### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

C HRISTOPHER D AVIS and M AURICE G REER , Defendants-Appellants

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:15-cr-00184-SEB-MJD — Sarah Evans Barker , Judge

.

____________________
A RGUED D ECEMBER 3, 2019

— D ECIDED M ARCH 20, 2020

____________________

Before W OOD , Chief Judge, and H AMILTON and S CUDDER , Circuit Judges

. W OOD , Chief Judge . Christopher Davis and Maurice Greer were charged with robbing two di ff erent Walmarts in Indiana over a four-month period. A juryconvicted both of them, and they now challenge the su ffi ciency of the evidence underlying their convictions. Because a rational jury could have found each one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we a ffi rm.2 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

I According to the government’s evidence at trial, Davis met Deidre Orkman, an assistan t manager at an Indianapolis Walmart, in early 2015 while he was shopping at the store. The pair soon began dating. During the course of their relationship, Orkman often discussed he r job with Davis, and she revealed to Davis what she knew about Walmart’s policies and procedures for handling cash. Armed with this inside information, Davis hatched a plan to rob the Indianapolis Walmart with two of his cousins—Greer and Darryl Williams.

Before the fi rst robbery, Orkman met with Davis and Greer to discuss logistics. She to ld Davis and Greer that a Sunday night or Monday morning would be the best time to rob the store because a large amountof cash from the weekendwould remain on hand. Davis and Greer took Orkman’s advice. On the morning of Monday, June 8, 2015, the two dropped Orkman o ff at the Indianapolis Walmart for her morning shift. Amanda Greene and Jana West were working alongside Orkman that morning at the store’s customer service area. Orkman, Greene, and West testi fi ed about the following events, most of which were also captured on security cameras.Greer, who had been lurking behind the sunglasses rack, entered the customer service area and pointed a gun at West and Orkman. They then proceeded to the cash room, and Greene(who was already in the cash room) and Orkman started loading cash into bags. West was crying and shaking in fear. Once the cash was in the bags, Greerused duct tape to restrain West, Greene, and Orkman. Greer then left the Walmart withthe bags of cash and returned to the car where Davis was waiting. Hours later, Davis took phot ographs of a large amount ofNos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 3

cash spread on a table, and Davis gave Orkman $1,500 for her role in the robbery. Apparently satis fi ed that the Indianap olis Walmart was a good target, Davis soon decided to rob it again. He discussed his plans with Williams (his cousin and Greer’s brother) and Orkman. Orkman originally was “okay with it,” but later told Davis that she wanted out. Da vis informed Orkman that the robbers would kill her if she to ld anyone. Davis and Williams then moved forward with their plans for the second robbery.

Williams testi fi ed about the details of the second robbery. Orkman was working the overnight shift from August 27–28, 2015. Davis drove Williams to the Indianapolis Walmart and gave him a gun to use during the robbery. Williams entered the store and hid inside the restroom before calling Davis. Next, Davis called Orkman to see if she was working at the front of the store. Orkman testi fi ed that she received a phonecall from Davis, who told her to “[g]et ready,” which she understood to mean that the robbery was about to take place. Williams left the bathroom, found Orkman, showed her the handgun, and demanded that Orkman take him to the cash room. Orkman testi fi ed that she thought she would be shot if she did not comply. Se curity video captured the following events. Just after midnight on August 28, Orkman and Williams entered the cash room, and Williams gathered cash from the counter. Orkman open ed the safe and removed bundles of cash, which Williams placed into his bags. Williamsthen restrained Orkman’s hands with zip ties and bound Orkman’s mouth with duct tape. Williams walked out of the store and went to a nearby apartmentparking lot where Davis was waiting.4 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

Later that day, Davis paid $8,000 in cash for a white Land Rover, which he purchased from a used car dealership. The car dealer testi fi ed that the cash was in low-denomination bills, principally $5 and $20. The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) suspected that the June 8 and August 28 robberies were related, and Orkman was a personof interest because she had worked during both of the robberies even though they occurred during di fferent shifts. While conducting surveillance on Orkman, an IMPD o ffi cer noticed Davis’s Land Rover parked outside of Orkman’s apartment. The o ffi cer learned that the Land Rover had beenpurchased on August 28—the same day as the second robbery—and obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on it. Soon after, Davis began planni ng for yet another Walmart robbery, this time at a store in Kokomo, Indiana. Davis recruited his friend, Tyrone Townsell, by telling him about the June 8 robbery. Townsell testi fi ed about the following events. On the night of September 13, 2015, Davis and Greer picked up Townsell in Indianapolis, an d the trio, with Davis driving the GPS-tracked Land Rover, drove north to Kokomo. Greer and Townsell entered the store ar ound midnight but left after noticing that it was still full of customers. A few hours later, Greer and Townsell entered the store a second time, after 3:00 a.m. on September 14, while employees Lucy Bishop and Tom Johnson were working. Bishop, Johnson, and Townse ll added the following details, most of which were also captured on video. Greer held a gun up to Johnson, and after Bishop approached, Greer told Johnson and Bishop to stay quiet. Bishop unlocked the cash room, and Greer and Townsell followed the employeesNos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 5

