U.S. v. Collins

Decision Date25 August 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-3353.,02-3353.
Citation340 F.3d 672
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey H. COLLINS, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Jeremy P. Murphy, argued, Lincoln, NE, for appellant.

Susan T. Lehr, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., Omaha, NE, for appellee.

Before LOKEN,1 RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Jeffrey H. Collins raises numerous issues challenging his conviction and life sentence for conspiring to distribute and for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. For the reasons herein, we affirm the district court.2

I.

Because Collins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him, we summarize the evidence adduced at trial. Seven people familiar with Collins's drug sales testified against him. These witnesses-Thomas Horan, Brenda Stewart, Pamela Erickson, Douglas Rydberg, James Hald, Susan Gomez, and Matthew Matejka-testified that Collins sold them methamphetamine at various times and in various amounts during the two-year period charged in the indictment, sometimes accepting property rather than money in exchange for methamphetamine.3

In addition to the regular drug transactions, these witnesses testified about Collins's related drug activities. Stewart testified that she committed forgeries to obtain cash or merchandise to pay for drugs. Collins would place an "order," and Stewart would go to a store and fraudulently acquire the item.

Rydberg testified that he usually bought methamphetamine from Hald, who first bought the drugs from Collins. Rydberg testified that he would either buy the drugs "on credit," or pool several people's money to buy a larger amount of methamphetamine at a lower price. Rydberg testified that Hald was the "middleman." Hald verified that Collins approved reselling the methamphetamine because Collins would not sell to strangers. Hald also testified that he once traded a Plymouth Sundance automobile to Collins for an ounce of methamphetamine, and at trial, the government offered the car title to show the change in ownership from Hald to Collins. Gomez, who had known Collins since 1994, also would pool her money with other customers' money to buy larger quantities at lower prices. She testified that she would "skim some off the top" from the purchases for herself.

Stewart, Erickson, Hald, and Matejka testified about an incident at Matejka's residence that resulted in Matejka's incarceration for possession of methamphetamine allegedly belonging to Collins. Matejka testified that on February 6, 2001, Collins went to Metejka's house to be paid for a drug deal. While there, the police entered the house to serve an arrest warrant on Matejka. Matejka was charged after the police found him with 49.5 grams of methamphetamine in the basement, drugs that Matejka claimed belonged to Collins. Hald testified that Matejka told him that Collins framed him for the methamphetamine the police found in the raid. Stewart also testified that Collins sent a letter to her while she was in jail indicating that Collins refused to admit that the drugs he had taken to Matejka's house were his.

Emma Chance, the owner of Bart's Motel in Council Bluffs, testified that Collins rented a room at the motel sixteen days in January, February, and March of 2001, paying cash for each transaction. Ron Riethmuller, records administrator for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, testified that during the time-frame in the indictment, Collins was on "work release." Consequently, no one from the corrections department supervised or monitored Collins during the day as long as he returned to the work-release center at night. Riethmuller also noted that Collins was paroled on February 25, 2000, but was returned to the correctional facility on August 14, 2000. However, the state discharged Collins from the correctional service on January 4, 2001.

Several police officers testified about Collins's behavior at the time of his arrest on September 27, 2001. The officers testified that Collins attempted to escape by jumping into his car and leading the police on a chase. During the chase, Collins threw a package out of the car. The police recovered the package and discovered that it contained 16.1 grams of methamphetamine.

Based on above evidence, a jury convicted Collins of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court then sentenced Collins to life in prison. Collins appeals his conviction and sentence.

II.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Collins first argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy because the evidence merely established a buyer-seller relationship between Collins and numerous individuals without showing a conspiracy to distribute drugs. He argues that the jury "misinterpreted" the facts and the jury instructions, and that while he may have associated with convicted felons and drug dealers, the evidence does not support a finding that he conspired with them to distribute drugs.

"The standard of review of an appeal concerning sufficiency of the evidence is very strict, and the verdict of the jury should not be overturned lightly." United States v. Crossland, 301 F.3d 907, 913 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991)). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury's verdict. United States v. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir.1992). We will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Harmon, 194 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir.1999).

To prove that a defendant conspired to distribute drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must prove (1) that there was a conspiracy, i.e., an agreement to distribute the drugs; (2) that the defendant knew of the conspiracy; (3) that the defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy. United States v. Jones, 101 F.3d 1263, 1267 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Westbrook, 896 F.2d 330, 338 (8th Cir. 1990). Tacit understanding—as opposed to mere presence at and knowledge of an intended drug sale—will suffice; a formal agreement is unnecessary. Jones, 101 F.3d at 1267 (citing United States v. Shoffner, 71 F.3d 1429, 1433-34 (8th Cir.1995)). The existence of a conspiracy may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. United States v. Jenkins, 78 F.3d 1283, 1287 (8th Cir.1996). Evidence of association or acquaintance, though relevant, is not enough by itself to establish a conspiracy. United States v. Ivey, 915 F.2d 380, 384 (8th Cir.1990).

