United States v. Curtis Madina , 474 F. App'x 919 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4481
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CURTIS ANTHONY MADINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00128-RJC-DSC-1)
Submitted: March 19, 2012 Decided: April 10, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Rob Heroy, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Anthony Madina was convicted of: possession
with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006) (Count One); possessing or carrying a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)
(2006) (Count Two); and possession of an unregistered firearm,
26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) (2006) (Count Three). He received an
aggregate sentence of ninety-three months. Madina now appeals
his convictions on Counts One and Two, contending that the
district court erroneously denied his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
for judgment of acquittal on those counts. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to
deny a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756,
762 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 469 (2011). We
will sustain the jury’s verdict if, viewing the evidence 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. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367
(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 131
S. Ct. 340 (2010). We “assume that the jury resolved all
contradictions in testimony in favor of the Government.” United
States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 572 (4th Cir.) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 564 (2011).
2
Evidence at trial established that officers conducting
a pat-down search of Madina in connection with a traffic stop
recovered a bag containing a digital scale and twenty-eight
smaller bags of marijuana. Officers also recovered an
unregistered, .22 caliber sawed-off shotgun from the floorboard
where Madina had been seated. Madina claimed that the marijuana
was for his personal use. He also admitted that the firearm was
his.
A forensic analyst testified that she tested the
contents of nine of the smaller bags, and the net weight of the
contents of those bags alone was over forty-nine grams. She
also stated that the contents of the remaining bags was
marijuana. A special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms testified that the quantity of marijuana and the
method of packaging were consistent with drug dealing, not
personal use. He further stated that the presence of the scale
suggested distribution, not mere use, and that drug dealers
often carry firearms in order to intimidate others and to
protect their drugs.
“To convict a defendant of possession with the intent
to distribute, the government must prove: (1) possession of a
narcotic controlled substance; (2) knowledge of the possession;
and (3) the intent to distribute.” United States v. Collins,
412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005). There is no dispute that the
3
first two requirements are met. Whether Madina intended to
distribute the marijuana is the only issue before us. Intent to
distribute narcotics may be inferred from the packaging of drugs
in a manner that would facilitate their sale or from the
presence of a quantity of drugs larger than needed for personal
use. United States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728, 730-31 (4th Cir.
1990). Possession of firearms constitutes “additional
circumstantial evidence of . . . involvement in narcotics
distribution.” Id. at 731. Finally, possession of a scale also
is circumstantial evidence of intent to distribute narcotics.
United States v. Harris, 31 F.3d 153, 157 (4th Cir. 1994).
We conclude that the evidence established the
requisite intent to distribute. The amount and method of
packaging of the marijuana are consistent with drug dealing, as
are the presence of the shotgun and digital scale. Accordingly,
we find the evidence sufficient to convict Madina on Count One.
This finding defeats Madina’s related claim that his
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction is infirm because there was
insufficient evidence to find that he possessed the firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. We previously
observed, however, that “[p]ossession with intent to distribute
is unquestionably a drug trafficking crime.” Fisher, 912 F.3d
at 731. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was sufficient
to convict Madina on Count Two.
4
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
5