US v. Daniel Blue

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00508-ELH-1. [999715844]. [13-4069, 15-4153]

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 29

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL BLUE,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL BLUE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00508-ELH-1)

Argued:

October 28, 2015

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

December 10, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 29

Reversed by published opinion. Senior Judge Hamilton wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Wynn joined.

ARGUED: Sapna Mirchandani, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
John Walter
Sippel, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public
Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

- 2 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 29

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
On appeal, Daniel Blue (Blue) challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his convictions on a single count of
possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and aiding and abetting
the same in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and a single count of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
100

grams

or

more

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846.

of

heroin

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

Blue also challenges the district court’s

denial of his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered
evidence.
Because

we

agree

with

Blue

that

the

evidence

is

insufficient to support his two convictions, we reverse both
convictions and do not reach Blue’s challenge to the district
court’s denial of his new trial motion.

I
A.

June 29, 2011.

Following his June 29, 2011 arrest on heroin distribution
and

firearm

(Fenner)

charges

agreed

(Detective

Bearde)

Gialamas) of
ongoing

to

the

heroin

in

Baltimore,

cooperate
and

with

Sergeant

Baltimore City

trafficking

Maryland,

Herbert

Fenner

Detective

William

Bearde

Marinos
Police

Gialamas

Department in their

investigation
- 3 -

(Sergeant

in

the

Baltimore

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

area.

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 4 of 29

As part of Fenner’s cooperation efforts, he identified

Keith Townsend of 715 North Curley Street, Baltimore City, as a
middleman from
occasions
grams

whom

earlier

he

the

had
same

respectively).

Detective Bearde

purchased
month

Armed

heroin

on

(purchasing

with

this

two

ten

new

separate

and

twenty

information,

and Sergeant Gialamas set up a

controlled

heroin buy targeting Townsend later the same day.
Sitting

in

a

vehicle

Curley Street, Sergeant
block

of

North

Curley

parked

Gialamas
Street

on

the

and

without

800

Fenner

block
viewed

obstruction.

of

North

the 700
Sergeant

Gialamas sat in the front driver’s seat, while Fenner sat in the
middle of the back seat leaning forward.

Detective Bearde sat

in the passenger front seat of the same vehicle, but his view of
the 700 block of North Curley Street was obstructed by another
vehicle

parked

directly

in

front

of

the

undercover

vehicle.

Then, following instructions, Fenner called Townsend on the
telephone
Townsend

and

placed

responded

an

that

order
he

would

for

fifty

be

grams

of

heroin.

ready

in

about

fifteen

minutes.
Several minutes later, Townsend walked out of his house and
interacted

for

less

than

a

minute

with

the

occupants

silver Lexus sport utility vehicle double parked on the
block of North Curley Street.

of a
700

During their interactions, which

included verbal communication, Townsend pulled his wallet out of
- 4 -

Appeal: 13-4069

his

Doc: 84

front

Filed: 12/10/2015

right

pants

pocket,

Pg: 5 of 29

opened

currency and handed it to the driver.
hands

were

partially

driver’s side.

inside

the

it,

removed

some

paper

At one point, Townsend’s

window

of

the

Lexus

on

the

From their location on the 800 block of North

Curley Street, Sergeant Gialamas and Fenner did not see anything
pass back to Townsend from any occupant of the Lexus.
Next, Townsend walked toward the corner of East Madison
Street

and

North

Curley

Street

approximately two minutes.

where

he

met

with

Blue

for

At the start of the meeting, Blue

had “a brownish-tannish item protruding from his left hand” in a
semi-closed fist.

(J.A. 407).

Blue and

Townsend then both

raised their left hands toward each other and lowered them back
down.

When Townsend lowered his left hand, he was holding an

item, which he promptly placed in his left front pants pocket.
When Blue lowered his left hand, it was empty.
Townsend
Curley

Street,

then

walked

while

toward

Blue

his

headed

in

residence
the

at

opposite

715

North

direction,

entered a gold Honda Accord, and drove away.

While walking,

Townsend

he

telephoned

Fenner

and

told

Townsend also asked Fenner’s location.
enter

his

residence,

an

arrest

team

him

that

was

ready.

As Townsend was about to
stopped

him,

placed

under arrest, and searched him incident to such arrest.

him

One of

the arresting officers found a plastic bag containing a folded
over slice of bread in Townsend’s front left pants pocket.
- 5 -

The

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 6 of 29

folded slice of bread concealed a plastic bag containing 49.87
grams of heroin.