inside. Greer and Townsell ordered Johnson to open a safeand load cash into a suitcase inside a shopping cart; he complied. Greer also grabbed bundle s of cash. Greer displayed the handgun to Johnson and Bishop and made them kneel in the back room, where he restrained them with duct tape and zip ties. Townsell carried the cash ou t of the store in the suitcase, with Greer following close behind. They returned to Davis’s Land Rover and drove back to In dianapolis via back roads in the hope of avoiding any police o ffi cers. The trio went to Davis’s apartment, and Greer took photographs of the cash sitting on the table in the apart ment. The photographs were ultimately retrieved from Greer’s phone. The GPS tracking device allowed the IMPD to pinpoint the location of the Land Rover after the department received an alert about the Kokomo Walmart robbery. O ffi cers arrested Davis, Greer, and Townsell during a tra ffi c stop in Indianapolis. Inside Davis’s Land Rove r, law enforcement found a gun, two stashes of cash ($23,862 and $9,088) in a green bag in the cargo area, and $17,020 in a bag on the front passenger fl oorboard. At the time of the arrest , Greer had $8,205 in his pocket and Davis had $1,958 in his. The police also executed a search warrant for Davis’s apartment. They found a bag of quarters stamped “Walmart 5804,” which was the unique store number of the Indianapolis Walmart. O ffi cers also found ammunition, additional cash,and the suitcase taken from the Kokomo Walmart; that suitcase still had the Walmart store tag a tt ached to it. The FBI determined that the robbers had stolen, in total, about $225,000 from the Walmart stores. The government eventually obtained a third superseding indictment against Davis, Greer, Williams, Townsell, and6 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

Orkman. With respect to Davis and Greer, the government charged the following:

Count Violated Statute – 18 U.S.C. Robbery Date Robbery Location Defendant

1 § 1951 6/8/15 Indianapolis Davis, Greer 2 § 924(c) 6/8/15 Indianapolis Davis, Greer 3 § 1951 8/28/15 Indianapolis Davis 4 § 924(c) 8/28/15 Indianapolis Davis 5 § 1951 9/14/15 Kokomo Davis, Greer 6 § 924(c) 9/14/15 Kokomo Davis, Greer 7 § 922(g) 9/14/15 Kokomo Greer 8 § 1951(a) 6/8/15 – 9/15/15 Indiana Davis, Greer

Davis and Greer proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found each man guilty on all coun ts as charged. The districtcourt denied Davis’s and Greer’s Rule 29 motions for judgment of acqui tt al, fi nding that su ffi cient evidence was presented at trial to sustain each of the charged o ffenses. II We review a trial court’s ruling on a Rule 29 motion de

novo , asking only “whether evidence exists from which any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Doody, 600 F.3d 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2010). “Reversal under thisNos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 7

standard is rare because we defer heavily to the jury’s fi ndings and review evidence in th e light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Johnson , 874 F.3d 990, 998 (7th Cir. 2017). We will reverse only when no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty. Id.
A

Davis contends that there was insu ffi cient evidence for his convictions on Counts 1, 3, an d 4. We start with Count 1,which charges Davis with interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, in connection with the June 8 robbery ofthe Indianapolis Walmart. Davis argues that the evidence at trial failed to link him to the June 8 robbery. He asserts that the government did not o ff erany testimony from any witnesses of the robbery that established his presence at the Indianapolis Walmart on June 8. Moreover, he was never identi fi ed as a person who entered the Walmart and held up the employees in exchange for money.Davis, however, was charged with all three Walmart robberies as an aider and abe tt or. See 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Aiding and abe tt ing requires that a person (1) act in furtherance of the offense (2) with the intent to help the o ffense’s commission. United States v. Rivera , 901 F.3d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 2018). Thegovernment is not required to prove that the defendant assisted every element of the underlying o ff ense. United States v. Woods , 148 F.3d 843, 850 (7th Cir. 1998). Instead, it must show only that the defendant “c ontributed at least one act of

a ffi rmative assistance.” Id. Although Davis might not have physically entered the Walmart during the robbery, the government provided ample8 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

evidence that he a ffi rmatively assisted in at least one way. Orkman testi fi ed that Davis was the getaway driver for the June 8 robbery, and Davis also drove Orkman and Greer to the store. When an armed robbery defendant acts with knowledge, “merely transporting the robber and the fi rearm to the scene of the crime amounts to facilitation su ffi cient to support the jury verdict.” Id. at 848. Other evidence also supports the jury’s determination that Davis participated in robbing the Indianapolis Walmart on June 8. Location data from Davis’s phone placed him near theIndianapolis Walmart around the time of the robbery. Photographs were recovered from Davis’s phone, including some from June 8 depicting a large am ount of cash spread on his living room table. Orkman testi fi ed that Davis gave her $1,500 for her role in the June 8 robbery. Moreover, when Davis’s apartment was searched, the bag of quarters recovered wasstamped “Walmart 5804,” which was the unique store number of the Indianapolis Walmart. Although the bag of quarters could have been stolen duri ng the second IndianapolisWalmart robbery, the “jury did not need to look at the evidence for each robbery ‘in isolation from the others.’” Rivera , 901 F.3d at 901. It could consider evidence of Davis’s actionsduring the other robberies to infer reasonably that Davis participated in the June 8 robbery. Id. A reasonable jury couldconclude, as this jury did, that Davis was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on Count 1. We now turn to Counts 3 and 4. Count 3 charged Davis with interference with intersta te commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count 4 charged Davis with using, carrying, or brandishing a fi rearm during a crime of violence,Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 9

