Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01116/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01116-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamillo Donte Spight
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1116

___________________________

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jamillo Donte Spight

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: October 23, 2015

 Filed: April 4, 2016

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Jamillo Donte Spight challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict

him of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
Spight also argues that the district court1

 should not have admitted into evidence

expert testimony from an ATF2

 agent because it lacked proper foundation.

Additionally, Spight asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by

making an evidentiary stipulation and not adequately investigating the case. Lastly,

Spight contends that the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence during

discovery. We affirm.

I. Background

In September 2013, a nightclub security camera recorded Spight enter the

establishment with a loaded handgun. In addition, several eyewitnesses observed him

in possession of the weapon. In fact, an unarmed security guard, Eric Wasson,

wrestled the gun from Spight's grasp. The gun discharged twice during the scuffle.

Fortunately, the shots injured no one. Wasson then handed the gun to Jonathan Price,

the nightclub's owner, who had rushed to the commotion. Standing nearby, Annikki

Davis, another unarmed security guard, witnessed the entire incident.

Spight was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At Spight's bench trial, Wasson, Price, and Davis

testified. The government also admitted the video from the security camera. Spight

challenged the credibility of both Wasson and Davis on two bases. First, both

witnesses were themselves convicted felons. The district court "[took] into account

their criminal records" and concluded that "their testimony was credible with respect

to their observations and identification of [Spight] and their testimony regarding his

possession of a firearm." The court based its conclusion upon its "evaluation of their

testimony, in light of all of the evidence before the Court, including the DVD video."

Second, Price indicated that he had helped wrestle the gun from Spight, which

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota

2

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
contradicted Wasson's testimony that he took the gun from Spight and then handed it

to Price. On the basis of the video evidence that supported Wasson's testimony, the

district court accepted Wasson's version of events, noting that "[t]his minor conflict

in the testimony does not create a reasonable doubt as to whether [Spight] was in

possession of a firearm."

As part of its case, the government had to show that the firearm had traveled in

interstate commerce. The district court allowed ATF Special Agent Martin Siebenaler

to testify as an expert witness. Based on his review of an ATF firearm trace report; the

place of manufacture stamped into the firearm; and the fact that Smith & Wesson, the

firearm's manufacturer, was not licensed to manufacture firearms in Minnesota, Agent

Siebenaler opined that the firearm that Spight possessed was manufactured in

Connecticut and Massachusetts and had traveled in interstate commerce to Minnesota.

The district court concluded on the basis of the admitted evidence that "the

United States has proven, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that on or about

September 21, 2013, [Spight] did knowingly and voluntarily possess in and affecting

interstate commerce a firearm . . . in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)." Accordingly, the district court entered the

conviction and sentenced Spight to 212 months' imprisonment and 5 years' supervised

release. Spight appeals his conviction.

II. Discussion

Spight brings four challenges to his conviction: (A) the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his conviction, (B) the admission of expert testimony with respect

to whether the firearm that he possessed had traveled in interstate commerce, (C) an

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and (D) a discovery claim.

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
A. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Spight's Conviction

Spight argues that the district court erred in finding the three witnesses who

testified at the trial to be credible and therefore based its guilt finding on insufficient

evidence. Specifically, he points to Wasson's and Davis's criminal history and the

inconsistency between Wasson's and Price's testimony, arguing that the events

recounted by all three are "downright preposterous." We disagree.

"We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo." United

States v. Johnson, 745 F.3d 866, 868–69 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "When

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the facts in the light most

favorable to the verdict, and affirm if any rational [factfinder] could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Ojeda-Estrada,

577 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Moreover, in "[r]eviewing the

sufficiency of the evidence, it is axiomatic that [this court does] not pass upon the

credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony" because

"[c]redibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact, and

are entitled to special deference." United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 923

(8th Cir. 2013) (second alteration in original) (quotations and citations omitted).

