4th Circuit: Evidence supports drug, firearms possession convictions

Where security footage showed the defendant throwing away items as officers arrived at his house; a plastic baggie containing crack cocaine and the Glock firearm were recovered from under the car and guns, drugs and scales were found at the house along with videos showing the defendant, armed, weighing crack cocaine and repeatedly selling the drug to approaching buyers, the evidence was sufficient to support the drug and firearms’ possession convictions.

Background

Jamie Christopher Henderson appeals his convictions and sentence following a jury trial for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of firearms in furtherance of his drug trafficking crimes. Henderson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support these convictions, and that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Evidence

Henderson argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts One (conspiracy) and Two (firearms) because his confession was insufficient as a matter of law to prove his involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy and, in his view, the government failed to offer the independent corroborating evidence of conspiracy necessary to support a conviction. He claims that his confession was false and that the evidence presented by the government was at most sufficient to prove buyer-seller relationships, but not a conspiracy to deal in drugs. This court is not unpersuaded. There was abundant independent evidence that Henderson was engaged in a large-scale drug trade, which supported the trustworthiness of his confessions.

Henderson also argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to convict him on Counts Three and Four, for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine on April 30, 2019, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of his drug trafficking crimes. More specifically, Henderson argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that he intended to distribute the crack cocaine that he possessed on April 30, when the search warrant was executed, as opposed to personally consuming it. The court disagrees.

The security footage shows a blue car pulling into Henderson’s driveway just before the officers arrived. Henderson walks towards the just-arrived car, with his left hand in his shorts pocket and a handgun on the right side of his body. As the officers pull into the driveway, Henderson pulls his left hand out of his pocket and opens it, pulls the handgun from his back pocket or waistband with his right hand and tosses the items under the car. A plastic baggie containing crack cocaine and the Glock firearm were recovered from under the car. In addition to this evidence, the guns, drugs, scales and videos showing an armed Henderson weighing crack cocaine and repeatedly selling the drug to approaching buyers.

Sentencing

Henderson argues that his 324-month sentence is procedurally unreasonable because it was based on an overstated drug quantity. More specifically, he argues that the district court erred in adopting the pre-sentence report’s calculation of drug quantity because it was at least partially based on his confession, which he claims was unreliable.

The district court observed Henderson’s testimony at the sentencing hearing, disavowing the veracity of his confession and reviewed his videotaped confession. The government also presented the district court with additional witnesses and evidence that corroborated the extent of Henderson’s drug trafficking activities. Faced with this classic credibility determination, the district court found that Henderson was more likely telling the truth when he confessed than when he testified at the sentencing hearing. Henderson has given this court no plausible reason upon which it could find that this finding was clearly erroneous.

Henderson has also failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to this below-Guidelines sentence. The district court carefully considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, including the history and characteristics that Henderson relies upon, as well as his age. However, the district court also considered Henderson’s substantial criminal conduct and history and the need to protect the public. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

United States v. Henderson, Case No. 23-4072, July 9, 2024. 4th Cir. (Traxler), from EDNC at Wilmington (Flanagan). Paul K. Sun Jr. for Appellant. Lucy Partain Brown for Appellee. 17 pp.

North Carolina Lawyers Weekly