams of crack cocaine from Kemeca. Special Agent Burnett
believed that the red Charger was acting as a lookout during the transaction.
7
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 8 of 18
D. Defendant Dukes’s Arrest and Search of Apartment
On November 2, 2016, ATF agents arrested defendant Kecole Dukes at
another apartment. A search of the apartment revealed sandwich baggies, a digital
scale, and a razor blade, all items commonly used in the distribution of narcotics.
E. Indictment and Trial
A federal grand jury indicted defendant Kecole Dukes with conspiring with
his brother Kemeca Dukes to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute at
least 28 grams of cocaine base between August 1, 2015 and October 21, 2016
(Count One), and distributing cocaine base on September 1, 2015, January 25,
2016 and March 9, 2016 (Counts Two, Six, and Nine, respectively). The
indictment alleged that defendant Kecole Dukes carried out Counts Six and Nine
by aiding and abetting his brother Kemeca Dukes. 3
During a four-day trial the government presented testimony from ATF task
force officers and CIs Young and Goss, as well as other evidence, including audio
and video recordings, that established the facts recounted above. In addition, the
parties stipulated that: (1) the drugs purchased in the controlled buys contained
cocaine base, which is a schedule II controlled substance, and that the cocaine base
totaled at least 28 grams; and (2) defendant Kecole Dukes had prior state
3
Kemeca Dukes was charged with multiple counts in the same indictment but pled guilty
to one count of distributing cocaine base several days before trial.
8
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 9 of 18
convictions for, among others, possession of cocaine, sale of cocaine, and
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In addition, a former narcotics
investigator at the Hall County Sheriff’s Office, Ricky Ansbro, testified that, in
August 2009, defendant Kecole Dukes was arrested for, and later pled guilty to,
sale of crack cocaine after he sold crack cocaine to Ansbro’s confidential
informant during a controlled purchase. After the government rested its case and
at the close of all the evidence, defendant Kecole Dukes did not move for a
judgment of acquittal.
In closing arguments, defense counsel argued, among other things, that
surveillance team members may have confused defendant Kecole Dukes with his
identical twin brother Kemeca Dukes, or otherwise been unable to properly
observe defendant Kecole Dukes, and that the government’s evidence showed that
the CIs conducted the controlled buys with Kemeca Dukes. Defense counsel
maintained that defendant Kecole Dukes just happened to be present or nearby
during some of his brother’s drug transactions, and “proximity is not
participation.”
During the jury charge, the district court instructed the jury on, among other
things, the elements of each charged offense and what constitutes constructive
possession and aiding and abetting. With regard to defendant Kecole Dukes’s
mere presence defense, the district court instructed the jury that “simply being
9
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 10 of 18
present at the scene of an event or merely associating with certain people and
discussing common goals and interests does not establish proof of a conspiracy.”
The district court further stated:
But finding that a defendant is criminally responsible for the acts
of another person requires proof that the defendant intentionally
associated with or participated in the crime, not just proof that the
defendant was simply present at the scene of a crime or knew about it.
In other words, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was a willful participant and not merely a knowing spectator.
The jury found defendant Kecole Dukes guilty on all counts. The district court
sentenced defendant Kecole Dukes to a 96-month prison term.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Ordinarily, this Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to
determine whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. United States v. Mercer,
541 F.3d 1070, 1074 (11th Cir.
2008). When a defendant raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
appeal that is different from the challenge he raised at trial, our review is for plain
error. United States v. Baston,
818 F.3d 651, 664 (11th Cir. 2016). When, as here,
the defendant failed to move for a judgment of acquittal and thus failed to raise any
issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is only for a manifest
miscarriage of justice.
Id. at 663; United States v. Fries,
725 F.3d 1286, 1291 n.5
(11th Cir. 2013). Under this standard, we must affirm unless “the evidence on a
10
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 11 of 18
key element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.”
United States v. Milkintas,
470 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks
omitted). “In making this determination, we must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government and accept all reasonable inferences and
credibility determinations that support the jury’s verdict.”
Id. For the reasons that
follow, we conclude the government presented ample evidence of Dukes’s guilt on
all counts, and thus we affirm his convictions, regardless of the applicable standard
of review.
B. Drug Offenses Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846
To convict a defendant under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) of distribution of a
controlled substance, the government must prove that the defendant: (1) distributed
a controlled substance; and (2) he acted knowingly and intentionally. See United
States v. Rosen,
582 F.2d 1032, 1033 (5th Cir. 1978).4 To “distribute” means “to
deliver (other than by administering or dispensing)” the controlled substance and
“deliver” means “actual, constructive, or attempted transfer” of the controlled
substance. 21 U.S.C. § 802(8), (11). As to intent, the government must prove that
the defendant knew the substance was a controlled substance. United States v.
