United States v. Anthony , 201 F. App'x 211 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 21, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30472
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
JOHN PAUL ANTHONY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(6:03-CR-60024)
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant John Paul Anthony was convicted
by a jury for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. He filed a motion for judgment of acquittal
or new trial, which the district court denied.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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determined that this opinion should not be published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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
On appeal, Anthony’s sole contention is that the
evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that he
knew his actions were in furtherance of a drug
conspiracy. We AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated
by the district court in its written order.
Anthony was caught transporting over $50,000 in drug
proceeds from Philadelphia to Houston via commercial
airliner. Although Anthony insists that he did not know
what the money was for, the record compels a contrary
conclusion.
First, a known drug dealer, Christopher Cruz, paid
Anthony $4,000 to transport the money to Houston. That
Anthony knew Cruz was a drug dealer is supported by the
record because Cruz discussed his drug running trips in
front of Anthony, and because Anthony knew that Cruz
lived a lavish lifestyle even though he had no job.
In addition, the money that Anthony was caught with,
on which tests later revealed illegal narcotics, was
packed in a vacuum sealed plastic bag. The jury heard
evidence that a vacuum sealed plastic bag is used to make
it harder for drug sniffing dogs to detect drugs on
2
money. The jury was well within reason to conclude that
Anthony knew why the money was packed in the plastic bag.
The record reveals that Anthony is no stranger to illegal
narcotics. For over a year, Anthony supported himself by
selling marijuana. Also, he helped his brother on at
least one occasion unload drugs hidden in the overhead
panels of a vehicle.
Finally, Anthony knew many of the alleged co-
conspirators well. Among the alleged co-conspirators,
many of whom plead guilty to the conspiracy and testified
against Anthony, were his brother, uncle, and numerous
other friends and acquaintances.
In sum, the record supports a finding that Anthony
knew the co-conspirators, knew of the conspiracy, and
knew that his actions were in furtherance of that
conspiracy. In addition, the jury was instructed on the
issue of “deliberate ignorance.” Even if Anthony somehow
did not know his actions were in furtherance of a drug
conspiracy, we find that the jury reasonably could have
concluded that it was only because he deliberately
remained ignorant of that fact. See United States v.
3
Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 952-53 (5th Cir. 1990).
Therefore, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
4