United States v. Santana James , 626 F. App'x 785 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •               Case: 14-13370    Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 1 of 9
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-13370
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00416-JSM-TBM-5
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SANTANA JAMES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (September 3, 2015)
    Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Santana James challenges her convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine
    with intent to distribute, see 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
     and 846; and possession of cocaine
    Case: 14-13370      Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 2 of 9
    with intent to distribute, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    ; 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1). She contends
    that the government failed to establish that the Middle District of Florida was a
    proper venue, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions,
    and that the jury’s verdict went against the great weight of the evidence.
    I.
    On August 27, 2013, a federal grand jury issued an indictment charging
    James and four codefendants with (1) conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to
    distribute, and (2) knowingly and intentionally possessing cocaine with intent to
    distribute. James stood trial alone on March 31 and April 1, 2014. The evidence at
    trial established the following:
    In May 2013, federal investigators learned that Antonio Richards and
    Horace Troupe were involved in narcotics distribution in Tampa, Florida. The
    investigators obtained a wiretap on Richards’ phone and learned that Troupe was
    supplying Richards with cocaine smuggled in from Jamaica. They also learned
    that Troupe often relied on Krystel Fox, with whom he had an intimate
    relationship, to help with his smuggling efforts.
    In early August 2013, Troupe called Fox from Jamaica and asked her to pick
    up a woman from the Fort Lauderdale Airport on August 13. That woman was
    Santana James. Fox picked James up from the airport at the time Troupe had
    specified and took James to a hotel in Fort Lauderdale. Fox then went to a
    2
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 3 of 9
    pharmacy and bought laxatives, prunes, and milk, as Troupe had directed. When
    Fox returned to the hotel, she gave the laxatives to James, who immediately took
    them. James showed Fox the underwear she had worn on her flight, which had
    cocaine sewn inside it, as well as a plastic cylinder from her luggage that contained
    cocaine. James explained that Troupe had made her wear those items on the flight
    and bring them into the United States, that he had provided her a visa and paid for
    her travel expenses, and that she expected to be paid between $1,500 and $3,000
    for bringing the cocaine into the United States. She also told Fox that she had
    swallowed pellets containing cocaine and needed to throw them up.
    Later that day, James showed Fox between six and eight pellets that were an
    inch long and wrapped in pink plastic wrap. She asked Fox to bring her some
    cleaning supplies to disinfect the pellets and “get the cocaine out.” For the next
    two days, Fox brought James food while James passed more pellets from her body.
    Troupe had not yet paid James, so she asked Fox to sell eight of the pellets of
    cocaine. Fox agreed and took the eight pellets to the home of a man named
    “Peanut.” He weighed the cocaine from the pellets and found that each one
    contained about five grams of cocaine. He paid Fox $800 for the cocaine.
    The same day, Troupe flew from Jamaica into Miami International Airport.
    The calls Troupe made indicated that he was bringing six kilograms of cocaine
    with him. Troupe checked in with James at the hotel room where she had been
    3
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 4 of 9
    staying and later met Fox at another hotel. Troupe and Fox made plans to travel to
    Tampa. Before they left, Troupe had Fox help him repackage the cocaine, taking it
    out of the plastic pellets that James and other women 1 had swallowed and then
    placing it into new packaging for the trip to Tampa.
    On August 18, 2013, officers spotted Troupe and Fox’s rental car in Pinellas
    County, Florida. They followed Troupe and Fox to a hotel in Clearwater. The two
    rented a room where Fox stayed while Troupe drove to Richards’ home. After
    Troupe picked up Richards, the officers stopped the rental car and arrested both
    men. They searched the car and found over seven kilograms of cocaine wrapped in
    green plastic wrap. A short time later, officers arrested Fox at the hotel.
    Fox quickly agreed to cooperate with the investigation and continued texting
    with James. She also agreed to make a controlled call to James. On that call, Fox
    asked James how much cocaine she had brought with her. James answered,
    “Probably half [a] million U.S. or something like that.” Fox then clarified that she
    wanted to know how many pellets of cocaine James had swallowed. James
    replied, “I think it was about 84.” Fox also asked James how Troupe was getting
    so much cocaine into the United States, and James replied that she had seen two
    other girls at the hotel who were definitely “muling” for Troupe.
    1
    Troupe had several women working for him.
    4
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015    Page: 5 of 9
    Three days after the call, officers arrested James at the Fort Lauderdale
    airport as she was attempting to fly back to Jamaica. They searched her suitcase
    and found a box of laxatives with ten pills missing. When one officer told James
    that they had recorded her call with Fox, James responded, “It’s in God’s hands.”
    After the government rested, James moved for a judgment of acquittal,
    which the district court denied. James declined to present her own case. The jury
    found her guilty on both counts, and the district court sentenced her to 78 months
    in prison. This is James’ appeal.
