--NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

No. 22-1600 _____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTHONY ROBINSON, Appellant _____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00175-002) District Judge: Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter

_____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 6, 2023 _____________

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: February 21, 2023) _____________________

OPINION _____________________

CHAGARES, Chief Judge.

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. A jury found Anthony Robinson (“Robinson”) guilty of conspiracy to possess

contraband in prison in violation of

. Following the jury’s guilty verdict,

Robinson moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

29. The District Court denied the motion. Robinson appealed, arguing that there was

insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Robinson’s arguments are meritless, and

we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I.

We write primarily for the parties and recite only the facts essential to our

decision. Robert Patterson (“Patterson”), Joel Sambrano (“Sambrano”), Robinson, and

Kaleaf Gilbert (“Gilbert”) were indicted on one count of conspiracy to possess

contraband in prison in violation of

and two counts of possession of

contraband in prison in violation of

(a)(2). Patterson and Sambrano

pleaded guilty, and they testified against Gilbert and Robinson.

Patterson and Sambrano testified that they worked with Robinson and Gilbert to

bring contraband — mostly drugs — into the Federal Detention Center (“FDC”) in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Patterson and Sambrano testified that they enlisted Robinson

to help with this scheme because he had a contraband cell phone and knew people in

Philadelphia who could provide the drugs.

Patterson and Sambrano testified that the scheme worked as follows: Patterson

and Sambrano created a hole in their cell window using a knife, screw, and homemade

candle. They also crafted a make-shift line out of utensil wrappers, with batteries and

other weights attached to help it reach the street. Patterson and Sambrano would lower

2 the line to the street outside the FDC, someone would attach contraband to the line, and

then Patterson and Sambrano would lift the line back into their cell. Robinson let

Patterson and Sambrano know when to lower and lift the line. Robinson used his cell

phone to communicate with the people outside the FDC providing the contraband. He

then would communicate when to lower and lift the line to Gilbert, who occupied the cell

next to Robinson, through a hole in Robinson’s cell wall. Gilbert, in turn, would pass this

information to Patterson and Sambrano through the ventilation shafts.

Patterson and Sambrano testified that they attempted to bring contraband into the

FDC this way on three occasions. The first attempt was made on April 11, 2020, and was

successful. Patterson testified that Robinson helped not only with retrieving the

contraband during this attempt, but also with divvying it up to other prisoners within the

FDC. Patterson and Sambrano made another attempt that same week which failed

because the line got stuck on something outside the FDC. Patterson testified that after the

unsuccessful attempt, Robinson visited his and Sambrano’s cell and stated, “you guys are

messing up. You had my people out there all night.” Appendix (“App.”) 295. The third

and final attempt was made on April 15, 2020, and also was successful.

FDC staff discovered the scheme during the April 15 attempt. At around 2:45

a.m., staff noticed a man reach down and pick something up from the sidewalk outside

the prison. Staff then saw the man a second time and heard a “ding” as something hit a

glass window of the FDC. App. 71–72. When staff went outside to investigate, the man

fled, and staff saw the line hanging out of Patterson’s and Sambrano’s cell window.

Surveillance footage from just before 2:45 a.m. showed the man next to a Honda sport

3 utility vehicle (“SUV”) that had a full-size spare tire mounted on the rear door and a

matte finish on the hood.

Staff then went to Patterson’s and Sambrano’s cell, where they discovered a hole

in the window and the line that Patterson and Sambrano used to recover the contraband.

The line had attached to it strips of Suboxone (a drug used to treat opioid dependence),

cocaine, tobacco, methamphetamine tablets, and marijuana. Staff also found a L8Star

mobile phone without a SIM card.

Officers searched Robinson’s cell about a week later and found a L8Star mobile

phone with a SIM card. Phone records show that Robinson’s cell phone was in contact

with his niece’s, Amya Robinson (“Amya”), cell phone and another phone number on

April 15 during the relevant time period and that Amya’s cell phone was in the vicinity of

the FDC on April 15 during the same period. Amya drives a black Honda CRV — an

SUV — with a full-sized spare tire on the back of the car and a replacement hood.

During the trial, she saw the surveillance footage showing the man that staff saw on April

15 next to a Honda SUV and testified that “it could possibly be” her car. App. 161.

The jury acquitted Gilbert but convicted Robinson of conspiracy to possess

contraband in prison. Robinson then moved under Rule 29 for a judgment of acquittal.

The court denied the motion, and Robinson timely appealed.

II.1

On appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we exercise

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under

. We have jurisdiction under

.