A Baltimore City Police Department pole video

camera captured the meeting between Townsend and Blue on video
tape.
B.

July 13, 2011.

Fast forward two weeks to July 13, 2011.
McShane

(Detective

Department

McShane)

witnessed

Blue

of

the

enter

the

Detective James

Baltimore
Baltimore

City
City

Police
District

Courthouse of the District Court of Maryland, located at 1400
East North Avenue, Baltimore.

Detective McShane had previously

learned that Blue had a scheduled court proceeding that day.
While Blue was in the courthouse, an officer with the Baltimore
City Police Department hid a global positioning system (GPS)
tracking device

on

Blue’s

vehicle

parked

nearby.

When

Blue

later exited the courthouse and entered his vehicle along with a
male passenger, Detective McShane, driving an unmarked vehicle,
began

to

follow

Blue.

So

did

Detective

Bearde

and

another

officer, each driving separately in unmarked vehicles.
For
traveled

approximately
northbound

at

twenty
a

minutes

normal

Blue

rate

of

and

his

speed

passenger
past

Lake

Montebello until he pulled into the parking lot of the Fox Hall
apartment complex on Rosecrans Place in Nottingham, Maryland,
which is still in Baltimore County.

The Fox Hall apartment

complex consists of multiple apartment buildings, each containing
- 6 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 7 of 29

numerous individual apartments.
once parked.

Only Blue exited his vehicle

Blue then entered apartment building number seven

empty-handed and exited no more than five minutes later holding
a sandwich-sized, cloudy white, plastic container in his hand.
Blue then entered his vehicle and drove away.
Due
seven,

to

the

entered

the

configuration

surveilling

any

apartment

of

officers
in

apartment

could

apartment

not

building
see

building

number

whether
number

Blue

seven.

Rather, the surveilling officers saw Blue enter the front door
of apartment building number seven, go up a couple of steps, and
then disappear.
Detective McShane, Detective Bearde, and the third officer
took turns following Blue’s vehicle back to Lake Montebello in
Baltimore City and kept him under surveillance.

Lake Montebello

is a recreational area known for narcotics transactions.

Blue

parked and exited his vehicle with only his mobile phone in his
hand.

The same male passenger remained in Blue’s vehicle.

As

Blue walked across a playground, he approached an individual
later
walked

identified
toward

a

as
Jeep

Jamar

Holt (Holt).

Cherokee

vehicle.

Blue and Holt then
Blue

got

into

the

passenger side, Holt got into the driver’s side, and Holt drove
them around Lake

Montebello.

stopped the vehicle at the

A

minute

or

entrance to Lake

exited the vehicle, and Holt drove away.
- 7 -

two

later,

Holt

Montebello,

Blue

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 8 of 29

Detective McShane, Detective Bearde, and the third officer
followed Holt in their respective unmarked vehicles because they
suspected that Holt and Blue had just engaged in an illegal
narcotics transaction.

A short time later, the three officers

conducted a traffic stop of Holt’s vehicle after he ran a stop
sign.
front

Detective
and

McShane

ordered

him

approached

to

show

his

Holt’s

vehicle

hands.

The

from

the

encounter

immediately escalated to Holt pointing a handgun at Detective
McShane and then attempting to run him over.

Detective McShane

and the third officer discharged their weapons in the direction
of Holt.
speed.

Holt exited the scene unharmed at a high rate of
Although

the

quickly eluded them.
abandoned.
Later

officers

gave

chase

by

vehicle,

Holt

Holt’s vehicle was located one hour later

No firearms or illegal narcotics were found in it.
the

same

day,

the

GPS

tracking

device

on

Blue’s

vehicle revealed its whereabouts to be on the 4900 block of
Sinclair Lane, Baltimore City.

Detective Bearde, among other

officers, began surveilling the area.

When Detective Bearde

observed Blue exit the residence located at 4913 Sinclair Lane
and approach Blue’s vehicle, Detective Bearde alerted the arrest
team, which moved in to arrest Blue based upon Blue’s meeting
with Townsend on June 29, 2011.
After Detective Bearde read Blue his rights pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Blue acknowledged his
- 8 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 9 of 29

understanding of those rights and indicated that he wanted to
cooperate
Bearde,

nonetheless.
Blue

Sinclair

During

falsely

Lane

denied

earlier

his

interview

exiting

that

day

Baltimore City earlier that day.

and

the

with

Detective

residence

falsely

at

denied

4913

leaving

When informed that he had been

under surveillance earlier that day and had been seen entering
building

number

seven

of

the

Fox

Hall

apartment

complex

on

Rosecrans Place, which location is outside of Baltimore City,
Blue hung his head.

