FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 34 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 00 49 -MS S-GRJ -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL E UGENE RUDKIN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 27 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi ch ael Ru dk inap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r at te m pt edm ur de r of an em pl oyee of th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 11 14 ; at te m pt edret al ia ti on ag ai ns t a wi tn es s b y m ur de r, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 3( a)(1 )(B) ; at te m pt edret al ia ti on ag ai ns t a wi tn es s b y bo di ly inju ry , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 3( b) (1 ); andus e o f m ai l an d a n i nt ers ta te co m m erce faci li ty w ith i nt en t t o co m m itm ur de r-fo r-h ire , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 8. Onap pe al , Rudki n arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredby den y in g R ud ki n’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se th e ev id en ce attri al sh owe d t ha t Ru dk in was e nt rap pe d b y a go ve rn m en t i nf

orm an t. Ru dk in arg ue s t ha t h e was rep eat ed ly ent ic edby the go ve rn m en t’s ag en ts , Rud ki n’s fe ll ow i nm at es at C ol em anFed eral Co rrec ti on al In st itut io n, b ecau se th ey

so ug htsubs ta nt ia l as si st an ce re du ct io ns inth ei r pr is on se nt en ces . Rud ki n fu rth er ar gu es th atth e in fo rm an ts to okadva nt ag e o f hi m be cau se th ey

kn ew of th e es pe ci al da ng er a fo rm er co rrec ti on s o ffi cer f aces in pr is on , andth us , Rud ki n p la y edalo ng with t he ir ‘rid ic ul ou s’ pl anforhi s o wn sa fety . Ord in ari ly, whe n t he jury reject s an en trapm en t d efen se , ou r rev ie w is li m it edto “ whe th er the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atth e d efen dantwas p red is po se d t o t ak e p artinth e il li ci t tran sa ct io n,” an d t he

“ jury’ s v erd ic t ca nn otbe ov erturne d i f an y reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce wou ldall ow t he jury to fin d t he de fen da ntgu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 43 F.3d61 8, 6 22 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Rev ie w is de no vo , 2an d a ll fact s an d i nf eren ces are drawninfav orof t he go ve rn m en t. Id. Howev er, whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to m ov e fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al at t he clo se of t he ev id en ce, rev ers al of t he co nv ic ti on is ap pr op ria te on ly to p rev en t a “ m an ife st m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ben de r , 29 0 F .3d12 79 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Und er thi s s ta nd ard , th e ev id en ce o n ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se m us t b e

“ so ten uo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng .” Id. W e h av e h el d t ha t the de te rm in at io n o f a witne ss ’s cred ib il ity is “ th e ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e jury.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d13 14 , 13 25 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) , modif

ie d o n o th er

gr ou nd s , Uni te d Sta tes v. To le r , 14 4 F .3d14 23 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . W e m ay no t re vi ew de te rm in at io ns m ad e b y th e jury as to th e cred ib il it y

of wi tn es s t es ti m on y

un le ss su ch tes ti m on y

is “ in cred ib le as am at te r of la w.” Id . at 1 32 5 (c it in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Hew it t , 66 3 F .2d13 81 , 13 85 (11 th Cir . 19 81 )). Test im on y

is in cred ib le as am at te r of law o nl y when itis “un be li ev ab le on it s fa ce” andrel at es to “ fact s t ha t the witne ss ph y si cal ly cou ldno t h av e po ss ib ly obs erv edor e ve nt s tha t co ul d n othave oc cu rredun de r th e la ws o f na tu re.” Id . at 1 32 5 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d) . Ent rap m en t i s anaffi rm at iv e d efen se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Qu in n , 12 3 F .3d 14 15 , 14 23 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). A vi ab le ent rap m en t d efen se requi res th at : (1 ) th ere is go ve rn m en t i nduc em en t o f th e cri m e; an d (2 ) th e d efen da ntwas n otpre di sp os ed 3to co m

m itth e cri m e b efo re the in du cem en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rya n , 28 9 F .3d13 39 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To co ns ti tu te in du cem en t, the go ve rn m en t m us t d o m or e th anco nt actth e d efen da ntor s ug ge stth athe co m m ita cri m e. Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 62 3. Ra th er, i nduc em en t b y th e g ov ern m en t “ requi res anele m en t o f pe rs ua si on or m il d c oe rci on .” Rya n, 28 9 F .3dat 1 34 4. Th e g ov ern m en t ca nn otbe fou nd res po ns ib le forin du ci ng th e d efen da ntto en ga ge ina cri m in al actun le ss it pr ov id es bo th th e o pp ortu ni ty andso m ethi ng ad di ti on al , su chas c oe rci on or ex ces si ve pre ss ur e, orm an ip ul at io n o f a n on -cri m in al m ot iv e. Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 62 3. Pers ua si on or m il d c oe rci on m ay be sh own if [the ] de fen da nt de m on st rat es th athe ha d n otfav or ab ly recei ve d t he go ve rn m en t p la n, an d t he go ve rn m en t h adto ‘ pu sh it ’ on hi m , or t ha t s ev eral att em pt s at se tt in g up a n i ll ic itde al ha d fa il edan d o n a t l eas t o ne oc cas io n h e h ad di rect ly refus edto pa rti ci pa te . Rya n, 28 9 F .3dat 1 34 4 (c it at io ns , qu ot at io ns , andpu nc tu at io n o m it te d) . Onc e th e d efen da ntpro du ces so m e ev id en ce o f in du cem en t, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve , beyon d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t the de fen da ntwas p red is po se d t o co m m itth e o ffen se . Id. at13 43 . Pred is po si ti on is a fact -in te ns iv e an d s ub jecti ve in qu iry, requ iri ng th e jury to “ co ns id er the de fen dant ’s read in es s an d wi ll in gn es s to en ga ge in th e ch arg edcri m e ab se ntan y co nt actwith the go ve rn m en t’s . . . ag en ts .” Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 6 24 -2 5. Pre di sp os it io n m ay be de m on st rat edby “ th e 4de fen da nt ’s ready co m m is si on of t he ch arg edcri m e [o r] evi de nc e th atth e de fen da ntwas g iv enop po rtu ni ti es to ba ckou t o f il le ga l tran sa ct io ns bu t fa il edto do so .” Id . at 6 25 ; se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. Vent ur a , 93 6 F .2d12 28 , 12 31 -3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (ho ld in g t ha t p red is po si ti on canbe de m on st rat edif t he de fen da nt en ga ge d i n t he il le ga l ac ti vi ty, al th ou gh he ha d t he op po rtu ni ty notto do so ). In ad di ti on , bec au se th e is su e o f pr ed is po si ti on is a fact -in te ns iv e que ry , th e jury’ s as se ss m en t o f th e cre di bi li ty andde m ean orof t he witne ss es is a cri ti cal fact or . Se e Bro wn , 43 F.3dat 6 25 . Ru dk in , who fai le d t o m ov e fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al at the clo se of a ll of th e ev id en ce, h as no t d em on st rat edth atth e ev id en ce re la ti ng to ke y ele m en ts of th e ch arg edoff

en se s was so ten uo us th athi s co nv ic ti on s wo ul d b e co ns id ered sh oc ki ng . The ev id en ce ad du cedat t ria l s ho wedth atRu dk in in it ia te d t he co nt act reg ard in g t he m

ur de r fo r hi re an d t en aci ou sl y pu rs ue d t he co nt actth athi s fe ll ow in m at es pro cu redforhi m . Clea rly the jury cred it edth is tes ti m on y . For the ab ov e st at edreas on s, we af

firm Ru dk in ’s con vi ct io ns . AFFIRMED.

5