4 plenary review and will sustain the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Government, “any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence.” United States v. Smith,

(3d Cir. 2002). “Only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of

how it is weighted, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, may

an appellate court overturn the verdict.” United States v. McNeill,

(3d

Cir. 1989). We “must be ever vigilant . . . not to usurp the role of the jury by weighing

credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting [our] judgment for

that of the jury.” United States v. Brodie,

(3d Cir. 2005).

The elements of conspiracy to violate federal law in violation of

are (1) that two or more persons agreed to commit an offense against the United States,

here, possessing contraband in prison in violation of

(a)(2); (2) that the

defendant was a party to or member of that agreement; (3) that the defendant and at least

one other alleged conspirator shared a unity of purpose and the intent to achieve a

common goal or objective to commit an offense against the United States; and (4) during

the existence of the agreement or conspiracy, at least one member of the conspiracy

performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v.

Applewhaite,

(3d Cir. 1999); 3d Cir. Crim. Model Jury Instr.

§ 6.18.371A.

Robinson challenges only the third element, arguing that the evidence was

insufficient for the jury to find “unity of purpose or an intent to achieve a common goal”

between Robinson, Patterson, and Sambrano because (1) Robinson did not “seek nor

5 retrieve any of the smuggled contraband,” Robinson Br. 5; (2) the jury acquitted Gilbert

and therefore rejected the Government’s theory that Robinson communicated to Patterson

and Sambrano through Gilbert; and (3) the evidence regarding Amya, including phone

records showing that Robinson and Amya were in contact during the relevant time period

on April 15 and that a car matching the make and model of Amya’s car was in the

vicinity of the FDC during the same period on April 15, does not establish Robinson’s

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

First, that Robinson did not have any of the drugs in his cell does not negate that

Robinson shared a unity of purpose with Patterson and Sambrano. The jury heard

testimony from Patterson and Sambrano detailing Robinson’s involvement in the

conspiracy, including that Robinson used his cell phone to communicate with the people

outside of the FDC who supplied the contraband and that Robinson directed Patterson

and Sambrano to distribute the contraband to certain other prisoners. Indeed, Robinson’s

remark to Patterson and Sambrano that “you guys are messing up” after the unsuccessful

attempt, App. 295, shows that the three were working together to achieve their common

goal of bringing drugs into the prison.

Nor does the jury’s acquittal of Gilbert mean that the evidence is necessarily

insufficient to support Robinson’s conviction. An apparent inconsistency in a jury’s

verdict “does not show that [the jurors] were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt.”

United States v. Powell,

(1984). Regardless, Gilbert’s acquittal and

Robinson’s conviction are not necessarily inconsistent. The defense suggested at trial

that Patterson and Sambrano could have communicated through the vents with Gilbert’s

6 roommate or prisoners in adjoining cells. The jury could well have accepted that

argument as to Gilbert but concluded that Robinson was nevertheless involved in the

conspiracy because of the other evidence presented at trial, including the evidence that

showed Robinson was on the phone with Amya and that Amya was in the vicinity of the

prison during the commission of the crime. See Smith,

(requiring us to

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government in reviewing a convicted

defendant’s insufficiency arguments).2

Finally, we reject Robinson’s assertion that there was insufficient evidence to

support his conviction because the evidence related to Amya was insufficient standing

alone to support Robinson’s guilt. Evidence of a conspiracy may be proven by

circumstantial evidence. Brodie,

. The jury here heard evidence that

Amya, Robinson’s niece, was outside the FDC and on the phone with Robinson at the

same time that a man was attaching contraband to the line. They also saw surveillance

footage showing that man next to a car with the same make and model (and mismatched

hood) as Amya’s. A reasonable jury looking at this evidence could have logically

determined that the only plausible explanation for these facts was that Amya, working

alongside the man, was assisting Robinson in bringing drugs into the FDC. But even

assuming that the evidence related to Amya alone could not prove Robinson’s guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt, both Patterson and Sambrano testified as to Robinson’s

2 Robinson relatedly argues that the Government failed to prove that there was a hole in the wall between Robinson’s and Gilbert’s cells at the time of the crime because one officer testified that he did not remember seeing a hole in Robinson’s cell. Patterson, however, testified that Robinson showed him the hole.

7 involvement. That testimony is enough to sustain the jury’s guilty verdict. See United

States v. Monteiro,

(1st Cir. 2017) (“Testimony from one witness,

alone, can be enough to sustain a finding of guilt.”).

There were sufficient facts presented to the jury that could lead a rational trier of

fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was unity of purpose or an intent to

achieve a common goal between Robinson and Patterson and Sambrano. We accordingly

decline to disturb the jury’s verdict finding that Robinson conspired to possess

contraband in prison.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

8