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: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 9 Fed. Appx. 286, 289
citation_a.parenthetical: 8.5 grams of crack cocaine "was large enough to draw an inference of intent to distribute"
citation_a.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.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 246 Fed.Appx. 321, 330
citation_b.parenthetical: recovery of $1,900 from the defendant's pocket supported conclusion that the defendant was selling drugs
citation_b.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).