Based on the facts established at trial, the evidence supports Collins's conviction for conspiracy. The evidence establishes that Collins himself would not sell methamphetamine to strangers, but instead would sell substantial amounts of methamphetamine to Hald or Rydberg, for example, who would resell the drugs to numerous individuals. The evidence proves that Collins knowingly participated in and promoted this scheme. Furthermore, Collins's challenge to the veracity and credibility of the various witnesses is to no avail—questions of credibility are the province of the jury. See United States v. Chavez, 230 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Fuller, 942 F.2d 454, 458 (8th Cir.1991).

B. Quantity of Drugs Attributed to Collins

Collins next argues that the district court and the jury erroneously attributed more drugs to Collins than he could have sold in the time frame provided in the indictment. Collins argues that it was impossible for the witnesses collectively to have bought more than 500 grams of methamphetamine from him because he was incarcerated during seven months in 2000. Collins provides no legal support for his argument.

The government responds that the sentencing judge was the same judge who presided over trial, and that in such cases, the sentencing court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual challenges such as drug quantity. See United States v. Wiggins, 104 F.3d 174, 178 (8th Cir.1997). As such, the district court properly calculated Collins's offense level using the volume of drugs the jury calculated in this case.

A sentencing court's quantity calculations are factual findings and therefore, are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Jimenez-Villasenor, 270 F.3d 554, 561 (8th Cir.2001). A reviewing court will not overturn a finding of drug quantity unless the entire record definitely and firmly convinces the court that a mistake has been made. United States v. Granados, 202 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir.2000).

Collins's "impossibility" argument fails. The evidence proves that the witnesses knew of Collins's incarceration and testified that they bought drugs either from him or from Collins's middlemen when he was not incarcerated. In addition, Collins's challenge is based (in part) on his attack against the witnesses' credibility and their recall regarding the amount of drugs he sold to them. We leave this credibility issue for the jury. Chavez, 230 F.3d at 1091; Fuller, 942 F.2d at 458. Despite Collins's seven-month incarceration, the evidence provided a reasonable jury sufficient evidence to have found Collins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. Sentence Illegality Under Apprendi and the Eighth Amendment

Collins next argues that the district court assessed an excessive and illegal sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct....

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 cases
  • U.S. v. John
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 9, 2010
    ...1307 (11th Cir.2005) (holding that fingerprint evidence satisfies Daubert); Crisp, 324 F.3d at 267-70 (same); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 682-83 (8th Cir.2003) (same); Havvard, 260 F.3d at 601 (same); United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 408 (9th Cir. 1996) 33. Crisp, 324 F.3......
  • Kornhardt v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 9, 2016
    ...was unnecessary for admission of fingerprint expert); United States v. Janis, 387 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2004) (same); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 682 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding district court did not err in declining to conduct a Daubert hearing prior to admitting fingerprint evidenc......
  • Ingram v. U.S. of Amercia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • October 31, 2017
    ..., 663 F.3d 356, 366 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Murphy , 899 F.2d 714, 719 (8th Cir.1990) ); see also United States v. Collins , 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir.2003) ("It is well settled that a sentence within the range provided by statute is generally not reviewable by an appellat......
  • Hernandez v. Price, Case No. 2:15-cv-00993-KOB-SGC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 25, 2018
    ...3d 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); United States v. Whitehead, 487 F. 3d 1068, 1070-71 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Collins, 340 F. 3d 672, 679-80 (8th Cir. 2003). 'Possession, use, and distribution of illegal drugs represent "one of the greatest problems affecting the health an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • April 30, 2022
    ...evidence, resolving credibility issues and drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to the government. United States v. Collins , 340 F.3d 672, 677-78 (8th Cir. 2003) (trial court will be reversed only if no reasonable jury could have found accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).......
  • Trials
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library International Antitrust Cartel Handbook
    • December 6, 2019
    ...States v. Turner, 490 F. Supp. 583, 589-91 (E.D. Mich. 1979), aff’d , 633 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1980). 190. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2003). 191. United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 869 F. Supp. 1285, 1290 (S.D. Ohio 1994). 192. FED. R. CRIM. P. 33(a). 193. Kyles v. Whi......
  • "THE" RULE: MODERNIZING THE POTENT, BUT OVERLOOKED, RULE OF WITNESS SEQUESTRATION.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 2018). (71.) FED. R. EVID. 615 (emphasis added). (72.) See, e.g., United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 680-81 (8th Cir. (73.) See id. (74.) See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227, 1235 (8th Cir. 1978). (75.) See id. (76.) 15 F.3d 1......
  • GIVE 'EM THE OL' RAZZLE DAZZLE: THE ETHICS OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND THE CASE OF KYLE RITTENHOUSE.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 27 No. 2, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...witnesses from tailoring their testimony to that of prior witnesses and to aid in detection of dishonesty." United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 681 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. (113) See United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, 752 F.3d 22, 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT