context: We wonder what jury would not reach that conclusion. Moreover, the jury could have inferred solely from the possession of this large quantity of drugs that Defendant intended to further distribute it.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 246 Fed.Appx. 321, 330
citation_a.parenthetical: recovery of $1,900 from the defendant's pocket supported conclusion that the defendant was selling drugs
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Wilson, 27 F.3d 1126, 1133 (6th Cir.1994) (recognizing “the connection between guns and drug trafficking”); United States v. Collier, 246 Fed.Appx. 321, 330 (6th Cir. 2007) (recovery of $1,900 from the defendant’s pocket supported conclusion that the defendant was selling drugs).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 280 F.3d 715, 724
citation_b.parenthetical: 18 grams of crack cocaine sufficient for an inference of intent to distribute
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 724 (6th Cir.2002) (18 grams of crack cocaine sufficient for an inference of intent to distribute); United States v. Clemons, 9 Fed. Appx. 286, 289 (6th Cir.2001) (8.5 grams of crack cocaine “was large enough to draw an inference of intent to distribute”). In addition, Investigator Bryant testified that firearms were recovered nearby the drugs, $1,008 was recovered from the bedroom, and no drug paraphernalia to use the crack was recovered.