United States of America v. Joseph Emmanuel Mann, a/k/a Cass Musa, a/k/a Musa Kofi, a/k/a Mike Mann, a/k/a Big…

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Joseph Emmanuel Mann was
convicted of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 108 months of
imprisonment. 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 knowledge of this conspiracy; and (3) the
defendant’s knowing, voluntary participation in it. United
States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367-68 (4th Cir. 2010). 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 of 5 --

3
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.” Id. at
858 (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence of a buyer-
seller relationship is relevant to “the issue of whether a
conspiratorial relationship exists.” United States v. Yearwood,
518 F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Evidence of a buy-sell transaction and a substantial
quantity of drugs supports a reasonable inference that the
parties are co-conspirators. 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 he provided them. Also, considering Mann’s
incriminating statements to law enforcement following his
arrest, we have no doubt that the evidence at trial was
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Turning to Mann’s sentence, we review for
reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526

-- 3 of 5 --

4
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. Only if we find a sentence
procedurally reasonable can we consider substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009).
Here, the district court properly calculated Mann’s
Guidelines range, and thoroughly explained its reasoning
supporting Mann’s below-Guidelines sentence. Therefore, we
conclude that the sentence is procedurally and 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 Court requires that counsel inform Mann, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Mann requests 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. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Mann. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 4 of 5 --

5
presented in the materials before the Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --