US v. Jason Saunder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999916184]. [15-4651]

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASON MARVIN SAUNDERS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-1)

Submitted:

July 22, 2016

Decided:

August 24, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Rodolfo Cejas, II,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney,
Alexandria,
Virginia,
Andrew
Bosse,
Joseph
E.
DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 11

PER CURIAM:
Jason Saunders was indicted on eleven counts of various
drug and firearm offenses.
the

eleven

counts

and

A jury convicted Saunders on ten of

the

480 months’ imprisonment.

district

court

sentenced

him

to

Saunders raises two issues on appeal.

First, Saunders challenges two of his convictions: (1) one count
of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and (2) one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of

18

U.S.C.

§

922(g)(1).

He

argues

that

the

government

presented insufficient evidence to prove the possession element
of those offenses.

Second, he contends that the district court

erred by providing an incomplete jury instruction regarding coconspirator liability, otherwise known as Pinkerton liability.
For

the

reasons

that

follow,

we

conclude

that

the

jury

had

sufficient evidence to convict Saunders on the relevant charges,
and that the district court did not err by giving an incomplete
jury instruction.

We therefore affirm.

I.
A.
On February 6, 2014, police executed a search warrant at an
apartment

Saunders

manufacturing

and

and

his

brother

distribution.
2

used

as

Saunders,

a
his

base

for

brother,

drug
his

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 3 of 11

associates, several drug customers, and the man who owned the
apartment were present before and during the raid.

Detective

Ken Adams led a group of officers through the back entrance of
the house.

Before Adams and his team could secure the back

door, Saunders’s brother and two other occupants had run out of
it.

Adams

and

his

team

of

officers

apprehended

Saunders’s

brother, but were unable to catch the other escapees.

Adams

then entered the house through the back door, which opened into
the kitchen.
Police had already secured the house when Adams entered the
kitchen, where he found Saunders and another man lying face-down
in handcuffs on the floor.
seven

by

twelve

feet.

The kitchen was small, approximately
Adams

saw

a

black

handgun

next

to

Saunders’s left foot, and a plastic bag containing individual
capsules of heroin to the right of his feet.

In addition to the

handgun, police found multiple bags of cocaine and an assortment
of

other

distribute

drugs,
drugs,

along

with

including

tools
a

used

cutting

to

manufacture

agent,

and

Pyrex-type

glassware, strainers, a digital scale topped with rocks of crack
cocaine, and sandwich bags.
Police discovered another handgun under a couch cushion in
the living room, along with various drugs and a digital scale.
Saunders was arrested after the raid, but was later released on

3

Appeal: 15-4651

bond.

Doc: 38

He

Filed: 08/24/2016

resumed

selling

Pg: 4 of 11

drugs

shortly

thereafter

and

was

arrested again on August 23, 2014.
B.
On January 7, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Saunders
on eleven counts of various drug and firearm offenses.

Saunders

moved for a judgment of acquittal on two counts under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)

and 922(g)(1),

contending

that

the

government

failed to prove that he possessed a firearm during the police
raid conducted on February 6, 2014.
The district court denied the motion, finding that the jury
could determine the question of possession based upon evidence
presented by the government at trial.

That evidence included

testimony that: (1) Saunders, his brother, and his associates
participated in multiple drug transactions where they possessed
and revealed firearms to their buyers, J.A. 113-18; (2) Saunders
typically manufactured and sold drugs while in possession of a
firearm,

J.A.

269,

274-75;

(3)

Saunders

sold

drugs

to

approximately four people in the hour preceding the police raid,
and that he conducted his business from the kitchen, where he
and the firearm were discovered.

J.A. 271; and (4) the firearm

Saunders carried resembled the one found at the scene, J.A. 157.
The jury convicted Saunders on the charges in question and
the district court sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment.
This appeal timely followed.
4

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 5 of 11

II.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a
Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.
Smith,

451

challenges
whether

F.3d
to

“any

209,

the

216

(4th

sufficiency

rational

trier

Cir.
of

of

the

United States v.

