Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02997/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02997-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael Vandergrift
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________________

Nos. 18-2997, 18-2998

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL VANDERGRIFT,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Nos. 2-13-cr-00057-002, 2-15-cr-00157-003)

District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert

____________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 5, 2020

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 23, 2020)

OPINION*

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Michael Vandergrift raises three claims on appeal of his convictions for 

murder, 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1)–(2), and other offenses. We will affirm.

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

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 18-2997 Document: 111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2020
2

Vandergrift first contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily agree that his 

proffer statements would be admitted against him. But we review the District Court’s 

factual findings for clear error, United States v. Mallory, 765 F.3d 373, 381 (3d Cir.

2014), and it found here, based on an extensive evidentiary hearing, that Vandergrift was 

informed of the terms of the proffer agreement and knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

rights. The record supports that finding so there was no error, much less clear error, on 

this point.

Vandergrift next contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish a drugtrafficking conspiracy. But on our “highly deferential” review, United States v. 

Caraballo–Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430–31 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc), we perceive 

sufficient evidence that Vandergrift had “repeated, familiar dealings” with his associate 

Vetri to establish a “common goal of distributing [oxycodone] for profit,” United States 

v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188, 197, 199 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

1

 

Finally, Vandergrift argues that the District Court erred in admitting certain

evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) and that the error was not 

harmless. To show harmlessness, the government need not “disprove every reasonable 

1 Nor did any variance between the conspiracy charged in the indictment and that 

shown at trial affect Vandergrift’s “substantial right[s]”: The trial overwhelmingly 

focused on the conspiracy between Vetri and Vandergrift, the primary figures in the 

murder, and evidence that a third party also supplied Vandergrift with drugs could not 

have distracted the jury from this focus. See United States v. Kelly, 892 F.2d 255, 258 

(3d Cir. 1989).

Case: 18-2997 Document: 111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2020
3

possibility of prejudice”; it need only persuade us it is “highly probable that the error did 

not contribute to the judgment.” United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308, 326 (3d Cir. 2002)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). That standard is met where, as here, “[e]ven 

assuming that the [admission] was unlawful, the mass of remaining evidence against [the 

defendant] was overwhelming.” United States v. Vallejo, 482 F.2d 616, 618 (3d Cir. 

1973). In addition to the other evidence lawfully introduced at trial, no fewer than four 

witnesses testified that Vandergrift committed the murder in furtherance of his 

conspiracy with Vetri. Given “the truly overwhelming quantity of legitimate evidence” 

on this record, United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 571 (3d Cir. 2010), the District 

Court’s admission of the challenged evidence here was harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

2

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction.

2 Vandergrift incorporated by reference Vetri’s arguments “to the extent that [t]he 

issues are applicable to Vandergrift.” Appellant’s Br. at 29. The expectation that we will 

“identify the issues to be adopted simply results in the abandonment and waiver of the 

unspecified issues.” United States v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112, 146 n.9 (3d Cir. 2019).

Case: 18-2997 Document: 111 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2020