When asked about meeting with Holt earlier

that day, Blue admitted that he had met with Holt to discuss a
drug transaction that was to take place later that afternoon.
At this point, the interview ended.
During a search of Blue’s person incident to his arrest,
Detective Bearde recovered a set of keys.

Investigative work

revealed that one key of the set of keys unlocked the door of
apartment 1-D in building number seven of the Fox Hall apartment
complex

on

Rosecrans

Place

(the

Apartment).

After

officers

secured the Apartment, they obtained a search warrant to search
it for

evidence

of

narcotics

trafficking.

Execution

of

the

search warrant uncovered 108.6 grams of heroin, two scales with
heroin residue, and numerous empty plastic sandwich bags all
hidden

in

a

footstool

in

the

front

bedroom.

In

the

same

bedroom, officers found mail in the name of Tiffany Elliott and
women’s clothing.

Tiffany Elliott’s brother, Brandon Cooper,
- 9 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 10 of 29

was found sleeping in the back bedroom.
held mail addressed to Brandon Cooper.

The dining room table
The search uncovered no

evidence linking Blue to the Apartment, no evidence linking him
to the contents of the footstool, and no evidence linking him to
Tiffany Elliott or Brandon Cooper.
Law

enforcement

residence

at

4913

also

obtained

Sinclair

Lane.

a

search

Execution

warrant
of

for

such

the

warrant

found nothing to incriminate Blue of a crime.
C.

Procedural History.

A federal grand jury sitting in the District of Maryland
indicted Blue on three counts.

Count 1 alleged that, from in or

about June 2011 through in or about July 2011, Blue conspired
with Townsend and others to distribute and possess with intent
to

distribute

containing

a

100

Blue

or

detectable

§§ 841(a)(1), 846.
2011,

grams

more

amount

of
of

a

mixture

or

heroin.

substance
21

U.S.C.

Count 2 alleged that, on or about June 29,

possessed

with

intent

to

distribute

a

mixture

or

substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and aiding
and abetting the same.

18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Count 3 alleged that, on or about July 13, 2011, Blue possessed
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and aiding
and abetting the same.

Id.

- 10 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 11 of 29

Citing United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), Blue
moved to suppress the evidence derived from the GPS tracking
device placed upon his vehicle on July 13, 2011 (namely, his
statements to Detective Bearde and the key to the Apartment).
The

government

exclusionary
warrantless
vehicle

argued

rule

applied

placement

was

the

because

of

lawful.

good

the

The

faith

exception

to

the

officers

believed

that

the

GPS

tracking

district

device

court

agreed

on

Blue’s

with

the

government’s argument and, therefore, denied Blue’s motion to
suppress.
Blue’s jury trial spanned three days.
government’s
presented

prosecution

the

testimony

of
of

Blue
six

at

In support of the

trial,

witnesses

the

and

government

introduced

the

video surveillance tape of the June 29, 2011 meeting between
Blue

and

Townsend.

The

government

also

relied

upon

the

following three stipulations entered into between the government
and Blue:

(1) the heroin found on Townsend’s person on June 29,

2011 weighs 49.87 grams; (2) the heroin found in the footstool
in the front bedroom of the Apartment weighs 108.6 grams; and
(3)

no

fingerprints

were

found

on

containing the 108.6 grams of heroin.

the

clear

plastic

bag

Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 29, Blue moved for judgment of acquittal
on

all

counts

at

all

appropriate

times.

Believing

the

government made a strong case against Blue with respect to Count
- 11 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 12 of 29

2, the district court outright denied the motion with respect to
Count 2.
Blue’s

Believing Counts 1 and 3 to present close calls on

sufficiency

of

the

evidence

challenges,

the

district

court reserved ruling on the motion with respect to those counts
and let them go to the jury.
Using a special verdict form, the jury convicted Blue on
Counts 1 and 3, but acquitted him on Count 2.

Of relevance on

appeal, with respect to Count 1, the special verdict form first
asked whether the jury found Blue guilty or not guilty as to
“COUNT ONE (conspiracy to distribute heroin)[.]”