2006).

When

evidence,

fact

could

reviewing

we

have

determine
found

the

essential elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable
doubt.”

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

A

jury’s verdict must be upheld if there is substantial evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support
it.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1979).

consider

circumstantial

and

direct

evidence,

and

We must

“allow

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences.”
States

v.

Tresvant,

(citations omitted).

677

F.2d

1018,

1021

(4th

the

United

Cir.

1982)

We have held that uncorroborated testimony

of a single witness may be sufficient evidence, even if that
witness is an accomplice or an informant.

See United States v.

Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1189-90 (4th Cir. 1997).

In light of

these considerations, “[a] defendant challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
This
instruction

court

reviews

failed

to

de

novo

correctly

the
state

claim
the

that

a

jury

applicable

law.

United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 351 (4th Cir. 2012).
5

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 6 of 11

Saunders did not raise his objection to the district court’s
instruction before the jury began its deliberation; therefore,
this court’s review is for plain error.

See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); see also Fed. R. Crim. P.
30(d), 52(b).

This court has discretion to correct a forfeited

error if it is “plain” and “affects substantial rights.”
We

first

challenge

address

to

922(g)(1).

his
We

Saunders’s

sufficiency

convictions

then

address

under

of

the

Id.
evidence

§§ 924(c)(1)(A)

Saunders’s

challenge

to

and
the

completeness of the district court’s jury instruction.
A.
Saunders

appeals

his

convictions

§§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 922(g)(1).

under

18

U.S.C.

For the reasons stated below, we

find that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to
find constructive possession of the firearm.
Both offenses have an element of possession that must be
proved

beyond

a

reasonable

doubt

sufficient.

See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 342-43

actual

possession;

The

constructive

government

therefore,

set

the

forth
issue

to

be

for

2008).

necessary

can

conviction

possession;

not

defendant

Actual

Cir.

is

a

convicted.

(4th

possession

before

sustain

possession

no
is

a
is

evidence

for

whether

the

government presented sufficient evidence such that any rational

6

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 7 of 11

trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Saunders
constructively possessed the firearm.
Constructive

possession

exists

when

the

defendant

exercises, or has the power to exercise, dominion and control
over the item.

See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134,

137 (4th Cir. 2001).

Constructive possession may be proved by

either

or

circumstantial

direct

evidence.

United

Laughman, 618 F.2d 1067, 1077 (4th Cir. 1980).

States

v.

Furthermore, a

jury “[may] consider proximity as part of [its] analysis of a
defendant’s

constructive

Schrader,

675

F.3d

proximity

alone

possession.”

300,

308-09

(4th

not

enough

to

is

dominion or control over an item.
Rather,

“where

sufficiently

other

probative,

United
Cir.

States

2012).

determine

a

v.

However,
defendant’s

Laughman, 618 F.2d at 1077.

circumstantial
proximity

to

evidence
contraband

.

.

coupled

.

is
with

inferred knowledge of its presence will support a finding of
guilt.”

Id. (quoting United States v. Whitmire, 595 F.2d 1303,

1316 (5th Cir. 1979)).
Here, the government points to Saunders’s close proximity
to

the

evidence

firearm,
to

as

prove

well

as

other

possession.

direct
At

and

trial,

circumstantial
the

government

introduced four cooperating witnesses who described the way that
Saunders

conducted

drug-related

activities.

Testimony

by

a

regular buyer placed Saunders and his associates at multiple
7

Appeal: 15-4651

drug

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

transactions

Saunders’s

where

associates

Pg: 8 of 11

they

possessed

testified

that

firearms.

Saunders

One

would

of

typically

manufacture and sell drugs while in possession of a firearm.
The associate also revealed that Saunders was in the kitchen
selling drugs on the night of February 6, and that he had sold
to

approximately

raid.

four

individuals

in

the

hour

preceding

the

Finally, another regular buyer testified that the firearm

found at the scene resembled one Saunders typically carried.
Despite

this

evidence,

Saunders

takes

issue

with

the

government’s heavy reliance on his proximity to the firearm.

