US v. Shawndale Saunders, No. 08-5109 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-4104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH M. KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JES-1; 5:08-cr00026-FPS-JES-2) Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. December 8, 2009 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elgine H. McArdle, Wheeling, West Virginia; Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Randolph J. Bernard, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Shawndale D. Saunders and Joseph M. King of aiding distribute and abetting marijuana, in the possession violation (b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). of the evidence. 21 U.S.C. intent § 841(a)(1), King received an eighteen- Both appeal, challenging the sufficiency Saunders also challenges the district court s admission of rebuttal evidence about his banking records. contends that to The district court sentenced Saunders to 100 months in prison. month prison sentence. of with the district court erred by granting King the Government s for-cause strike to remove King s uncle from the jury panel. We affirm. This case arose from the postal delivery of a package containing 9.65 pounds of marijuana to Street in Wheeling, West Virginia. fictitious Arizona return address, house on McColloch The package, which had a was Tompkins at the McColloch Street address. 27, to arrive the next day. a addressed to Michael It was mailed March Postal agents in Arizona suspected the package contained contraband and alerted their counterparts in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. received the Law package and enforcement opened it, officials in finding the marijuana tightly packed and concealed in a plastic container. After examining the package, postal 3 authorities repacked the marijuana 1 and set up a controlled delivery to the McColloch Street address. At the time of the delivery, no one was living at the house. The owner, Crystal Smith, was allowing Saunders to renovate the house in exchange for an eventual discount on the rent. Saunders had shoes, dry-cleaned clothes, and receipts in the house. Saunders afternoon of and March King 28 and arrived checked at the the house mailbox. on the Finding it empty, the two left and immediately returned after driving past a postal truck. King then signed a false name to receive the package of marijuana, with Saunders in the room. the package to the basement. a beeper alerted law King carried As King began opening the package, enforcement officials, execute an anticipatory search warrant. who entered to During their search, the agents discovered, among other things, a digital scale, and bank records belonging to Saunders. The agents Saunders, who had with him over $1600 in cash. arrested During a second sweep of the home, the authorities found King hiding in the darkened basement, near the package of marijuana. On this evidence, as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses, the jury convicted King and Saunders, who now appeal. 1 The authorities were only able to put seven pounds of marijuana back in the container. 4 A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1690 (2008). This court reviews such a challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We review both direct and circumstantial evidence, and we accord the Government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). In order to prove aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute marijuana, the Government must show the Defendants: (1) possessed marijuana, (2) had knowledge of the possession, and (3) intended to distribute the marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999). Viewing the evidence and drawing inferences most favorable to the Government, a reasonable juror certainly could have found the Defendants guilty. Direct and circumstantial evidence supported that expected to receive the a allegation package 5 containing Saunders and marijuana at King the McCulloch Street house on March 28, and that they intended to distribute the marijuana within. to counter this evidence. Defendants presented testimony King claimed he did not know what was in the package, but simply hoped to steal some clothing. also claimed arrived. Saunders was in the bathroom when the King package King further testified that the two returned to the house because Saunders had to use the restroom, not because they spotted the mail truck. But clearly, the jury could have chosen to discount this self-serving testimony. 2 Saunders also claims the court erred rebuttal testimony about his banking records. in admitting We review the district court s decision to admit rebuttal evidence for abuse of discretion. Cir. 2003). offering United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 330 (4th At trial, Saunders accounted for his income by testimony from an insurance agent, who Saunders had money from a personal injury claim. stated that The Government rebutted this testimony by resort to Saunders bank records. The Government s rebuttal evidence 2 was both relevant and The Defendants rely on United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 1091 (4th Cir. 1984), in support of their assertion that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to the marijuana. The case at hand, however, involves significantly more evidence that the Defendants were knowing participants in the receipt of contraband. 6 properly introduced. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to consider it. King also challenges the district court s decision to strike his uncle from the venire. A reviewing court will not overturn a trial judge s decision to remove a juror for cause absent a manifest abuse of . . . discretion. Ratcliff, 874 F.2d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 1989). Poynter v. The district court struck King s uncle after the uncle said that a guilty verdict might upset his wife and his sister-in-law. family relationship and the risk King s Given the close uncle could not be impartial, the district court did not err. We sentences. legal before affirm and King s convictions and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the Saunders court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
