United States v. Antonio Shaw, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9029

Shaw was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and crack cocaine (Count I) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (Count II).
Trial evidence showed Shaw distributed marijuana in the St. Louis area for years, with multiple arrests yielding large cash and drugs; on one arrest he had crack cocaine, cash, and a loaded handgun.
Two drug distributors testified Shaw supplied at least seventy-five pounds of marijuana over three years and carried a firearm during these distributions.
A drug-distribution expert opined Shaw’s conduct and packaging, cash, lack of user paraphernalia, and use of multiple phones and vehicles indicated distribution rather than personal use.
The district court found Shaw brandished a firearm in relation to a drug offense for the § 924(c) mandatory minimum, but sentenced him to 378 months; the jury did not make a brandishing finding.
This court affirms the judgment but vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing due to Alleyne-based error in applying the mandatory minimum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of conspiracy to distribute?	Shaw contends insufficient proof of conspiracy existence and participation.	Shaw argues the evidence fails to show an agreement and knowledge.	Yes; substantial evidence showed an agreement and Shaw’s knowledge/joining.
Was there sufficient evidence Shaw possessed distribution quantities of marijuana to evidence intent to distribute?	Distributors testified to 75 pounds; Shaw’s other conduct supports intent to distribute.	The amount could reflect personal use; no distribution intent alone.	Viewed with other facts, the quantity plus packaging, cash, and firearms supports intent to distribute.
Was there sufficient evidence of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense?	Firearm presence and Shaw’s admission link the gun to drug activity.	No explicit formal nexus shown beyond possession.	Yes; multiple indicia (firearm with drugs, prior admissions, distributors’ testimony) show nexus.
Was the seven-year § 924(c) mandatory minimum properly applied in light of Alleyne?	District court’s finding satisfied brandishing; jury did not determine the brandishing element.	Alleyne requires jury finding on elements increasing the mandatory minimum.	Remand for resentencing; Alleyne error to apply seven-year minimum where not jury-found.

United States v. Vore, 743 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency review; high threshold for overturning verdict)
United States v. Banks, 706 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2013) (conspiracy elements: agreement, knowledge, intent)
United States v. Rodriguez-Ramos, 663 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 2011) (large, regular drug transactions indicate conspiracy knowledge)
United States v. Gordon, 923 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1991) (one ounce cocaine may indicate distribution when coupled with pattern of dealing)
United States v. White, 969 F.2d 681 (8th Cir. 1992) (small amount plus firearm/public evidence can indicate distribution)
United States v. Fetters, 698 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2012) (nexus between firearm and drug crime may be inferred from conduct)
United States v. Close, 518 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2008) (nexus indicators for § 924(c) analysis)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (mandatory-minimum sentencing elements must be found by a jury)
United States v. Lara-Ruiz, 721 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2013) (remand for resentencing when Alleyne violation occurred)