Spight's attempt to have this court reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses is

unavailing. The district court specifically considered the question of credibility and

nonetheless found the testimony to be credible because it was confirmed by video

evidence. The district court found the following:

With respect to both the testimony of Eric Wasson and Annikki Davis,

the Court has taken into account their criminal records, including their

prior felony records, and, based upon the Court's evaluation of their

testimony, in light of all of the evidence before the Court, including the

DVD video, the Court finds and concludes that their testimony was

credible with respect to their observations and identification of [Spight]

and their testimony regarding his possession of a firearm.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
And where testimony was in disagreement with the video evidence, the district court

deferred to the events depicted on the video. For example, the district court noted that

while there is a conflict between Jonathan Price's and Eric Wasson's

testimony, based upon the evidence before the Court, . . . [t]his minor

conflict in the testimony does not create a reasonable doubt as to whether

[Spight] was in possession of a firearm, especially given the fact that

[video evidence] was admitted which confirmed Eric Wasson's

testimony.

Moreover, the district court found that the video evidence independently

"establishes . . . that [Spight] returned to the bar with a handgun in his hand."

In short, the district court expressly addressed the credibility of the witnesses,

noting that Spight's guilt was confirmed by the surveillance video. Moreover, the

video footage leaves no reasonable doubt that Spight possessed the firearm and is thus

sufficient to establish Spight's guilt. The district court's harmonization of the

testimony adequately addresses any contradiction between the witnesses, and the court

was well within its discretion as the factfinder to credit the witnesses' testimony

despite their criminal history. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that

there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that Spight was guilty of unlawfully possessing the firearm.

B. The Court Properly Admitted the Expert Testimony of Agent Siebenaler

Spight argues that the district court abused its discretion in permitting expert

testimony from ATF Special Agent Siebenaler. He essentially argues that Agent

Siebenaler's testimony lacked foundation and was therefore inadmissible. We

disagree.

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
We review a "decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of discretion,

according it substantial deference." United States v. Holmes, 751 F.3d 846, 849

(8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A district court may permit a firearms expert to

offer an opinion that a firearm has traveled in interstate commerce on the basis of an

independently prepared firearm tracing report, the identity of the manufacturer and

place of manufacture stamped into a firearm, and the location where the firearm was

seized. See United States v. Maddix, 96 F.3d 311, 315 (8th Cir. 1996). We have also

held that evidence that the manufacturer of a firearm is not licensed to manufacture

firearms in the state in which the firearm was seized is sufficient to satisfy the

interstate-commerce element. United States v. Cox, 942 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir.

1991).

In this case, Agent Siebenaler testified that he used several bases to form his

opinion that Spight's gun had traveled in interstate commerce: an ATF tracing report

for the firearm indicating that the gun was not manufactured in Minnesota; the identity

of the manufacturer—Smith & Wesson—and the place of

manufacture—Massachusetts—stamped into the firearm; and the fact that the firearm

was a Smith & Wesson seized in Minnesota, a state where Smith & Wesson is not

licensed to manufacture firearms. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting Agent Siebenaler's expert testimony because he based his

opinion on the kinds of evidence we have previously considered sufficient.

C. We Decline to Consider Spight's Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim

Spight argues that his counsel acted ineffectively under Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). But "a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

is generally not a basis for direct appeal and instead should be properly raised in a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 action." United States v. Soriano-Hernandez, 310 F.3d 1099, 1105

(8th Cir. 2002) (footnote and citation omitted). We have enunciated only two

exceptions to this general rule—"the district court has fully developed a record on the

ineffectiveness claim" or "the result would otherwise be a plain miscarriage of

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526 
justice." Id. at 1105 n.9 (citations omitted). Neither exception applies here.

Accordingly, we decline to consider Spight's Strickland claim.

D. Spight Has Not Established a Brady Violation

Finally, Spight argues that the government violated Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1963). We review an unpreserved Brady claim for plain error. United

States v. Horton, 756 F.3d 569, 575 (8th Cir. 2014). In Brady, the Supreme Court held

that "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request

violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,

irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87. Spight's

argument is meritless. It contains no mention of any exculpatory fact, material or

otherwise, withheld by the prosecution. Accordingly, his Brady claim also fails, even

if it were reviewed under a less onerous standard than plain error.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, we affirm Spight's conviction.

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1116 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Entry ID: 4384526