United States of America v. Donovan Anthony Stafford, a/k/a Donnavan Brown

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONOVAN ANTHONY STAFFORD, a/k/a Donnavan
Brown,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-112-MU)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen L. West, HAMILTON, GASKINS, FAY & MOON, P.L.L.C., Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 5 --

1Stafford has not raised a claim under United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004). Indeed, he raises no challenge to his sentence.
Thus, he has waived review of the sentence.
2Stafford does not challenge his conviction for being an alien
who had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony and who
had unlawfully re-entered the United States after deportation in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Thus, he has
waived review of this conviction.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donovan Anthony Stafford appeals his conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and importing cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 (2000). 1 Finding no error,
we affirm.
Stafford claims the district court erred when it denied
his motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was
insufficient evidence to prove he participated in the charged drug
conspiracy.2 This court reviews the district court’s decision to
deny a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v.
Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). If the motion was
based on insufficiency of the evidence, the verdict must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the government, to support it. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In evaluating the sufficiency of
the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the
witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in

-- 2 of 5 --

- 3 -
testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
“Once a conspiracy has been proved, the evidence need
only establish a slight connection between any given defendant and
the conspiracy to support conviction.” United States v.
Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 385 (4th Cir. 2001). Stafford does not
dispute that a conspiracy existed between Larry Fullenwinder and
Monique Conley to import drugs from Jamaica, but argues that he was
merely present at their meetings and did not participate in the
conspiracy. “Participation in a criminal conspiracy need not be
proved by direct evidence; a common purpose and plan may be
inferred from a ‘development and a collocation of circumstances.’”
Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80. Viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the Government, the evidence sufficiently established
Stafford’s participation in the conspiracy. Stafford was present
at conspiracy interactions between Fullenwinder and Conley. When
the conspirators planned a trip to purchase drugs, Stafford went to
the travel agency and consulted with Fullenwinder about which
airport to depart from. The jury could reasonably infer that the
cash Fullenwinder used to purchase the plane ticket was cash
Stafford gave him just before entering the travel agency. Stafford
gave Conley gifts to give to the drug contact in Jamaica and a hat
to wear so the contact would recognize her. With Fullenwinder’s
help, Stafford instructed Conley about what to do once she arrived

-- 3 of 5 --

- 4 -
in Jamaica. This evidence, taken together, is sufficient to
establish a significant connection between Stafford and the
conspiracy. The district court did not err in denying Stafford’s
motion for judgment of acquittal.
Stafford next claims that the district court erred by
admitting some of Stafford’s statements to Conley, which were
translated by Fullenwinder, because the testimony was double
hearsay due to Fullenwinder’s translations. Stafford did not
object to Conley’s testimony, so our review is for plain error.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Stafford’s
statements to Conley about the trip to Jamaica were his own
statements, and were admissible as admissions by a party-opponent
excluded from the definition of hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(A). Fullenwinder’s translations did not create double
hearsay, as an unofficial interpreter is no more than a language
conduit. See United States v. Martinez-Gaytan, 213 F.3d 890, 892
(5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 860 (11th
Cir. 1985). The district court did not commit plain error in
admitting Stafford’s statements.
Finally, Stafford claims his trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to object to the admissibility of Stafford’s
statements of instruction to Conley. Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless
the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United

-- 4 of 5 --

- 5 -
States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Our
review of the record reveals that Stafford has failed to meet the
high burden necessary to raise ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Stafford’s conviction and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --