USA v. Danny Thompson

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey, David W. McKeague, and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-5525

Document: 18-1

Filed: 02/26/2015

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0156n.06
No. 14-5525
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANNY O’NEAL THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Feb 26, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Danny O’Neal Thompson, a federal prisoner, appeals through counsel
his 2014 conviction of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, for which he was
sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment.
Thompson’s conviction was the result of a jury trial. Police officers testified that they
used a paid informant to conduct a purchase of cocaine base. The informant made a phone call
to a possible source, who told him that his cousin would sell him the drugs. The informant
arranged to meet the cousin on the steps of an apartment complex.

The police gave the

informant the money to make the purchase and equipped him with a video camera in his shirt
button. The video showed Thompson drive up to the apartments in his car. The informant
briefly got into the car, and Thompson is seen sitting in the car holding money in his hand.
Another man came up to the driver’s window and got a cigarette from Thompson.

The

informant exited and stopped to talk to another party who arrived in a car. The informant then

Case: 14-5525

Document: 18-1

Filed: 02/26/2015

Page: 2

No. 14-5525
United States v. Thompson
returned to the meeting place with the police and was found to possess cocaine base, but not the
money supplied by the police for the purchase. The informant testified that he purchased the
cocaine base from Thompson.
Thompson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. When
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Avery, 128 F.3d 966, 971 (6th Cir. 1997).
Here, the jury could have believed the informant’s testimony that he purchased the cocaine base
from Thompson. The testimony was partially corroborated by the video. A rational trier of fact
could conclude that Thompson sold the informant the drugs because he allowed him into his car
briefly and was seen sitting in the car holding money in his hand. Thompson points out that the
informant was paid to conduct the transaction and had an extensive criminal record. The jury
was informed of these facts. Essentially, Thompson is attacking the credibility of the informant,
which is a challenge to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence. See United States v.
Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408, 424 (6th Cir. 1999).
The record shows that Thompson’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-2-