(J.A. 788).

It then stated that if the jury found Blue guilty as to Count 1,
the jury needed to make a finding as to the amount of heroin
involved

with

either

“100

grams

or

more”

or

“Less

than

grams” as the only two alternative options for an answer.

100
Id.

Of relevance on appeal, with respect to Count 3, the special
verdict form asked whether the jury found Blue guilty of “COUNT
THREE (possession with intent to distribute heroin on July 13,
2011)[.]”

(J.A. 789).

It then stated that if the jury found

Blue guilty as to Count 3, the jury needed to make a finding as
to the amount of heroin involved with either “100 grams or more”
or “Less than 100 grams” as the only two alternative options for
an answer.

Id.

With respect to Counts 1 and 3, the district court upheld
the jury’s verdict in the face of Blue’s motion for judgment of
- 12 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

acquittal,

Filed: 12/10/2015

although

the

Pg: 13 of 29

district

court

continued

to

believe

those counts presented close calls on the sufficiency of the
evidence.

In

this

regard,

the

district

court

was

“readily

satisfied that the evidence proved the existence of a conspiracy
regarding

heroin,”

but

believed

“whether

the

evidence

was

sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a conspiracy to
distribute 100 grams or more of heroin” was “[t]he difficult
question . . .” (J.A. 828), giving Blue “a very good appellate
issue,” (J.A. 870).
Following the entry of judgment in which the district court
sentenced Blue to 120 months’ imprisonment, Blue filed a timely
notice

of

appeal

challenging

the

denial

of

his

motion

to

suppress and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.
Then, on October 3, 2014, while Blue’s appeal was pending, he
moved

for

a

new

trial

discovered evidence.
motion,
interest

court
of

may

justice

on

Counts

1

and

3

based

upon

newly

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) (upon defense
vacate
so

judgment

requires).

and

grant

new

On

October

31,

trial

if

2014,

we

granted Blue’s unopposed motion to stay his appeal and remand
his case to the district court for consideration of his new
trial motion.

On remand, the district court denied the motion.

Blue noted a timely appeal of such denial.

We consolidated

Blue’s appeal from his judgment of conviction with his appeal
from the denial of his new trial motion.
- 13 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 14 of 29

II
For

analytical

purposes,

we

first

address

Blue’s

sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conviction on Count
3, alleging that, on or about July 13, 2011, Blue possessed with
intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of heroin and aiding and abetting
the

same.

In

this

count,

the

100

grams

or

more

of

heroin

pertains to the 108.6 grams of heroin found in the footstool
located in the front bedroom of the Apartment.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, our function is to determine, “viewing the evidence
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light
most favorable to the Government, whether the evidence adduced
at

trial

could

support

any

rational

beyond a reasonable doubt.”

determination

of

guilty

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d

849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Section 841(a) provides, in relevant part, that “it shall
be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally——(1) to
. . . possess with intent to . . . distribute . . . a controlled
substance

.

.

841(b)(1)(B)(i)

.

.”

permits

21
an

U.S.C.

enhanced

§

841(a)(1).

sentence

for

Section
an

offense

under § 841(a) involving “100 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of heroin . . . .”
- 14 -

Id.

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

§ 841(b)(1)(B)(i).

Pg: 15 of 29

Because the government prosecuted Blue under

a constructive possession theory with respect to the heroin at
issue in Count 3, the two critical issues at trial with respect
to this count were:
heroin

was

Apartment,

(1) whether Blue knew the 108.6 grams of

in

the

footstool

and

(2)

whether

in

Blue

the
had

dominion and control over such heroin.

front
the

bedroom

power

of

to

the

exercise

See United States v.

Bell, 954 F.2d 232, 235 (4th Cir. 1992) (constructive possession
requires knowledge of contraband’s presence and the exercise, or
the power to exercise, dominion and control over it), overruled
on other grounds by Burgos, 94 F.3d at 849; United States v.
Schocket,

753

constructive

F.2d

336,

possession

340
of

(4th
a

Cir.

narcotic

1985)
if

(“A

he

person

knows

of

has
its

presence and has the power to exercise dominion and control over
it.”).
mere

Notably, dominion and control cannot be established by

proximity

to

the

contraband,

by

mere

presence

on

the

property where the contraband is found, or by mere association
with the person who does control the contraband.