He

contends

of

that,

because

the

government

presented

a

“lack

evidence concerning just how [he] came to be on the ground . . .
the probative value of [his] proximity to the gun is minimal at
best.”

Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 4.

Saunders also takes issue

with the number of individuals found at the scene during the
raid, contending that “the gun could have been dropped by any
number of people present or fleeing the apartment.”
Supp.

Br.

at

circumstances,

6.
the

Saunders
jury

would

argues

have

to

that,
rely

on

Appellant’s
under

these

impermissible

speculation to conclude that he knew about the firearm in the
kitchen and had dominion and control over it.
Saunders’s
evidence
nexus

arguments

presented

between

at

ignore

Saunders’s

habit
8

importance

Trial

trial.

the

testimony

of

gun

of

the

other

established

possession

and

a

his

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 9 of 11

involvement in drug-related activities.

It follows, therefore,

that the jury could reasonably conclude that as Saunders was
selling drugs on February 6, while surrounded by tools used to
manufacture drugs and associates who helped him sell drugs, that
he was aware of the firearm’s presence in the apartment.

It is

true that the government relied heavily on Saunders’s proximity
to

the

firearm

to

prove

its

case,

despite

describing how that proximity was created.

limited

evidence

However, as noted

above, proximity to a firearm coupled with inferred knowledge of
its presence can support a finding of guilt.
at 1077.

Laughman, 618 F.2d

The jury’s determination of guilt need not be reversed

because of the government’s heavy reliance on proximity, as the
jury

could

constructively

have

reasonably

possessed

the

concluded

firearm

in

that

light

of

Saunders
testimony

brought by the government at trial.
In

sum,

the

district

court

correctly

denied

Saunders’s

motion for judgment of acquittal on the two counts, because the
government presented sufficient evidence allowing the jury to
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Saunders constructively
possessed

the

firearm

found

at

the

apartment

on

February

6,

2014.
B.
Next, we address Saunders’s claim that the district court
erred

in

giving

an

incomplete
9

instruction

on

Pinkerton

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

liability.

Filed: 08/24/2016

Here,

we

must

Pg: 10 of 11

determine

if

the

jury

instruction

contained a plain error, and if so, how to correct it.

For the

reasons stated below, we find no error.
“[T]o

reverse

for

plain

error

the

reviewing

court

must

(1) identify an error, (2) which is plain, (3) which affects
substantial

rights,

fairness,

and

integrity

proceedings.”

(4)

or

which

public

seriously

affects

reputation

of

the

judicial

United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1434-35

(4th Cir. 1993).

This court rarely finds plain error, reserving

such analysis for those circumstances “in which a miscarriage of
justice would otherwise result.”

United States v. Young, 470

U.S. 1, 15 (1985); accord United States v. Jarvis, 7 F.3d 404,
410

(4th

Cir.

proceedings,

1993).

taken

as

“[O]nly
a

if

in

the

whole,

the

error

context
.

.

.

of

the

seriously

affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the
judicial proceedings should we exercise our discretion . . . to
notice it.”

United States v. Cedelle, 89 F.3d 181, 184-85 (4th

Cir. 1996).
Here, we have already held that the government presented
sufficient

evidence

for

the

jury

to

liability based on constructive possession.
challenge

the

instruction
because

the

district

regarding
jury

could

court’s

reasonably

Saunders’s

Saunders does not

administration

constructive

10

consider

of

possession.
conclude

that

the

jury

Therefore,
Saunders

Appeal: 15-4651

Doc: 38

constructively
consider

Filed: 08/24/2016

possessed

Pinkerton

the

Pg: 11 of 11

firearm,

liability.

Even

if

there
the

is

no

jury

need

to

instruction

demonstrates a plain error, we decline to notice it because it
did not affect “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
the

judicial

proceedings”

in

the

district

court.

Cedelle,

89 F.3d at 184-85.

III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
decision and find that it did not err by giving an incomplete
jury instruction.
facts

are

We dispense with oral argument because the

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

11