#Charles booker crack

'Constructive possession is established with evidence supporting a finding that the defendant had the ability to exercise knowing dominion and control over the items in question.' Wahl, 290 F.3d at 376 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We agree with the government that there was ample evidence to justify the jury's verdict that Booker 'constructively possessed' the handgun for purposes of both Count Three and Count Four. We need not determine this issue in the present case, because for the reasons set forth below, we conclude a rational juror could have convicted Booker for 'possessing' the handgun. Insofar as the 'miscarriage of justice' standard is intended simply to ensure that the District Court has the opportunity to order an MJOA after receiving all the evidence, see Sherod, 960 F.2d at 1077, Booker's post-verdict motion may be sufficient to preserve his objections to the sufficiency of the evidence against him.

Unlike the defendants in Thompson and Sherod, however, Booker did renew his MJOA after the jury verdict. We note that Booker-like the defendants in Thompson and Sherod-failed to renew his MJOA at the close of all the evidence. 29(a) at the close of all the evidence, his burden is even heavier: He 'has waived his right to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal' unless 'declining to consider the sufficiency of the evidence on waiver grounds cause a `manifest miscarriage of justice.'' United States v. However, where a defendant fails to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) under Fed. Ordinarily, 'an appellant seeking to overturn a jury verdict for insufficient evidence bears an exceedingly heavy burden.' United States v. The District Court entered both sentences on the judgment form. Thus, the District Court imposed an aggregate non-Guidelines 'sentence' of 30 years in prison.

Count Three was to be served consecutively to all other counts. Count Four was to be served consecutively to the ten years on Counts One and Two. Counts One and Two were to be served concurrently. 2d 621 (2005), the sentencing judge also announced a non-Guidelines 'alternative sentence': ten years on Count One, ten years on Count Two, five years on Count Three, and 15 years on Count Four. Pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Thus, the District Court imposed an aggregate Guidelines sentence of 35 years in prison. The terms on Counts One, Two, and Four were to run concurrently, while Count Three was to run consecutively to all other counts. On October 26, 2004, the District Court imposed a sentence under the Guidelines of 240 months on Count One, 240 months on Count Two, 60 months on Count Three, and 360 months on Count Four. However, Booker does not contest the government's assertion that the gun was lying approximately five inches away from the Newport pack, nor does Booker contest that the gun was clean and frost-free, notwithstanding the fact that it was recovered on a bitterly cold winter evening. They can't do without the other.' Unhelpfully, the photograph is not included in the parties' submissions in this case.

The government then linked the gun to the drugs by offering photographic evidence of their physical proximity, and expert testimony that guns and drugs are 'like a marriage.

#Charles booker crack

Although Booker's fingerprints were on neither the gun nor the Newport pack, the government linked Booker to the drugs through the undercover officer's testimony about the drug sale the government also introduced evidence that Booker has previously sold crack using the same modus operandi ( i.e., dispensing crack from a Newport pack in the same neighborhood). At trial, the government introduced evidence that the gun was loaded, and the Newport pack contained 3.8 grams of cocaine base, 75% pure.