United States

v. Brown, 3 F.3d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v.
Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992).
joint

tenancy

of

a

residence

is

Moreover, “[m]ere

insufficient

to

prescribe

possession [of its contents] to all the occupants . . . .”
United States v. Morrison, 991 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 1993).
See also United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160, 1168 (8th Cir.
- 15 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 16 of 29

2014) (“[W]hen there is joint occupancy of a residence, dominion
over

the

premises

constructive

by

itself

possession.”).

is

insufficient

Rather,

establish

joint

“[i]n

to

occupancy

cases, there must be some additional nexus linking the defendant
to the contraband.”

Id.

Under these applicable legal parameters, the fact that Blue
possessed a key to the Apartment, entered the apartment building
containing the Apartment on July 13, 2011, stayed five minutes,
and exited with a sandwich-sized plastic container in his hand,
standing

alone,

is

insufficient

evidence

to

establish

his

constructive possession of the heroin found in the footstool in
the front bedroom of the Apartment.

The government concedes as

much, but nonetheless contends that, based upon the cumulative
facts presented during trial and the reasonable inferences to be
drawn
proved

therefrom
beyond

in
a

favor

of

reasonable

the
doubt

government,
that

Blue

the

government

constructively

possessed the 108.6 grams of heroin and other drug trafficking
paraphernalia found in the footstool in the front bedroom of the
Apartment.

In

this

regard,

the

government

points

to

following evidence and/or inferences from the evidence:
In Blue’s case, police observed Blue participate in a
50-gram
heroin
transaction
with
Townsend.
Approximately two weeks later, Blue drove past Lake
Montebello to the Rosecrans Place apartment building
and exited with a container in his hand.
Blue then
backtracked to Lake Montebello to discuss a drug
transaction with Jamar Holt that was to take place
later in the day. When detectives tried to stop Holt,
- 16 -

the

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 17 of 29

he brandished a firearm, inferring that he was
protecting and concealing something in his vehicle.
When Blue was arrested, he had [a] key to the
Rosecrans Place apartment, and lied about being at the
Rosecrans Place apartment in order to conceal the
large quantity of heroin and drug paraphernalia at the
apartment.
(government’s Br. at 38).
lack

of

any

personal

The government also argues that the

effects

of

Blue

in

the

consistent with Blue using it as a stash house.
government

points

Administration

to

Special

the

testimony

Agent

Todd

of

Apartment

In support, the

Drug

Edwards

is

Enforcement

(Special

Agent

Edwards), whom the district court qualified as an expert witness
in

the

manner

traffickers

and

means

sometimes

of

utilize

drug
the

trafficking,

homes

of

that

family

drug

members,

girlfriends, or close friends to stash their drugs so they have
ready

access

to

their

drugs,

“[b]ut

if

law

enforcement

following them back to where they sleep, it’s not there.”
602).

is

(J.A.

With respect to case law, the government relies heavily

on the following statement set forth in a footnote in the Eighth
Circuit’s Brett case: “[T]he holder of the key, be it to the
dwelling, vehicle or motel room in question, has constructive
possession of the contents therein.”

United States v. Brett,

872 F.2d 1365, 1369 n.3 (8th Cir. 1989).
In response to the government’s position, Blue emphasizes
the government presented no evidence connecting him to Tiffany
Elliot or Brandon Cooper, no evidence of him ever being present
- 17 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 18 of 29

inside the Apartment, and no evidence he had ever been to the
Fox

Hall

apartment

minutes.

complex

more

than

the

one

time

for

five

Under these circumstances, Blue argues the jury would

have to engage in impermissible speculation to conclude that he
knew about the heroin in the footstool in the front bedroom of
the Apartment and had dominion and control over it.
We hold the evidence presented by the government at trial,
viewed in the light most favorable to the government and drawing
all reasonable inferences therefrom in the government’s favor,
is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blue
constructively possessed the 108.6 grams of heroin found hidden
in the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment.
noted,

the

government

did

not

attempt

to

prove

As

constructive

possession of the heroin by proving that Blue resided or leased
the

Apartment,

or

that

any

of

located within the Apartment.

his

personal

possessions

were

Nor did the government introduce

any evidence supporting constructive possession of the heroin
based on Blue’s association with any of the occupants of the
Apartment.

