United States of America v. Santonio Lenord Minus, a/k/a Cheese, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/a B.G., a/k/a Santonio Minus

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4420
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SANTONIO LENORD MINUS, a/k/a Cheese, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/a
B.G., a/k/a Santonio Minus,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00014-MFU-5)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 19, 2014
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael T. Hemenway, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. HEMENWAY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy,
United States Attorney, Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 7 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Santonio Lenord Minus was convicted by a jury of one
count of conspiracy to distribute and manufacture 280 grams or
more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012) (count one), and five counts of
distribution of a detectable amount of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The jury also
found that it was reasonably foreseeable to Minus that the
conspiracy involved at least 280 grams of cocaine base. The
district court denied Minus’s motions for judgment of acquittal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. At
sentencing, the district court adopted the probation officer’s
recommendation in the presentence investigation report and
determined that Minus was accountable for at least 840 grams of
crack cocaine. The court varied downward from the Sentencing
Guidelines range and sentenced Minus to 180 months of
imprisonment.
On appeal, Minus contests his convictions and
sentence. He argues that district court erred in denying his
Rule 29 motions, and erred in determining the drug quantity at
sentencing. His arguments are based on his assertion that the
evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt or to establish
that he was responsible for at least 840 grams of crack cocaine.
We affirm.

-- 2 of 7 --

3
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a Fed.
R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.
United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). “A
defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction bears a heavy burden.” United States v. Beidler,
110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The verdict of a jury must be sustained “if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Smith, 451
F.3d at 216. Substantial evidence is “evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Furthermore, “the jury, not the reviewing court,
weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any
conflicts in the evidence presented.” Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Reversal
for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where
the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). “The settled law of this circuit
recognizes that the testimony of a defendant’s accomplices,
standing alone and uncorroborated, can provide an adequate basis
for conviction.” United States v. Gillion, 704 F.3d 284, 293

-- 3 of 7 --

4
(4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Burns, 990 F.2d 1426,
1439 (4th Cir. 1993)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2039 (2013).
To prove that Minus distributed crack cocaine, the
Government was required to prove (1) distribution of crack
cocaine, (2) that Minus had knowledge of the distribution, and
(3) that Minus intended to distribute the crack cocaine. United
States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999). To prove
that Minus engaged in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine,
the government was required to demonstrate (1) an agreement
between two or more persons to distribute crack, (2) Minus’s
knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) Minus’s knowing and
voluntary participation in the conspiracy. United States v.
Hackley, 662 F.3d 671, 678 (4th Cir. 2011). Minus does not
dispute the existence of the conspiracy, but rather that the
evidence was sufficient to establish his participation in it.
“Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a
conviction for conspiracy.” Id. at 679.
“It is . . . elementary that one may be a member of a
conspiracy without knowing its full scope, or all its members,
and without taking part in the full range of its activities or
over the whole period of its existence.” United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation
marks omitted). A defendant may be convicted of a conspiracy
charge without knowing all of the details of the conspiracy “if

-- 4 of 7 --

5
he joins the conspiracy with an understanding of the unlawful
nature thereof and willfully joins in the plan on one occasion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce it has been
shown that a conspiracy exists, the evidence need only establish
a slight connection between the defendant and the conspiracy to
support conviction.” Id. at 861 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court did not err in denying Minus’s Rule 29
motions. The evidence at trial clearly established that Minus
was a knowing member in the drug conspiracy charged in count one
of the indictment, and that he committed the distributions of
crack cocaine for which the jury found him guilty. Counsel’s
arguments in the Rule 29 motion and on appeal focus on the
alleged lack of credibility of the Government’s witnesses. It
is black letter law, however, that evaluation of credibility is
the exclusive province of the jury. The jury obviously
carefully considered the evidence related to Minus, as it
requested replay of the audio from two controlled buys he
participated in, and acquitted him of one of the distribution
counts.
Minus next challenges the district court’s
determination of the drug quantity for which he was responsible.
“[T]he government must prove the drug quantity attributable to a

-- 5 of 7 --

6
particular defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir. 2011). In
terms specific to a § 846 conspiracy conviction, the drug
quantity attributable to a defendant is the quantity involved in
the conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
See USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1); Randall, 171 F.3d at 210 (“[T]he
district court may attribute to the defendant the total amount
of drugs involved in the conspiracy, provided the drug
quantities were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant and are
within the scope of the conspiratorial agreement.”).
This court reviews for clear error the district
court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs attributable to a
defendant for sentencing purposes. United States v. Crawford,
734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1528
(2014). Under this standard, this court will reverse the
district court’s finding only if it is “left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). When determining facts
relevant to sentencing, “a sentencing court may give weight to
any relevant information before it, including uncorroborated
hearsay, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of
reliability to support its accuracy.” United States v.
Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the

-- 6 of 7 --

7
record leads us to conclude that the district court correctly
determined the relevant drug quantity and base offense level.
Accordingly, we affirm Minus’s convictions and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 7 of 7 --