United States of America v. Carl Tyus

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0326n.06
No. 09-1495
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARL TYUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Carl Tyus challenges his jury conviction on two grounds: (1) the
government violated the Speedy Trial Act, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the verdict. We
affirm.
I.
On September 29, 2005, officers from the Romulus Police Department executed a search
warrant on 25952 Norfolk Street in Inkster, Michigan. After knocking on the door and receiving no
response, the officers entered the home and saw Tyus sleeping on the couch. After securing the
premises and finding no other adults present, the officers searched the home.

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 09-1495
United States v. Tyus
- 2 -
The officers found drugs, guns and cash throughout the house. A search of the kitchen and
the basement turned up crack cocaine, powder cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy, with quantities of
each packaged in small plastic bags, apparently for sale. A table in the basement housed digital
scales, a coffee grinder containing cocaine, a money- and drug-filled cash box and a loaded handgun.
Near the table, the officers found a shotgun, two assault rifles and a loaded semi-automatic rifle.
There is more. The upstairs bedroom contained another loaded handgun. The officers found a total
of $10,000 cash hidden throughout the house: stashed under the basement steps, stuffed inside a
large plastic crayon, packed into a Pepsi bottle and stowed in DVD cases.
The officers also uncovered mail addressed to Tyus at that residence in the master bedroom,
in the kitchen and on the contraband-laden table in the basement. They found no mail addressed to
anyone else.
A jury convicted Tyus of three counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court
sentenced Tyus to 93 months of imprisonment.
II.
Tyus argues that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act, which requires the
government to bring a defendant to trial within seventy days after charging him, save for certain
allowable periods of delay enumerated in the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The government, Tyus

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 09-1495
United States v. Tyus
- 3 -
argues, wrongly filed a second indictment shortly before the 70-day window closed to reset the
speedy-trial clock and “to avoid” the Act’s requirements. Tyus Br. 14.
Tyus waived this claim, however, by not asking the trial court to dismiss his indictments prior
to trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). If defendants fail to “move for dismissal prior to trial” on
grounds that they were not “brought to trial within the time limit required by” the Act, they “waive[]
. . . the right to dismissal” of the charges. Id. The same goes for the right to appeal the claim. See
United States v. Brown, 498 F.3d 523, 529–30 (6th Cir. 2007). That, unfortunately for Tyus, is all
there is to this first argument.
III.
Tyus separately argues that insufficient evidence supports the convictions. In reviewing this
challenge, we construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and must deny
relief unless Tyus shows that no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Tyus does not satisfy this requirement. To convict Tyus of the drug offenses, the government
had to establish that Tyus (1) knowingly possessed a controlled substance (2) with intent to distribute
it. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). To convict him of the firearm offense, the government had to establish that
he (1) “possesse[d] a firearm” (2) “in furtherance of” the drug possession.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), (2).

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 09-1495
United States v. Tyus
- 4 -
Tyus challenges only the “possession” element of his drug- and gun-possession convictions.
As to both offenses, the government did not need to show that Tyus had actual possession of the
items. It could demonstrate possession by offering evidence that Tyus constructively possessed the
drugs and guns—that he had “ownership, dominion, or control over [them] or over the premises . . .
in which [they were] concealed.” United States v. White, 932 F.2d 588, 589 (6th Cir. 1991) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (constructive possession of drugs); see also United States v. Bailey, 553
F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession of firearms). Tyus’s “[p]resence alone” near
drugs or guns does not establish constructive possession, United States v. Arnold, 486 F.3d 177, 183
(6th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); White, 932 F.2d at 589, but his presence
plus “other incriminating evidence” may “tip the scale in favor of sufficiency,” Arnold, 486 F.3d at
183. In this vein, a jury generally “is entitled to infer that a person exercises constructive possession
over items found in his home.” United States v. Hill, 142 F.3d 305, 312 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Ample evidence pins Tyus as a resident of 25952 Norfolk and by extension links him to the
drugs and guns found inside. Before the officers executed the search warrant, they observed Tyus
at the house on two prior occasions. When the officers arrived to search the house, Tyus was
sleeping on the couch. No other adult showed up at the house during the three-hour search, and Tyus
offered no evidence that any other adult lived at the home. The mail scattered throughout the house,
which included bills and a court notice, was addressed to no one but Tyus and to nowhere but 25952
Norfolk. Tyus, it is true, was registered with the Michigan Secretary of State as living at 26034

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 09-1495
United States v. Tyus
- 5 -
Norfolk, a home down the block. But the jury acted within its bounds in discounting Tyus’s
registration in light of the many other indicators that Tyus lived at the drug- and gun-filled home.
Tyus discounts the mail’s value as evidence of residency, insisting that it did nothing more
than prove his “previous residence in the home.” Tyus Br. 16. That may be a permissible view of
the evidence, but it is by no means a mandatory one. The jury’s choice to find that Tyus lived at the
house at that time and therefore constructively possessed the drugs and guns “was a rational one,”
and accordingly our “mandate is to affirm.” Arnold, 486 F.3d at 182.
IV.
For these reasons, we affirm.

-- 5 of 5 --