The inference that Blue used the Apartment as a

stash house that the government wants us to draw from the fact
that

no

Apartment

personal
is

an

items

belonging

unreasonable

one

to

Blue

given

were

the

found

complete

in
lack

the
of

evidence establishing any connection to any of the occupants of
the Apartment.

The expert witness testimony by Special Agent
- 18 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 19 of 29

Edwards upon which the government relies to support its stashhouse inference hinges on one of the occupants of the Apartment
being a family member, girlfriend, or a close friend of Blue.
But the government introduced no such evidence that Blue even
knew, let alone had any such close relationship with any of the
occupants of the Apartment.

As such, there was no evidence here

from which the jury could reasonably infer that the Apartment
was

a

stash

house

about their use.

based

on

Special

Agent

Edwards’

testimony

Moreover, the fact that the sandwich-sized

plastic container Blue was seen carrying when he left apartment
building

number

seven

of

the

Fox

Hall

apartment

complex

was

never seen again rendered its existence of dubious probative
value.

Additionally, the government presented no evidence of

any connection between the heroin seized from Townsend to the
heroin or other drug-trafficking paraphernalia found hidden in
the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment.
At
number

most,
seven

Blue
of

the

was
Fox

observed
Hall

entering

apartment

apartment

complex

on

building
Rosecrans

Place empty-handed on July 13, 2011, leaving five minutes later
carrying a sandwich-sized plastic container never to be seen
again,

immediately

driving

to

meet

someone

with

whom

he

discussed a future drug transaction, and then, later the same
day,

falsely

denied

to

law

enforcement

officers

entered building number seven earlier that day.
- 19 -

that

he

had

Besides the

Appeal: 13-4069

key,

Doc: 84

the

Filed: 12/10/2015

government

Pg: 20 of 29

presented

no

other

evidence,

circumstantial, providing a nexus to the Apartment.
controlling

precedent

holding

such

little

direct

or

There is no

nexus

between

a

defendant and contraband found in a dwelling of joint occupancy
establishes constructive possession of the contraband and the
government has not convinced us there should be.

Cf. United

States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 699 (8th Cir. 2002) (dominion and
control

over

contraband

hidden

in

another’s

house

cannot

be

established by defendant’s mere access to and presence in such
house); Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697, 701-02 (4th Cir.
1992)

(concluding

insufficient

evidence

of

constructive

possession of drugs close by and in plain sight of defendant
because

record

lacked

evidence

that

defendant

resided

or

frequented the premises, he had no apparent relationship with
the tenant, he did not act suspiciously upon the police’s entry,
and there was no showing that he was alone with the drugs when
police entered the apartment).
Seemingly recognizing the weakness of its case with respect
to

showing

heroin

Blue

found

in

constructively

possessed

the

in

footstool

the

the

front

108.6

grams

bedroom

of

of
the

Apartment, the government wants us to rely upon Blue’s false
denial of having entered building number seven of the Fox Hall
apartment

complex

earlier

in

the

day

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finish line.
- 20 -

to

get

it

across

the

This piece of evidence

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 21 of 29

cannot bear the weight the government asks of it, however.
be

sure,

the

jury

was

free

to

consider

whether

To

Blue’s

consciousness of guilt led him to lie to law enforcement about
visiting

building

number

seven

of

the

Fox

Hall

apartment

complex.

Cf. United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 665 (4th Cir.

2001) (“It cannot be doubted that in appropriate circumstances,
a consciousness of guilt may be deduced from evidence of flight
and

that

a

jury’s

finding

consciousness of guilt.”).

of

guilt

may

be

supported

by

However, the inference of guilt in

Blue’s case was weakened by the fact that Blue also lied about
being at the Sinclair residence earlier the same day where no
contraband

was

found.

Additionally,

to

infer

Blue’s

constructive possession of the 108.6 grams of heroin found in
the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment based upon
his denial of visiting building number seven of the Fox Hall
apartment

complex

earlier

that

day

is

too

tenuous

to

be

reasonable in light of the complete lack of evidence of his
connection to any of the occupants in the Apartment.
The district court in the present case gave such deceptive
behavior
United

on

Blue’s

States

v.

part

Whitner,

considerable
219

F.3d

importance,
289

(3d

Cir.

relying

on

2000),

to

observe that “‘suspicious and deceptive response to questioning
leads to a reasonable inference that Whitner was attempting to
conceal the existence of the apartment and [his] association
- 21 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

with the apartment.’”
299).