4
In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions by the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to October 1, 1981.
11
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 12 of 18
Louis,
861 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017).5 “Intent to distribute can be proven
circumstantially from, among other things, the quantity of cocaine and the
existence of implements such as scales commonly used in connection with the
distribution of cocaine.” United States v. Poole,
878 F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir.
1989).
A defendant “who has been indicted as a principal may be convicted on
evidence showing only that he aided and abetted the offense.” United States v.
Iglesias,
915 F.2d 1524, 1528 (11th Cir. 1990). In order to find that a defendant
aided and abetted a substantive crime, the government must establish “that the
defendant in some way associated himself with the criminal venture, that he
wished to bring it about, and that he sought by his actions to make it succeed.”
United States v. Broadwell,
870 F.2d 594, 608 (11th Cir. 1989). A defendant may
be convicted under an aiding and abetting theory, even if he did not commit all of
the acts that constitute the elements of § 841(a), if the government proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that: (1) someone committed the substantive crime; (2) the
defendant contributed to and furthered that crime; and (3) the defendant intended
5
Similarly, to convict a defendant under § 841(a) of possession with intent to distribute,
the government must prove that “the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed [a controlled
substance] (3) with intent to distribute it.” United States v. Faust,
456 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir.
2006) (quotation marks omitted).
12
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 13 of 18
to aid in the commission of that crime. See United States v. Sosa,
777 F.3d 1279,
1292-93 (11th Cir. 2015).
To convict a defendant for conspiracy under § 846, “the evidence must show
(1) that a conspiracy existed, (2) that the defendant knew of it, and (3) that the
defendant, with knowledge, voluntarily joined it.” United States v. Perez-Tosta,
36 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994). “The essential element of a drug conspiracy
charge is an agreement to violate federal narcotics law.” United States v. Carcaise,
763 F.2d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 1985). The existence of such an agreement may be
established through circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s conduct and
circumstances suggesting a plan or scheme.
Id. at 1332 n.9. Where there are
multiple, separate drug transactions, a single conspiracy is established if a
defendant’s actions facilitated the criminal venture as a whole or the endeavors of
other co-conspirators. United States v. Brown,
587 F.3d 1082, 1089 (11th Cir.
2009).
C. Analysis
Here, as to the substantive drug offenses in Counts Two, Six, and Nine, the
government presented substantial evidence that defendant Kecole Dukes
participated in each controlled purchase of cocaine base either directly or by aiding
and abetting his brother. Specifically, as to Count Two, the government showed
that: (1) on September 1, 2015, when CI Young gave Johnson money for crack
13
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 14 of 18
cocaine, Johnson told Young to wait for him at his house while he went to see the
Dukes brothers at the Summit Street Apartments to get the drugs; (2) shortly
thereafter, surveillance team members saw Johnson arrive in the parking lot of the
Summit Street Apartments and observed defendant Kecole Dukes standing at, and
then sitting inside, Johnson’s car; and (3) Johnson then returned to his house,
where he gave CI Young some crack cocaine. Although defendant Kecole Dukes
challenges the surveillance team members’ identification of him, both officers
testified that they knew what Kecole and Kemeca Dukes looked like from previous
encounters with them and that they were able to tell them apart. 6 Viewed in the
light most favorable to the government, the forgoing evidence permitted a
reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Kecole Dukes
conducted the September 1, 2015 drug deal with Johnson and, therefore,
distributed cocaine base on that date.
As to Count Six, the government showed that: (1) on January 25, 2016, CI
Goss, while wearing a wire over which Special Agent Burnett listened, purchased
crack cocaine from Kemeca Dukes at the Summit Street Apartments; (2) Goss was
in the apartment for five minutes, after which Special Agent Burnett drove him to a
6
Defendant Kecole Dukes also misstates the record. Task Force Officer Jamie Compton
testified that he was driving approximately five miles per hour, not 20 to 25 miles per hour,
through the parking lot when he saw defendant Kecole Dukes standing at Johnson’s passenger-
side door. Also, neither Officer Compton nor Officer Christopher Ware, the other surveillance
team member who identified defendant Kecole Dukes, testified that Johnson’s car windows were
tinted.