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Both counts refer to the August 28 robbery of the Indianapolis Walmart. Davis’s argument for Count 3 fo cuses on the statutory definition of robbery. Section 1951 de fi nes robbery as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession ... .” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1). Davis argues that the government’s ev idence did not show that “actual or threatened force” was used during the August 28 robbery. His argument rests on Orkman’s advance knowledge of the robbery, because she was th e only Walmart employee present at the time of the robbery . Davis claims that the videoevidence shows Orkman looking relaxed as she helped Williams gather cash from the safe. Davis highlights that Williams was also relaxed, even se tt ing down his gun as he was collecting and bundling the money. Because Orkman showed no fear during the robbery and Williams was relaxed, Davis argues, Orkman was a co-conspi rator and the government did not provide su ffi cient evidence of “actual or threatened force” for the conviction on Count 3. The jury, however, reasonably drew a di fferent inference from Williams’s and Orkman’s testimony. Williams testi fi edthat when he pulled a gun on Orkman, it was a threat. Orkman also testi fi ed that she thought Williams would shoot her if she did not comply with his demands. In addition, before the August 28 robbery, Orkman told Davis that she no longer wanted to be involved in futur e robberies, and Davis told her that if she said anything, “the y will kill you.” This evidence10 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

contradicts Davis’s assertion that Orkman was a “relaxed” coconspirator. Whether or not Orkm an was a co-conspirator in the August 28 heist, there wa s ample testimony supporting a fi nding that she feared injury du ring the robbery and that her fear was reasonable. See United States v. Mitov, 460 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that a fear of economic harm need only be reasonable for Hobbs Ac t extortion). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s conclusion on Count 3. Count 3 served as the predicate o ffense to convict Davis on Count 4. Davis argues that since there was insu ffi cient evidence to sustain his Count 3 conviction, we should vacate his conviction on Count 4. Because we fi nd that su ffi cient evidence supports Davis’s convicti on on Count 3, we also a ffi rm the jury’s verdict on Count 4.

B We now turn to Greer. Greer argues that the government presented insu ffi cient evidence for his convictions on Counts 1 and 5. Both counts charge Greerwith interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count 1 refers to the June 8 robbery of the Indianapolis Walmart, and Count 5 refers to the September 14 robbery of the Kokomo Walmart. Greer contends that his brother, Williams, was responsiblefor both robberies. He claims that Williams was therefore motivated to blame anyone else and lied during his testimony. Because of the similarities in their height and complexion, Greer claims that he was an easytarget for that blame. Moreover, Greer argues, Williams faced a life sentence if he failed to cooperate, so he could not be a reliable witness.Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 11

Williams, however, was not the only witness to identify Greer. Greer’s co-conspirators also testi fi ed against him. Orkman identi fi ed Greer as the gunman in the June 8 robbery, and Townsell identi fi ed Greer as the gunman in the September 14 robbery. Greer claims that his co-conspirators’ identi fi

cations are also not persuasive because of their plea agreements, but Greer forgets abou t the Walmart employees who testi fi ed. Greene, an employee at the Indianapolis Walmart when it was robbed, testi fi ed that Greer was the gunman in the June 8 robbery, and Johnson, an employee at the Kokomo Walmart when it was robbed, testi fi ed that Greer was a robber in the September 14 robbery. “It is the jury’s job, and not ours,to gauge the credibility of the witnesses and decide what inferences to draw from the evidence.” United States v. Stevenson , 680 F.3d 854, 857 (7th Cir. 2012). “We do not second guess such determinations on appeal.” Id. The jury believed that Greer, and not Williams, was th e gunman in both robberies, and we will not questi on that decision. Furthermore, the eyewitness identi fi cations are not the only evidence supporting Greer’s conviction. The jury saw the surveillance videos of the June 8 and September 14 robberies, and although details of the pe rpetrators’ faces were not entirely clear, the jury was entitled to fi nd that each video corroborated the identi fi cations. In addition, for the September 14 robbery, location data from Greer’s phone placed him in the vicinity of the Kokomo Walm art at the time of the crime.Greer also photographed large amounts of cash after the September 14 robbery, and these photographs were recovered from his phone. Moreover, when the Land Rover was stopped, Greer had $8,205 in his pocket, and a bag of $17,020 was at the fl oor of the front passenger seat where he had been si tt ing. Based on this corroborating evidence, the jury was12 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129

entitled to conclude that Gr eer was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on Counts 1 and 5.
We therefore A FFIRMthe judgments of the district court.