In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

CHRISTOPHER DAVIS and MAURICE GREER, 

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. 

____________________ 

ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 2019 — DECIDED MARCH 20, 2020 

____________________ 

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER,

Circuit Judges. 

WOOD, Chief Judge. Christopher Davis and Maurice Greer 

were charged with robbing two different Walmarts in Indiana 

over a four-month period. A jury convicted both of them, and 

they now challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying 

their convictions. Because a rational jury could have found 

each one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. 
2 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 

I 

According to the government’s evidence at trial, Davis 

met Deidre Orkman, an assistant 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 her 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 first robbery, Orkman met with Davis and 

Greer to discuss logistics. She told Davis and Greer that a Sunday night or Monday morning would be the best time to rob 

the store because a large amount of cash from the weekend 

would remain on hand. Davis and Greer took Orkman’s advice. On the morning of Monday, June 8, 2015, the two 

dropped Orkman off 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 testified 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, Greer used duct tape to restrain 

West, Greene, and Orkman. Greer then left the Walmart with 

the bags of cash and returned to the car where Davis was waiting. Hours later, Davis took photographs of a large amount of 
Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 3 

cash spread on a table, and Davis gave Orkman $1,500 for her 

role in the robbery. 

Apparently satisfied that the Indianapolis 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. Davis informed Orkman that the 

robbers would kill her if she told anyone. Davis and Williams 

then moved forward with their plans for the second robbery. 

Williams testified 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 testified that she received a phone 

call 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 testified that she thought she would be 

shot if she did not comply. Security 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 opened the safe and removed bundles of cash, which Williams placed into his bags. Williams 

then 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 apartment parking 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 testified 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 person 

of interest because she had worked during both of the robberies even though they occurred during different shifts. 

While conducting surveillance on Orkman, an IMPD officer 

noticed Davis’s Land Rover parked outside of Orkman’s 

apartment. The officer learned that the Land Rover had been 

purchased 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 planning 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 testified about the following events. 

On the night of September 13, 2015, Davis and Greer picked 

up Townsell in Indianapolis, and the trio, with Davis driving 

the GPS-tracked Land Rover, drove north to Kokomo. Greer 

and Townsell entered the store around 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 Townsell 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 employees 
Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 5 

inside. Greer and Townsell ordered Johnson to open a safe 

and load cash into a suitcase inside a shopping cart; he complied. Greer also grabbed bundles 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 out of the store in the suitcase, 

with Greer following close behind. They returned to Davis’s 

Land Rover and drove back to Indianapolis via back roads in 

the hope of avoiding any police officers. The trio went to Davis’s apartment, and Greer took photographs of the cash sitting on the table in the apartment. 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. Officers arrested 

Davis, Greer, and Townsell during a traffic stop in Indianapolis. Inside Davis’s Land Rover, 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 floorboard. 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. Officers also found ammunition, additional cash, 

and the suitcase taken from the Kokomo Walmart; that suitcase still had the Walmart store tag attached 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, and 
6 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 counts as charged. The district 

court denied Davis’s and Greer’s Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal, finding that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain each of the charged offenses. 

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 this 
Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 7 

standard is rare because we defer heavily to the jury’s findings and review evidence in the 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 insufficient evidence for his 

convictions on Counts 1, 3, and 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 of the 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 offer 

any testimony from any witnesses of the robbery that established his presence at the Indianapolis Walmart on June 8. 

Moreover, he was never identified 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 abettor. See 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Aiding and 

abetting requires that a person (1) act in furtherance of the offense (2) with the intent to help the offense’s commission. 

United States v. Rivera, 901 F.3d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 2018). The 

government is not required to prove that the defendant assisted every element of the underlying offense. United States 

v. Woods, 148 F.3d 843, 850 (7th Cir. 1998). Instead, it must 

show only that the defendant “contributed at least one act of 

affirmative assistance.” Id. 

Although Davis might not have physically entered the 

Walmart during the robbery, the government provided ample 
8 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 

evidence that he affirmatively assisted in at least one way. 

Orkman testified 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 firearm 

to the scene of the crime amounts to facilitation sufficient 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 the 

Indianapolis Walmart around the time of the robbery. Photographs were recovered from Davis’s phone, including some 

from June 8 depicting a large amount of cash spread on his 

living room table. Orkman testified 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 was 

stamped “Walmart 5804,” which was the unique store number of the Indianapolis Walmart. Although the bag of quarters 

could have been stolen during the second Indianapolis 

Walmart 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 actions 

during the other robberies to infer reasonably that Davis participated in the June 8 robbery. Id. A reasonable jury could 

conclude, 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 interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count 4 charged Davis with using, 

carrying, or brandishing a firearm 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 focuses on the statutory definition of robbery. Section 1951 defines 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 evidence 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 the only Walmart employee present at the time of the robbery. Davis claims that the video 

evidence shows Orkman looking relaxed as she helped Williams gather cash from the safe. Davis highlights that Williams was also relaxed, even setting 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-conspirator and the government did 

not provide sufficient evidence of “actual or threatened force” 

for the conviction on Count 3. 

The jury, however, reasonably drew a different inference 

from Williams’s and Orkman’s testimony. Williams testified 

that when he pulled a gun on Orkman, it was a threat. Orkman also testified 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 future robberies, and Davis told her 

that if she said anything, “they will kill you.” This evidence 
10 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 

contradicts Davis’s assertion that Orkman was a “relaxed” coconspirator. Whether or not Orkman was a co-conspirator in 

the August 28 heist, there was ample testimony supporting a 

finding that she feared injury during 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 Act extortion). We see no reason 

to disturb the jury’s conclusion on Count 3. 

Count 3 served as the predicate offense to convict Davis 

on Count 4. Davis argues that since there was insufficient evidence to sustain his Count 3 conviction, we should vacate his 

conviction on Count 4. Because we find that sufficient evidence supports Davis’s conviction on Count 3, we also affirm 

the jury’s verdict on Count 4. 

B 

We now turn to Greer. Greer argues that the government 

presented insufficient evidence for his convictions on Counts 

1 and 5. Both counts charge Greer with 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 responsible 

for 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 easy target 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 testified against him. Orkman identified Greer as the gunman in the June 8 robbery, 

and Townsell identified Greer as the gunman in the September 14 robbery. Greer claims that his co-conspirators’ identifications are also not persuasive because of their plea agreements, but Greer forgets about the Walmart employees who 

testified. Greene, an employee at the Indianapolis Walmart 

when it was robbed, testified that Greer was the gunman in 

the June 8 robbery, and Johnson, an employee at the Kokomo 

Walmart when it was robbed, testified 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 the gunman in both robberies, 

and we will not question that decision. 

Furthermore, the eyewitness identifications 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 perpetrators’ faces were not entirely clear, the jury was entitled to find that each video corroborated the identifications. In addition, for the September 

14 robbery, location data from Greer’s phone placed him in 

the vicinity of the Kokomo Walmart 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 floor of the front passenger seat where he had been 

sitting. Based on this corroborating evidence, the jury was 
12 Nos. 18-2634 & 18-3129 

entitled to conclude that Greer was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on Counts 1 and 5. 

We therefore AFFIRM the judgments of the district court.