US v. Charlie Emanuel, No. 11-4688 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHARLIE EMANUEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00307-JRS-2) Submitted: May 10, 2012 Decided: May 29, 2012 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, N.G. Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlie Emanuel appeals the sixty-month sentence imposed following his jury convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (Count Six); two counts of possession with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), 21 distribution U.S.C. of § 841(a)(1) cocaine (Counts base and Seven aiding and and Eight); and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Nine). On appeal, Emanuel argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence to be sufficient, we affirm. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th evidence de novo. Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 617 (2010). We will uphold the jury verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support it. United States 2006). v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could conclusion doubt. accept as of defendant s a adequate and sufficient guilt beyond to support a a reasonable United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 In resolving issues of substantial evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess the factfinder s determination of witness credibility and must assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in See United States v. testimony in favor of the Government. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008). To obtain a conviction for a drug conspiracy, the Government must prove the following elements: (1) an agreement between two or more people to distribute the drug or possess it with the intent to distribute; (2) the defendant s knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) his knowing, voluntary participation in the conspiracy. Cir. 2010). United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy without knowing all of its details and even if he plays only a minor role. Id. at 367-68; United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). To establish possession with intent to distribute, the Government must show (1) possession of the controlled substance; (2) knowledge of the possession; and (3) intent to distribute. United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257, 267 n.10 (4th Cir. 2009). Possession may be actual or constructive. States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992). may have constructive ownership, dominion, premises or or vehicle possession control in of over which 3 contraband the the United A person if he has contraband or the contraband was United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352, 358 (4th concealed. Cir. 2010). To establish an aiding and abetting charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2, knowingly the [G]overnment associated must himself show with and that the defendant participated in the criminal venture. United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 (4th To Cir. 2009). participation in every be convicted of stage of an participation at some aiding illegal and abetting, venture not required, only knowledge of result. United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d 701, 705 (4th the result and intent stage is to accompanied bring about by that Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Finally, to establish distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally distributed a controlled substance. United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.2d 220, 227 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s determination of guilt beyond evidence a showed reasonable that doubt Emanuel on all opened up four his counts. home for The drug transactions, acted as a middleman in contacting dealers for customers, and transactions. was present for and participated in the Although Emanuel testified to the contrary, we 4 will not determinations. second-guess the jury s credibility See Brooks, 524 F.3d at 564. Thus, we affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
