Defendant-Appellant Maletha Wilson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Sir-agusa, /.), convicting her after a jury trial of two counts of knowingly and intentionally making her residence available for use for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). Shе shared two apartments with a drug dealer, and acknowledges that there were drugs, along with drug-related paraphernаlia, at both premises; but she argues that the evidence was insufficient chiefly on the ground that the government failed to prove that she herself intended that the premises would be used for the unlawful purpose.
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2002, Rochester police officers arrested one Yusef Blocker outside 323 Arnett Boulevard, where he was living with Wilson. Wilson allowed the police tо enter her apartment, told them that she wanted to check on her baby in a back *197 bedroom, and was followed therе by the police. There, they saw&emdash;in plain view&emdash; two plastic bags containing a white rock substance. At trial, Wilson stipulated that thе substance was 12.836 grams of cocaine base. Also in the bedroom were unused Ziploc bags and a razor blade in the baby’s coat, as well as a second razor blade and a plate inside the top drawer of a dresser.
On May 7, 2004, Rochester police officers executed a search warrant at 35 Jackson Street, where Wilson was then living. No one wаs present when the officers entered and found a digital scale and unused Ziploc bags in the master bedroom closеt. In another bedroom, the officers found a cigar box containing a substance which they suspected was cocаine. At trial, Wilson stipulated that the substance consisted of 61.690 grams of powder cocaine and 31.648 grams of cocaine base.
On February 23, 2005,'Wilson was interviewed by a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. She said that she was living with Yusef Blocker in the apartment on Arnett Boulevard when it was searched in October 2002, and that she was living with Blocker at 35 Jackson Street when it was searched in May 2004. Evidence at trial also indicated that her name was on both leases. The Department of Social Services paid half the rent (and her mother the other half) at each locаtion.
DISCUSSION
Wilson argues that the evidence against her was insufficient to support her conviction. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence “bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Griffith,
I
In the main, Wilson contends that under 21 U.S.C. § 856(а)(2), the government had to prove that, in making her home available to others, it was Wilson’s own purpose to allow them tо engage in narcotics trafficking there. This is a fundamental misreading of subsection (a)(2).
Section 856(a)(2) makes it unlawful for a person to:
manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupаnt, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.
The law thus prohibits a person with a premises from knowingly and intentionally allowing its use for the purpose of manufacturing, storing or distributing drugs. The- intent of the prohibition is “to prohibit an owner from providing a place for illegal conduct, and yet to escape liability on thе basis either of lack of illegal purpose, or of deliberate ignorance”.
United States v. Tamez,
This interpretation is compelled by the preceding subsection, 856(a)(1), in which the phrase “for the purpose” applies to the intent of the person with an interest in the premises. That is, subsectiоn 856(a)(1) makes it illegal to:
knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.
Under Wilson’s reading, both subsections-(a)(1) and (a)(2)-would proscribe the same conduct. But it would be impermissible to conflate these two subsections, rendering one superfluous.
See Williams v. Taylor,
II
Wilson also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that she knew her residence was being used for drug trafficking. Our review of the trial record discloses sufficient evidencе to support Wilson’s conviction. A cooperating witness testified that on numerous occasions, he and Blocker engaged in drug manufacturing activities at both of Wilson’s residences, and that he overheard Blocker ask Wilson for Ziploc bags and a Pyrex dish, two items used for those activities. Wilson admitted to the police that she knew Blocker sold drugs. And crack cоcaine, cocaine powder and drug paraphernalia were found in her residences, including a razor and Ziploc bags in baby clothes in her bedroom. Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could&emdash;and did&emdash; conclude that Wilson knоwingly allowed others to use those residences for the manufacture, storage and distribution of narcotics.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.