Pg: 22 of 29

(J.A. 875) (quoting Whitner, 219 F.3d at

But Whitner addressed a motion to suppress and whether

deceptive responses gave rise to probable cause to search the
residence at issue.
not

at

supply

issue

Whitner, 219 F.3d at 299.

here.

probable

Here,

cause

Blue’s

to

get

deceptive

the

That analysis is
responses

warrant

to

helped

search

the

Apartment, but such standard only requires a fair probability on
which reasonable and prudent persons act.
133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055 (2013).
U.S.

213,

235

(1983)

Florida v. Harris,

See also Illinois v. Gates, 462

(“Finely-tuned

standards

such

as

proof

beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence,
useful in formal trials, have no place in [a probable cause]
decision” because probable cause is “only the probability, and
not

a

prima

facie

showing,

quotation marks omitted)).
deceptive

responses

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
knowledge

of

the

of

criminal

activity.”

(internal

The question here is whether Blue’s

get

the

finish

presence

of

line
the

government
that
108.6

Blue

past
not

grams

the

only
of

had

heroin

discovered in the footstool in the Apartment’s front bedroom,
but also that he had dominion and control over it at the time of
its seizure.

We hold they do not.

We now turn to briefly address the government’s reliance on
the following statement in footnote 3 of the Eighth Circuit’s
Brett case: “[T]he holder of [a] key, be it to the dwelling,
- 22 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 23 of 29

vehicle or motel room in question, has constructive possession
of the contents therein.”

Brett, 872 F.2d at 1369 n.3.

government’s reliance is misplaced.

The

First, no Fourth Circuit

case has adopted this overly broad statement as the law of the
Fourth Circuit.
Circuit

case

narcotics
reside.

are
See

residence

is

Second, the statement conflicts with our Fourth
law

analyzing

discovered

in

F.3d

a

place

possession

where

multiple

where
persons

Morrison, 991 F.2d at 115 (mere joint tenancy of
insufficient

to

contents to all occupants).
739

constructive

1160,

1168

prescribe

possession

of

its

Third, in United States v. Wright,

(8th

Cir.

2014),

the

Eighth

Circuit

necessarily qualified its broadly worded statement in footnote 3
of Brett by rejecting the government’s argument in Wright that
the defendant’s possession of a key to the home, by itself,
proved he knowingly possessed cocaine found in the southeast
bedroom of the home.

In this regard, the Eighth Circuit cited

its earlier decision in United States v. Wajda, 810 F.2d 754,
762 (8th Cir. 1987), for the proposition that “when there is
joint occupancy of a residence, dominion over the premises by
itself

is

insufficient

to

establish

constructive

possession.”

Wright, 739 F.3d at 1168.
And

lest

there

be

any

doubt

about

the

Wright

panel’s

qualification of the statement at issue in footnote 3 of Brett,
Chief Judge Riley wrote a concurring opinion in Wright to make
- 23 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 24 of 29

clear that the government’s reading of the Brett footnote “is
untenable” because whether the defendant had knowledge that the
drugs were in the dwelling was not at issue in Brett.
1174.

Id. at

Thus, Chief Judge Riley explained, “the Brett court’s

reference to ‘the holder of the key’ related only to what was at
issue:

whether

the

government

had

proved

dominion and control over the contraband.”

the
Id.

defendant’s
Chief Judge

Riley then went on to explain that, “[o]n casual reading,” some
Eighth Circuit “post-Brett cases might appear inconsistent with
Wajda,

but

a

contextual

reading

of

these

cases’

cursory

references to the Brett footnote demonstrate” that the Eighth
Circuit

“has

never

allowed

the

government

to

convict

an

individual for drugs he knew nothing about based solely upon his
possession of a duplicated key.”

Wright, 739 F.3d at 1175 n.4.

In sum, because the government failed to present sufficient
evidence to sustain Blue’s conviction on Count 3 for possession
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin on July
13, 2011, we reverse his conviction.

III
We now turn to address Blue’s challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his conviction on Count 1, charging
him under

21

U.S.C.

