Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; December 17, 2015; Federal Appellate Court
Defendant-Appellant Dwayne Reginald Patterson faced charges of possession and attempted possession with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine (Count 1) and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the same amount (Count 2). A jury convicted him on both counts. Patterson argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to establish his possession or intent to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine, or his conspiracy involvement.
The government's investigation utilized a reverse-sting operation involving a confidential informant (Cl), a large-scale drug dealer cooperating for judicial consideration, who indicated Patterson's interest in purchasing cocaine. A "flash" was orchestrated, where the Cl was provided real cocaine to display to Patterson.
On April 28, 2011, during their meeting in Baton Rouge, Patterson acted as a broker for other buyers and confirmed that one buyer was ready to proceed with the transaction. After discussions about the cocaine sale, Patterson and the Cl drove to a hotel parking lot to meet an undercover officer, Chico, who posed as the drug source. Chico handed Patterson a duffle bag containing approximately 12 kilograms of cocaine. Patterson tasted the substance, noting its numbing effect, and took a sample, which he pocketed. After approximately four minutes, he returned the bag to Chico, indicating he could move the cocaine quickly but preferred not to receive it all at once.
Patterson's buyer expressed interest in purchasing three or four kilograms of cocaine, with Patterson indicating a desire to acquire all available supply. During a conversation, Patterson confirmed that his buyer could quickly proceed with the purchase after verifying the quality of the first kilogram. Patterson suggested that both of his buyers could sell the drugs, and when the confidential informant (Cl) proposed splitting the purchase between two buyers, Patterson encouraged maximizing their order as long as they had sufficient funds.
Subsequent meetings and phone calls occurred, including a planned operation in Baton Rouge on May 13, 2011, aimed at identifying Patterson’s associates without using narcotics. During these interactions, Patterson confirmed his buyers' readiness and discussed quantities, indicating one buyer could take 30 kilograms weekly and had substantial cash available. Despite negotiations, Patterson's buyers expressed different purchasing capabilities, leading the Cl to doubt the completion of the transaction. Ultimately, Agent Busbin called off the operation due to safety concerns regarding the meeting location.
The Cl traveled back to Texas and received a call from Patterson indicating readiness to finalize a drug deal. Following instructions from Agent Busbin, the Cl returned to Baton Rouge equipped with audio and video recording devices. At approximately 5:30 P.M., he arrived at an apartment complex on Corporate Boulevard, where Patterson, Percy Dominick, James Williams, Roger Perkins, Rueben Crawford, and Clifford Honoré were present in multiple vehicles. Patterson provided the Cl with access codes and specified that the buyer would be by a white pickup truck.
Honoré, recruited by Dominick, had collected funds for the transaction, including a $20,000 loan from Perkins, a drug dealer who drove the pickup truck to the complex. When the Cl arrived in a minivan, Patterson indicated to Honoré that he should show the money to the Cl. However, upon approaching the minivan, the Cl panicked, prompting Honoré to return to the truck. After a second interaction with Patterson, Honoré attempted to show the Cl the money, but then returned to the truck. The Cl later informed surveilling officers that the money was in the white truck, leading to the arrest of the suspects. Honoré attempted to flee but was caught with $20,000 in cash and a gun, while Perkins had $2,791. Authorities seized a total of $22,791, with Agent Busbin believing that Patterson and his associates intended to purchase additional cocaine.
The document also discusses the legal standards for reviewing the case following Patterson's motion for a judgment of acquittal. The jury's verdict will be upheld if a reasonable jury could find the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, focusing on the evidence in favor of the verdict. To secure a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government must prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance with intent to distribute. For an attempt charge, the government must demonstrate that the defendant took a substantial step towards that goal. Conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires proof of an agreement to violate narcotics laws, the defendant's knowledge of that agreement, and voluntary participation, which can be inferred from circumstances. Furthermore, if a conspiracy involves a quantity of controlled substances that triggers enhanced penalties, the government must also prove this quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.
A fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence must be proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the government's inability to prove drug quantity does not affect the conviction, only the sentence. Patterson argues that he did not possess five kilograms or more of cocaine during a meeting on April 28, 2011, claiming he only briefly sampled 12 kilograms. His argument overlooks that he was charged alternatively with attempted possession of that quantity. Evidence showed Patterson took significant steps toward the purchase, including contacting a confidential informant (CI), arranging a meeting, discussing terms, and indicating he was ready to buy once financing was secured. A reasonable juror could conclude that the government met its burden of proof for attempted possession.
Regarding Count 2, Patterson claims insufficient evidence for conspiracy to possess five kilograms of cocaine on May 13, 2011, arguing the government did not prove an agreement on quantity or his ability to broker such a deal. However, he was aware the CI had 14 kilograms for sale and communicated that potential buyers were interested in large quantities, with sufficient funds available. Despite failing to finalize the purchase, this did not negate the evidence that he conspired to broker the deal. The court affirmed Patterson's convictions for both counts, noting that the evidence allowed a reasonable juror to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion is not published and does not serve as precedent except under specific circumstances.
In United States v. Valdez, the Fifth Circuit addressed issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence for convictions related to drug offenses. In Daniels, the court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences on a conspiracy count, remanding for resentencing, and noted the importance of precedents from Apprendi and Alleyne concerning sentencing guidelines. The government acknowledged insufficient evidence to convict Patterson of possession, referencing Delagarza-Villarreal, which stated that mere inspection of a controlled substance does not equate to possession if the individual did not purchase it. During a meeting, Patterson expressed intent to acquire cocaine, with a discussed price of $21,500 per kilogram for eight kilograms or more. For inchoate offenses, the drug quantity considered is based on the agreed amount rather than the quantity delivered.
