US v. Dewayne Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00006-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999954508].. [15-4518]

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEWAYNE RESHARD ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00006-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted:

October 20, 2016

Decided:

October 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. McAfee, TIMOTHY W. MCAFEE, PLLC, Big Stone Gap,
Virginia, for Appellant.
John P. Fishwisk, Jr., United States
Attorney,
Jennifer
R.
Bockhorst,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Dewayne

Reshard

Robinson

was

convicted

following

a

jury

trial of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute heroin (Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012); conspiracy to provide to an inmate and, while an inmate
of a prison, to obtain heroin (Count 2), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2012); and attempting to obtain heroin while an
inmate of a prison (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791
(2012).
terms

The district court sentenced him to three concurrent
of

challenges

132
the

months’

imprisonment.

district

court’s

On

denial

of

appeal,
his

Robinson

motion

for

judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence at trial
was insufficient to support his conviction for Count 1.

Finding

no error, we affirm.
We

review

the

district

court’s

judgment of acquittal de novo.
F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).

denial

of

a

motion

for

United States v. Jaensch, 665
We will uphold the conviction if

it is supported by substantial evidence, defined as “evidence
that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

302-03 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In

making this determination, we view the evidence and draw all
reasonable

inferences

in

the

light
2

most

favorable

to

the

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

Government.

Pg: 3 of 6

United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 148 (4th

Cir. 2016), cert. denied, __U.S.L.W.__, Nos. 16-5017/5018, 2016
WL

3552855,

2016

WL

3552857

(U.S.

Oct.

3,

2016).

We

must

“consider the evidence in cumulative context rather than in a
piecemeal fashion,” United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917,
922 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), and must
defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and resolution of
conflicting evidence, as those decisions “are within the sole
province

of

the

jury

and

are

not

susceptible

to

judicial

review,” Louthian, 756 F.3d at 303 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
evidence

“Appellate
will

be

failure is clear.”
(4th

Cir.

2015)

reversal

confined

to

on

grounds

cases

where

of
the

insufficient
prosecution’s

United States v. Fuertes, 805 F.3d 485, 502
(alterations

and

internal

quotation

marks

conspiracy

under

omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1220 (2016).
To

establish

guilt

of

a

narcotics

21 U.S.C. § 846, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt “(1) an agreement between two or more persons . . . to
distribute

or

possess

narcotics

with

intent

to

distribute;

(2) the defendant’s knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) the
defendant’s
conspiracy.”

knowing

and

voluntary

participation

in

the

United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 763 (4th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The gravamen of

a conspiracy “is an agreement to effectuate a criminal act.”
3

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
and

voluntary

agreement

“The presence of a knowing

distinguishes

conspiracy

from

the

completed crime and is therefore an essential element of the
crime of conspiracy.”
679 (4th Cir. 2011).

United States v. Hackley, 662 F.3d 671,
“Once the Government proves a conspiracy,

the evidence need only establish a slight connection between a
defendant and the conspiracy to support conviction.”
States

v.

Green,

599

F.3d

360,

367

(4th

Cir.

United

2010).

“The

Government is not required to prove that a defendant knew all
his co-conspirators or all of the details of the conspiracy;
moreover,

guilt

may

be

established

even

by

proof

defendant played only a minor role in the conspiracy.”

that

a

Id. at

367-68.
As

a

conspiracy

is,

by

its

nature,

“clandestine

and

covert,” it is generally proven through circumstantial evidence.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).

“Circumstantial evidence tending to prove a conspiracy

may consist of a defendant’s relationship with other members of
the conspiracy, the length of this association, the defendant’s
attitude

and

conduct,

and

the

nature

of

the

conspiracy.”

Yearwood, 518 F.3d at 226 (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted).
support

a

“While

circumstantial

conspiracy

conviction,
4

evidence
the

may

sufficiently

Government

nevertheless

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

must establish proof of each element of a conspiracy beyond a
reasonable doubt.”
On

appeal,

Burgos, 94 F.3d at 858.

Robinson

primarily

asserts

that

the

evidence

adduced at trial failed to establish either Robinson’s intent to
distribute
others

to

the

heroin

or

distribute

distribute.

an

and

agreement
possess

heroin

Robinson

with

intent

and
to

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find

Robinson’s arguments unpersuasive.
most

between

favorable

to

the

Rather, viewed in the light

Government,

the

evidence

at

trial

permitted the jury to reasonably infer that Robinson knew of,
agreed in, and coordinated details of Danielle Morris’ attempt
to smuggle heroin during a visit to Robinson at the prison where
he was housed as an inmate.

Evidence of Robinson’s gambling

habits and Morris’ involvement in transferring large amounts of
money to other inmates at Robinson’s direction, coupled with
testimony that gambling debts could be satisfied by smuggling
contraband, also provided support for the jury’s finding that
Robinson and Morris intended the heroin’s further distribution.
Recorded
Morris

tended

telephone
to

conversations

demonstrate

not

between
only

Robinson

Robinson’s

and

active

involvement in Morris’ smuggling attempt but also their shared
intent to redistribute the heroin.

This intent is evidenced

particularly strongly by a conversation in which they discussed
their

comparative

risks,

whether
5

unspecified

activity

was

Appeal: 15-4518

Doc: 38

Filed: 10/25/2016

sufficiently

lucrative

apparent

split

in

Although

Morris

subject

of

to

justify

profits

and

Pg: 6 of 6

based
did

comments,

these

Robinson

we

those

upon

risks,

those

not

relative

expressly

conclude

and

their
risks.

identify

the

jury

the

could

permissibly infer from this conversation, viewed in the context
of the remaining trial evidence, that the conversation referred
to

the

alleged

conspiracy.

Cf.

Hackley,

662

F.3d

at

680

(inferring conspiracy from single drug transaction based in part
on “cryptic conversation” between defendant and girlfriend).
Robinson
that

he

identifies

adduced

Government’s

at

case.

a

variety

trial

in

However,

of

an
the

circumstantial

attempt
jury

was

to

756 F.3d at 303.

undermine

not

resolve conflicting evidence in Robinson’s favor.

evidence

required

the
to

See Louthian,

Thus, we find no error in the district court’s

conclusion that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to

the

knowing

Government,
and

was

voluntary

sufficient

to

participation

establish
in

an

Robinson’s

agreement

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
6