Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02435/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelo D. Dawson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2435

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Angelo D. Dawson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Western

No. 04-2509 District of Missouri.

___________ *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Ali M. Akbar, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 21, 2005

Filed: January 9, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2006 Entry ID: 1994621
-2-

A jury found Angelo D. Dawson and Ali M. Akbar guilty of conspiring to

distribute crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and, aiding and abetting each other,

possessing crack with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). The jury also found Mr. Akbar guilty of possessing crack with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced

Mr. Dawson to 151 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release and sentenced

Mr. Akbar to 188 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Each appellant

now challenges his convictions and sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we

affirm the convictions but vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

First, we reject Mr. Dawson's argument that the evidence, viewed in the light

most favorable to the verdict, is insufficient to support his convictions. See United

States v. Sloan, 293 F.3d 1066, 1067 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). The jury

was entitled to infer from the evidence presented that he was part of a conspiracy to

distribute crack: when police stopped the car in which Mr. Dawson was a passenger,

he attempted to flee; two loaded firearms and a distribution quantity of crack were

found concealed in the car; and Mr. Dawson ultimately admitted ownership of one of

the firearms after initially denying any knowledge of the contraband. See id. at

1068-69 (only slight evidence is required to connect defendant with conspiracy;

discussing when evidence is sufficient). From this evidence, the jury was likewise

entitled to infer that Mr. Dawson aided and abetted the possession of crack with intent

to distribute. See United States v. Mendoza, 421 F.3d 663, 668-69 (8th Cir. 2005)

(elements of aiding and abetting possession of crack with intent to distribute).

Second, we reject Mr. Akbar's argument that he was denied a fair trial because

he had to wear jail clothes during jury selection. The reason Mr. Akbar did not have

street clothes at the beginning of trial was his sister's failure to bring them as directed

by Mr. Akbar's lawyer. During jury selection, Mr. Akbar wore a suit jacket over his

jail clothes and was seated at the counsel table. After jury selection, his street clothes

arrived, and he wore them throughout the rest of the trial. Under these circumstances,

we conclude that Mr. Akbar's wearing of jail clothes during jury selection was

Appellate Case: 04-2435 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2006 Entry ID: 1994621
-3-

harmless. See United States v. Hurtado, 47 F.3d 577, 581 (2d Cir.) (even if defendant

is made to wear prison clothes at trial, this constitutional error is subject to harmlesserror analysis), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 903 (1995); cf. United States v. Grady, 997 F.2d

421, 424 (8th Cir.) (on facts very similar to Mr. Akbar's, concluding under plain-error

standard of review that defendant was not denied fair trial), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 958

(1993).

We conclude, however, that the district court committed plain error under

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), when sentencing Mr. Akbar and

Mr. Dawson. We further conclude that both appellants have met their burdens to

show a reasonable probability that they would have received more favorable sentences

but for the error. See United States v. Brown, 414 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Fleck, 413 F.3d 883, 897 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm appellants' convictions in all respects, but we vacate

their sentences and remand their cases to the district court for resentencing in light of

Booker. We deny Mr. Akbar's pending pro se motion as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2435 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2006 Entry ID: 1994621