USA v. David Vaught

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-10110 Affirmed] Judge: JLW , Judge: EMG , Judge: ECP. Mandate pull date is 01/10/2011 for Appellant David Vaught [10-10110]

USA v. David Vaught ase: 10-10110 C

Document: 00511327384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
December 20, 2010 N o . 10-10110 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. D A V I D VAUGHT, also known as "Powder" D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:08-CR-170-7

B e fo r e WIENER, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D e f e n d a n t -A p p e lla n t David Vaught appeals his jury conviction for c o n s p ir a c y to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U .S .C . §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Here, among other facts, the

g o v e r n m e n t was required to prove the existence of a conspiratorial agreement b e tw e e n Vaught and at least one other person to distribute methamphetamine. W e review a jury verdict de novo, determining "whether a rational jury could h a v e found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-10110 Document: 00511327384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2010

No. 10-10110 e a c h element of the offense, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence a n d viewing all credibility determinations in the light most favorable to the v e r d ic t ." 1 A lt h o u g h there was no direct evidence of an express agreement between V a u g h t and others to distribute methamphetamine, we are convinced that the ju r y heard sufficient circumstantial evidence to find that such an agreement e x is t e d .2 There was testimony that Vaught purchased one or two pounds of m e t h a m p h e t a m in e from the Riojas family's illicit drug organization every week o v e r an extended period of time, that Vaught resold much of this m e t h a m p h e t a m in e in identified areas of Ft. Worth, that one or more of the R io ja s family members knew that some or most of the methamphetamine they t r a n s fe r r e d to Vaught was intended for resale and discussed with him the q u a n t it y sold, and that the Riojas organization would not sell methamphetamine t o customers from the areas where Vaught sold it. Viewed together in the light m o s t favorable to the jury verdict, this evidence is sufficient to support a rational ju r y 's conclusion that Vaught entered into an agreement, implicit if not express, t o distribute methamphetamine, thereby elevating his relationship with the R io ja s organization to that of a conspiracy, not merely that of buyer/seller as u r g e d by Vaught. Accordingly, his conviction and the district court's judgment b a s e d thereon are AFFIRMED.

1

United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 445 (5th Cir. 2002).

An agreement may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Reyes, 227 F.3d 263, 267 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 991 (5th Cir. 1990).

2

2