Dickerson

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with most of the memorandum, but respectfully dissent from the reversal of the conviction on Count Four. I do not believe that it was unreasonable for the jury to conclude that Dickerson purchased and possessed cocaine on June 15, 1997 with intent to distribute. The similarity between the June and the August episodes, notably in the wiretapped telephone conversations and the visit to the source’s apartment, is striking. The fact that the alleged supplier to Dickerson insisted in a telephone conversation just prior to their meeting on June 15 that Dickerson come to the supplier’s apartment alone and leave any companions in the truck outside—a procedure Dickerson agreed to and followed by leaving his brother sitting alone for approximately 15 minutes while he went inside by himself—particularly supports a conclusion that the meeting was not a casual or innocent social call. It is *768 also noteworthy that after leaving the alleged supplier’s apartment complex, Dickerson stopped at a red traffic light at an intersection of two busy roads, signaled for a left turn, but then went straight across the intersection against the red…

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Marcus Dickerson was found guilty by a jury of several offenses related to the possession and distribution of cocaine and was sentenced to 151 months in prison. He appeals his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary. We reverse his conviction as to the charge contained in Count Four of the Second Superseding Indictment (violation of 21 U.S.C. *766 § 841 (a)(1), possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, related to the June 15, 1997 incident) and affirm the remainder of the judgment. As it appears that the reversal of the conviction on Count Four does not affect Dickerson’s sentence, we affirm that sentence as well.

First, Dickerson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the counts alleging possession with intent to distribute. We “review the evidence presented against the defendant in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1218 (2001) (citation omitted). As to Count…