Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03215/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Shaine L. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-3215

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SHAINE L. WILLIAMS,

Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 1-12-cr-00194-017)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 23, 2016

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed:September 30, 2016)

____________

OPINION*

____________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3215 Document: 003112423462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Shaine Williams appeals the District Court’s judgment of sentence imposed after a 

jury found him guilty of various drug offenses and a money laundering offense. Because 

Williams has offered no persuasive reason to disturb the judgment, we will affirm.

I

Williams’ first two challenges relate to the sufficiency of the evidence presented at 

trial. Neither of these arguments mentions our seminal precedent in this area—United 

States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc)—in which we 

explained in some detail the standard of review applicable to such challenges. Under that 

deferential standard, it is clear that sufficient evidence supported the verdicts. 

The theme of Williams’ appeal is epitomized by his argument that the 

Government’s star witness, John Rawls, “was a classic corrupt and polluted source.” 

Williams Reply Br. 14. At various points in both of his briefs, Williams argues that

Rawls and other Government witnesses were motivated to lie and were untrustworthy. 

These arguments are unavailing on appeal, of course, because it was the jury’s duty to 

determine whether Rawls and other witnesses were credible despite the fact that they 

were self-interested cooperating witnesses.

Reviewing, as we must, the record in the light most favorable to the verdict winner

(here, the Government), there is ample evidence that Williams transported money from 

Harrisburg to Atlanta and returned with drugs. Williams’ role as a courier for the Rawls 

organization was established not only by the testimony of several of his co-defendants, 

Case: 15-3215 Document: 003112423462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
3

but also by travel records and phone records. And the fact that no witnesses testified that 

Williams personally engaged in some activities of the conspiracy is unhelpful to him 

because the District Court, consistent with Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 

(1946), properly instructed the jury that “[t]he acts or statements of any member of a 

conspiracy are treated as the acts or statements of all members of the conspiracy if those 

acts or statements were performed or spoken during the existence of the conspiracy and 

further the objectives of the conspiracy.” App. 1229–30.

For these reasons, we agree with the Government that the evidence was sufficient 

to support the jury verdicts against Williams in all respects.

II

Williams next argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to 

grant a continuance because of the lateness of the Government’s disclosures. Specifically, 

Williams complains of voluminous and confusing disclosures made on November 19, 

2014 and December 2, 2014. Williams claims that because the timing of these disclosures 

precluded him from hiring an expert witness, he was entitled to a continuance. He also 

contends that the District Court erred in admitting testimony and charts from agents who 

relied on those phone records to trace Williams’ movements.

As the District Court rightly noted, Williams failed to identify a rule of evidence 

that the Government violated by producing these phone records some three weeks prior 

to trial. Accordingly, the District Court surmised that Williams was arguing that the 

records were inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11). The Court held that 

Case: 15-3215 Document: 003112423462 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
4

Williams “had a fair opportunity to challenge” these self-authenticating business records, 

App. 26, and we perceive no error in that regard. In his Reply Brief on appeal, Williams 

cites Rules 16(a)(1)(E) & (F) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but fails to 

explain where he brought these rules to the District Court’s attention and, more 

fundamentally, how these rules were violated by the Court’s decision. Accordingly, we 

will affirm the judgment of the District Court on this issue.

III

Williams next claims he was denied a fair trial when the jury learned that he was 

on state probation and when the District Court did not allow his counsel to conduct a full 

cross-examination of Rawls. We are unpersuaded by either argument.

Before trial, the Government filed a motion in limine to admit evidence about 

Williams’ probation status under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Williams 

objected on the grounds that this information was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We 

find no error in the District Court’s decision to admit this evidence.

The record demonstrates that Williams was aware that he was not allowed to 

travel more than 50 miles from Dauphin County without permission. In fact, Williams 

sought and received permission to travel to Alabama to attend a family funeral. Williams 

never asked permission for any of his many trips to Atlanta, however. And although 

Williams’ failure to seek permission to travel to Atlanta is not dispositive that those trips 

were for an illicit purpose, it is probative of Williams’ motive or intent in making those 

trips.

Case: 15-3215 Document: 003112423462 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/30/2016
5

Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion when it limited defense counsel’s 

cross-examination of Rawls. Defense counsel was permitted to ask Rawls whether he 

called his son the day he was arrested. Counsel for the Government objected only after

defense counsel asked whether Rawls’ son had been involved in drug trafficking. And 

this objection was properly granted because Rawls’ son was neither the subject of any 

direct examination nor facing any charges in the case. It was therefore proper for the 

District Court to sustain the Government’s objection. 

* * *

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

Case: 15-3215 Document: 003112423462 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/30/2016