§ 846

with

conspiracy

to

distribute

and

possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of a mixture
- 24 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 25 of 29

or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin from in or
about June 2011 through in or about July 2011, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Section 846 provides that “[a]ny person

who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this
subchapter

shall

prescribed

for

be

the

subject
offense,

to

the

the

commission

object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

same

penalties
of

as

which

those

was

the

21 U.S.C. § 846.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support
Blue’s

conspiracy

conviction,

our

function

is

to

determine,

“viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government, whether
the

evidence

adduced

at

trial

could

support

any

determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

rational

Burgos, 94

F.3d at 863 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In

the

present

case,

viewing

the

evidence

and

the

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the government, such evidence fails to support a
rational

determination

that

Blue

is

guilty

of

conspiring

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 100
grams of heroin.

The only way the government can reach the

at-least-100-gram mark is by tying Blue and at least one other
person to an agreement to distribute the 108.6 grams of heroin
found in the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment.
As

we

explained

at

length

in

Part

- 25 -

II

of

this

opinion,

the

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 26 of 29

government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond
a

reasonable

doubt

that

Blue

even

knew

about

such

heroin.

Additionally, the government failed to present any evidence of
what type of relationship, if any, Blue, Townsend, or Holt may
have had with one or more of the Apartment’s occupants.

In

other words, the jury had no evidence before it from which to
draw a reasonable inference that Blue conspired with another to
distribute or possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or
more of heroin.

Accordingly, we reverse Blue’s conviction on

Count 1.
One

final

issue——in

a

single

footnote

in

its

appellate

brief in the present case, the government cites United States v.
Hickman,

626

F.3d

756

(4th

Cir.

2010),

in

support

of

its

position that, in the event we find the evidence before the jury
insufficient

to

sustain

Blue’s

conviction

for

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or
more

of

heroin,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§

841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B)(i), we should instruct the district court to enter
judgment

on

the

lesser

included

offense

of

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than 100
grams

of

(b)(1)(C).

heroin,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§

841(a)(1),

We decline to do so because “[t]o do otherwise would

be to usurp the jury’s institutional function in the criminal

- 26 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 27 of 29

justice system——to determine the facts.”

Thornton v. Texas, 425

S.W.3d 289, 299 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
While we acknowledge that “it is within our power to direct
entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a
greater offense for insufficient evidence,” Hickman, 626 F.3d at
770,

“courts

of

reformation

to

conviction

for

appeals

those
a

should

limit

circumstances

lesser

offense

the

when
whose

what

use
is

of

sought

commission

established from facts that the jury actually found.”
425 S.W.3d at 298-99.
such

that

we

judgment
is

can

a
be

Thornton,

Here, the evidence presented at trial was

cannot

know

the

jury

actually

found

Blue

participated in the charged conspiracy apart from also finding
the conspiracy involved the 100 grams or more of heroin found in
the footstool and charged in Count 3.
By finding Blue entered into an agreement with at least one
other person to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
100 grams or more of heroin, based upon the evidence presented
at trial, the jury necessarily found the conspiracy involved the
108.6

grams

of

heroin

found

bedroom of the Apartment.

in

the

footstool

in

the

front

Because the jury would have needed to

go no further in its findings to convict Blue of Count 1, we
cannot conclude with any assurance that the jury actually found
Blue had conspired with another to distribute or possess with

- 27 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 28 of 29

intent to distribute any other heroin besides the 108.6 grams
found in the footstool in the front bedroom of the Apartment.
Notably, from the evidence presented at trial in Hickman,
in

which

case

we

vacated

the

defendant’s

conviction

for

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
more than one kilogram of heroin for lack of sufficient evidence
and remanded the case to the district court with directions to
enter judgment on the lesser included offense of conspiracy to
distribute or possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or
more of heroin, we knew the jury actually found the defendant
participated

in

a

conspiracy

to

distribute

and

possess

intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin.

with

Here, in

material contrast, we do not know and cannot know whether the
jury

found

Blue

guilty

beyond

a

reasonable

element of the lesser included offense.

doubt

of

every

Accordingly, judgment

reformation is inappropriate in the present case.

IV
In

conclusion,

we

hold

insufficient

Blue’s convictions on Counts 1 and 3.

evidence

supports

Accordingly, we reverse

both convictions. ∗

∗

We note that Blue initially challenged on appeal the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence
discovered as the result of the GPS tracking device placed on
(Continued)
- 28 -

Appeal: 13-4069

Doc: 84

Filed: 12/10/2015

Pg: 29 of 29

REVERSED

his vehicle.
He has since, however, withdrawn such challenge
because he agrees that our decision in United States v.
Stephens, 764 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
43 (2015), precludes relief on that issue in his case.
- 29 -