FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPT 30, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 93 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 02 09 -CC- CCH-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us MARC US SIM S, a.k .a. Lil Bo o, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 30 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mar cu s Si m s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f th e Hob bsAct, 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 , 19 51 (a), an d c arrying a fi rearm du rin g t ha t ro bb ery, id . §§ 2, 92 4( c). Si m s ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on s an d t he refu sa l o f th e d is tri ctco urt t o g iv e h is pro po se d jury in st ru ct io ns on ro bb ery an d a id in g andab et ti ng . W e affi rm . The di stric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g S im s’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Sim s ar gu es he co ul d n otbe co nv ic te d o f ro bb ery orth e rel at edfir earm of fen se be cau se th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th athe st ol e p ro pe rty “ fro m th e pe rs on or i n the pre se nc e o f an ot he r . . . by m ean s o f actua l o r th reat en edfor ce . . . orof a nyon e in hi s co m

pany at th e ti m e o f th e ta ki ng or o bt ai ni ng ,” 18 U.S.C. § 19 51 (b )(1 ), bu t we d is ag ree. Ai de d b y th e actua l fo rce u se d b y

Mau ric e Je nk in s, hi s co ho rt, Si m s was ab le to st eal a pa ck ag e b ot h i n t he pre se nc e o f a d el iv ery dr iv er an d wh enth e driv er was in th e co m pany of a p riv at e se cu rit y gu ard . See i d. §§ 2, 1 95 1( b) (1 ); Un it edSta te s v . Ham bl in , 91 1 F .2d55 1, 5 57 –5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 90 ). The driv er o f a d el iv ery tru ckco nf ro nt edSim s an d J en ki ns aft er s eei ng th em pl ace p ack ag es st ol enfro m th e truc k i nt o t he ir v eh ic le . The driv er trie d t o wres tl e a p ack ag e away from Jen ki ns whi le Sim s s tru gg le d t o s qu eeze a larg e pa ck ag e in th e b acksea t o f th e v eh ic le . Whe n asec ur it y gu ardcam e to ass is t the de li ve ry dri ve r, Je nk in s u se d o ne of t he two guns th athe an d S im s h adco nc eal ed in th e p oc ke ts be hi ndth ei r se at s i n t he ir v eh ic le to sh oo t the sec ur it y gu ard . The 2dr iv er o f th e d el iv ery tru ck , th e se cu rit y gu ard , andJen ki ns all tes ti fie d fo r th e go ve rn m en t, as di d l oc al off ic ers in vo lv edinth e in ve st ig at io n o f th e cri m e. Am pl e ev id en ce s up po rts Sim s’s co nv ic ti on s. The di stric t co urt al so di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to gi ve Sim s’s pr op os edjury in st ru ct io ns . A defe nd an t i s en ti tl edto have hi s p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io n re adto th e jury on ly if th e in st ru ct io n p ro vi de s an accu rat e st at em en t o f th e la w, th e in st ru ct io n i s n otot he rwis e in cl ud edinth e jury char ge , andth e fai lu re to gi ve th e in st ru ct io n “ ‘sub st an ti al ly im pa ire d the de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p res en t an effe ct iv e d efen se .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cul ve r, 59 8 F .3d74 0, 7 51 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Klo pf , 42 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )). Si m s’s pr op os edin st ru ct io n o n ro bb ery, whi ch st at edth at“ [f]orc e o r vi ol en ce tha t o ccu rs du rin g t he esc ap e fro m

a th eftdo es no t tran sf

orm th e o rig in al th eftcri m e in to a ro bb ery, ” is no t s up po rte d b y ou r cas el aw, was i nc on si st en t wi th ev id en ce tha t the sh oo ti ng oc cu rreddu rin g t he rob be ry , andsu gg es ts in co rrec tl y th atJen ki ns ’s sk irmish with t he de li ve ry dri ve r co ul d n otco ns ti tu te actua l fo rce. Th e in st ru ct io n gi ve n b y th e d is tri ctco urt track edth e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e, co nv ey edaccu rat el y th e la w, anddi st in gu is he d b etweenth e o ffen se s o f th eftan d ro bb ery. Sim s’s pr op os edin st ru ct io ns on aid in g a ndab et ti ng , whi ch wou ldha ve ad de d l an gu ag e th atSim s h adto sh are t he same int en t as Jen ki ns , was re pe ti ti ve of i nf orm at io n i n 3th e o ral ch arg e. The d is tri ctco urt co ul d p hr as e th e jury ins tru ct io n i n am an ne r to

co nv ey accu rat el y

th e law abo utaid in g a ndab et ti ng . See Un it edSta te s v . Liv el y , 80 3 F .2d11 24 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The o m is si on of S im s’s p ro po se d l an gu ag e di d n otim

pa ir h is ab il it y

to co nv ey

to th e jury his de fen se th athe aid edan d ab et te d S im s s ol el y

ina sc he m e to st eal pro pe rty. W e AFFIRM Sim s’s co nv ic ti on s.

4