US v. Joseph Mann, No. 12-4103 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4103 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH EMMANUEL MANN, a/k/a Cass Musa, a/k/a Musa Kofi, a/k/a Mike Mann, a/k/a Big Mike, a/k/a Knot Musa, a/k/a Kofi Musa, a/k/a Gilbert S. Batten, a/k/a Joseph Emmanual Mann, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00341-TSE-1) Submitted: September 20, 2012 Decided: October 3, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellant. Lauren I. Dubick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Joseph Emmanuel Mann was convicted of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 imprisonment. (2006), and was sentenced to 108 months of In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mann s attorney has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Mann s conviction. Although notified of his right to do so, Mann has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After careful review of the record, we affirm Mann s conviction and sentence. To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 846, the Government must prove: (1) an agreement between at least two people to engage in conduct that violates federal drug law; (2) the defendant s defendant s knowledge knowing, of this voluntary conspiracy; participation in and it. States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367-68 (4th Cir. 2010). (3) the United Once a conspiracy is proven, the evidence need only establish a slight connection between a defendant and the conspiracy to support conviction. Id. at 367. Further, because a conspiracy is by its nature clandestine and covert, it is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Evidence tending to prove a conspiracy may 2 include a defendant s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, and the existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances. 858 (internal quotation marks omitted). seller relationship is relevant to Id. at Evidence of a buyer- the issue of whether a conspiratorial relationship exists. United States v. Yearwood, 518 (internal F.3d 220, omitted). quantity 226 (4th Cir. 2008) quotation marks Evidence of a buy-sell transaction and a substantial of drugs supports a parties are co-conspirators. reasonable inference that the United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, numerous witnesses testified that they repeatedly bought substantial quantities of oxycodone from Mann on a regular basis over a period of years. Several such witnesses claimed that they informed Mann they were reselling the oxycodone incriminating arrest, we he provided statements have no them. to doubt law Also, that considering enforcement the evidence Mann s following his at was trial sufficient to support the jury s verdict. Turning to Mann s sentence, we review reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). for Gall v. The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. 3 United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. procedurally reasonable reasonableness. can Only if we find a sentence we consider substantive United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the Guidelines range, supporting Mann s district conclude that and court properly thoroughly below-Guidelines the sentence is calculated explained its sentence. procedurally Mann s reasoning Therefore, and we substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Mann s conviction and sentence. This writing, United of Court his States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If inform Supreme Mann Mann, Court requests of in the that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. a copy thereof was served Counsel s motion must state that on Mann. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 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.