    II.
    James challenges her convictions on the grounds that: (1) the government
    did not establish that the Middle District of Florida was a proper venue; (2) the
    evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; and (3) her convictions were
    against the great weight of evidence at trial.
    A.
    We begin with James’ contention that the government did not establish
    venue in the Middle District of Florida. The Sixth Amendment gives criminal
    defendants the right to be tried before “an impartial jury of the State and district
    wherein the crime shall have been committed.” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. When a
    crime is committed across multiple districts, the defendant may be tried “in any
    district” where the “offense was begun, continued, or completed.” 18 U.S.C.
    5
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015    Page: 6 of 9
    § 1327(a). We review de novo whether the government established by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the venue for the trial was proper, viewing the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable
    inferences and credibility choices in favor of the verdict. United States v. Stickle,
    
    454 F.3d 1265
    , 1270 (11th Cir. 2006).
    The Middle District of Florida was a proper venue for both counts. The first
    count charged James with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
    See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
     and 846. A conspirator may be tried “in any district where
    an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v.
    Smith, 
    918 F.2d 1551
    , 1557 (11th Cir. 1990). The preponderance of the evidence
    showed that two of the conspirators, Fox and James, drove the cocaine from Fort
    Lauderdale to Clearwater so they could sell it to Richards. That was an overt act in
    furtherance of the conspiracy, and Clearwater is in the Middle District of Florida.
    So venue was proper for the first count. The second count charged James with
    possession of cocaine, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), and included a charge that she aided
    or abetted the possession of cocaine, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    . An aider or abettor can be
    tried in a district where the principal committed the offense. United States v.
    Russo, 
    796 F.2d 1443
    , 1459 (11th Cir. 1986). The preponderance of the evidence
    showed that James aided and abetted Fox and Troupe, who then possessed the
    6
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 7 of 9
    cocaine when they drove it into the Middle District of Florida. So venue was
    proper for the second count.
    B.
    James also contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her
    convictions. We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, viewing
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v.
    Browne, 
    505 F.3d 1229
    , 1253 (11th Cir. 2007). If the evidence would allow a
    reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
    doubt, we must affirm. 
    Id.
    To obtain a conviction on the conspiracy count, the government had to show
    that: (1) there was an agreement to possess cocaine with intent to distribute;
    (2) James knew about the agreement; and (3) voluntarily joined it. United States v.
    Charles, 
    313 F.3d 1278
    , 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). The government established all
    three elements through the testimony of Fox and the investigators, transcripts of
    text messages between Fox and James, and a transcript of the controlled call Fox
    made to James. The evidence showed that Troupe was smuggling cocaine in from
    Jamaica and selling it to distributors in Tampa, that James knew Troupe was
    smuggling cocaine in quantities well beyond what an individual would use, and
    that she agreed to smuggle cocaine for him in return for a visa and money. That
    was enough to sustain a conviction on the conspiracy count.
    7
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015    Page: 8 of 9
    James’ arguments are not persuasive. She argues that the government did
    not show that she knew the substance she was smuggling into the United States
    was cocaine. But Fox’s testimony demonstrated that James knew the pellets
    contained cocaine. She also argues that the government never proved that the
    substance in the pellets she smuggled actually was cocaine. But the jury could
    easily infer that from the testimony that: (1) Fox was able to take several of the
    pellets from James’ hotel room and sell them for $800; and (2) Fox and Troupe
    repackaged the powder from James’ and other women’s pellets and placed it in the
    rental car, and the government’s forensic tests showed that the powder found in the
    car was cocaine.
    To obtain a conviction on the possession with intent to distribute count, the
    government had to establish: “(1) knowledge; (2) possession; and (3) intent to
    distribute.” United States v. Poole, 
    878 F.2d 1389
    , 1391 (11th Cir. 1989). As
    explained above, Fox’s testimony showed that James knew the substance was
    cocaine. It also showed that James possessed the cocaine when she smuggled it
    into the United States and then held it in her hotel room. Finally, the jury could
    easily infer an intent to distribute from, among other things, the quantity of cocaine
    and James’ statement that she knew that she was one of multiple women “muling”
    for Troupe.
    8
    Case: 14-13370     Date Filed: 09/03/2015   Page: 9 of 9
    C.
    Finally, James argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the
    evidence at trial. She can succeed only if the evidence at trial weighed so “heavily
    against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.”
    United States v. Martinez, 
    763 F.2d 1297
    , 1312 (11th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks
    omitted). Such challenges are highly disfavored and meant only for “those really
    exceptional cases.” 
    Id. at 1313
     (quotation marks omitted).
    James’ challenge simply rehashes the arguments she raised regarding the
    sufficiency of the evidence, none of which establish that the jury’s verdict was
    against the weight of the evidence at trial — let alone the great weight.
    AFFIRMED.
    9