14
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 15 of 18
secure location and took the crack cocaine from him; (3) Goss explained that both
Dukes brothers were present in the apartment when he arrived, but that he
purchased the crack cocaine from Kemeca Dukes; (4) after the transaction was
completed, defendant Kecole Dukes entered the room holding another slab of
crack cocaine, which he handed to Kemeca, who then gave it to Goss; and (5) Goss
and Special Agent Burnett both explained that in the drug trade, a “love slab” is an
extra piece of crack cocaine given as a reward for being a good customer. Viewed
in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find from
this evidence that Kemeca Dukes distributed cocaine base to CI Goss on that date
and that defendant Kecole Dukes contributed to and furthered his brother’s
distribution to CI Goss and intended to aid in the commission of the offense.
As to Count Nine, the government’s evidence showed that: (1) on March 9,
2016, Special Agent Burnett drove CI Goss to a gas station; (2) Kemeca Dukes
pulled up next to them in his white Dodge Charger and was followed by a red
Dodge Charger, which parked nearby between the gas pumps; (3) as Goss stepped
into Kemeca’s vehicle, he saw that defendant Kecole Dukes was inside the red
Dodge Charger; (4) once in Kemeca’s vehicle, Goss purchased crack cocaine from
him; (5) afterward, Goss returned to Special Agent Burnett’s car and, as they left,
Agent Burnett saw that the numbers on the license plate of the red Dodge Charger
matched the numbers of the license plate registered to defendant Kecole Dukes;
15
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 16 of 18
and (6) Burnett thought the red Dodge Charger was there to serve as a lookout
during the transaction. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably find that
Kemeca Dukes distributed cocaine base to CI Goss at the gas station, that
defendant Kecole Dukes served as a lookout during the drug deal, thus contributing
to and furthering his brother’s distribution and showing his intent to aid in the
commission of the crime.
Finally, as to the conspiracy charged in Count One, in addition to all the
evidence already discussed, the government also showed that: (1) during the
August 20, 2015 controlled buy, CI Young knew Johnson got the crack cocaine
from “the Duke boys,” and specifically mentioned “Kiko,” a nickname for
defendant Kecole Dukes; (2) when CI Young ran into defendant Kecole Dukes at a
gas station on August 31, 2015, and asked if she could buy drugs directly from
him, defendant Kecole Dukes responded that Young needed to go through Johnson
and provided her with Johnson’s phone number; (3) at a Labor Day party on
September 5, 2015, defendant Dukes’s brother Kemeca also told CI Young she
needed to go through Johnson; (4) on December 10, 2015, Special Agent Burnett
drove CI Goss to the Summit Street Apartments for a controlled buy with Kemeca,
during which defendant Kecole Dukes stood outside the apartment building and
appeared to act as a lookout; (5) during the December 16, 2015 controlled buy with
Kemeca, CI Goss initially encountered a man named Wayne Tate, who asked Goss
16
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 17 of 18
if he was waiting for “Keko,” and Goss told Tate he was waiting for either of the
Dukes brothers; (6) Goss testified that in the past he had engaged in drug
transactions with both Dukes brothers; (7) defendant Kecole Dukes had multiple
prior state court convictions for possession of cocaine, sale of cocaine, and
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, including the sale of crack cocaine
during a controlled drug purchase with another CI in 2009; and (8) a search of the
apartment in which defendant Kecole Dukes was arrested revealed baggies, a
digital scale, and a razor blade, all items commonly used for the distribution of
crack cocaine.
From this evidence, the jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable
doubt that defendant Kecole Dukes had an illegal agreement with his brother
Kemeca to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it and to distribute cocaine
base, that defendant Kecole Dukes knew of and voluntarily joined the agreement,
and that defendant Kecole Dukes’s actions in conducting some drug sales himself
and in assisting his brother with other drug sales by acting as a lookout or bringing
him additional drugs facilitated the criminal venture as a whole and the endeavors
of his brother.
Defendant Kecole Dukes’s argument that the government’s evidence
established only his mere presence or proximity to his brother’s drug transactions
is belied by the record. The government presented evidence that defendant Kecole
17
Case: 18-13501 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 18 of 18
Dukes not only took actions that helped his brother conduct drug transactions, but
in one instance he conducted the drug transaction himself. The jury was given a
“mere presence” instruction and clearly rejected defendant Kecole Dukes’s
contention that he was just a knowing spectator who happened to be present at, but
did not participate in, his brother’s drug deals.
In sum, defendant Kecole Dukes has failed to establish, even under de novo
review, that the government’s evidence was insufficient to support his convictions,
much less that it was so tenuous that his convictions would be considered shocking
under a manifest-miscarriage-of-justice review. For these reasons, we affirm
defendant Kecole Dukes’s convictions on Counts One, Two, Six, and Nine.
AFFIRMED.
18
