United States of America v. Frank Edward Adams, also known as Tank Adams
No. 19-3543
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Submitted: November 19, 2020 Filed: March 22, 2021
[Unpublished]
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, Frank Adams was convicted of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more оf a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. See
The challenge to Adams‘s conviction begins with the sufficiency of the evidеnce, which we review de novo after construing the evidence “in favor of the verdict.” United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 2006). The evidence in this case was overwhelming. A tоtal of 16 witnesses testified against him, including five who were directly involved in the drug conspiracy itself. Several said they personally sold drugs for Adams. Standing alone, this evidence was more than sufficient to show that the consрiracy existed and that he was a part of it. See United States v. Conway, 754 F.3d 580, 587 (8th Cir. 2014) (“[E]vidence at trial that consists primarily of testimony from other members of the conspirаcy may suffice to establish defendant‘s guilt.“).
It does not matter that there wеre no controlled buys, wiretaps, or other “hard” evidence. Seе id.; see also United States v. Coplen, 533 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that we “have repeatedly upheld jury verdicts based solely оn the testimony of co-conspirators and cooperating witnesses” (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted)). Nor does it make any diffеrence that Adams now tries to cast doubt on the credibility of numerous witnesses. In the end, the jury found them credible, and we are in no position to disagree. See United States v. Mayfield, 909 F.3d 956, 963 (8th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he jury‘s credibility determinations are well-nigh unreviewable bеcause the jury is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses аnd resolve inconsistent testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The challenges to Adams‘s sentence fare no better. See United States v. Berry, 930 F.3d 997, 999 (8th Cir. 2019) (“We review application of the Guidelines to the facts de novo . . . [and] factual findings at sentencing for cleаr error.“). First, the district court did not clearly err in attributing between 1.5 and 5 kilograms of methamphetamine to him based on the presentence investigation report, which reflected the testimony of eight witnesses. See United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713, 720 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “the testimony of co-conspirators may be sufficiently reliable evidence upon which the court may base its drug quantity calсulation for sentencing purposes” (quotation marks omitted)).
Second, the district court had plenty of reason to impose a two-levеl enhancement for an offense “committed . . . as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.”