[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12651

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60101-RSR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

VLADIMYR JEAN BAPTISTE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 20, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Vladimyr Jean Baptiste appeals his convictions for conspiracy to smuggle 

Case: 13-12651 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 1 of 5 
2

firearms from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and dealing in 

firearms without a federal license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 

923(a), and 924(a)(1)(D). On appeal, Baptiste argues that the evidence was 

insufficient because two witnesses were not credible, and most of the other 

evidence only documented his legal activities, such as buying firearms, flying to 

and from Haiti, and shipping personal effects and dog food to Haiti. Baptiste also 

argues that the Government did not prove that he was engaged in the business of 

selling firearms because it did not prove that he devoted time, attention, and labor 

to selling firearms, and therefore he was not required to apply for a license from 

the Attorney General.1

We review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and the 

sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 744 (11th Cir. 

2008). In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the verdict. United States v. Verbitskaya, 406 F.3d 1324, 1335 (11th Cir. 

2005). We affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The Court assumes that the jury made all 

credibility choices in a manner that supports its verdict. United States v. Jiminez, 

 1 In his reply brief, Baptiste also objects to hearsay evidence and claims a violation of his 

due process rights under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173 (1959). We will not 

entertain these issues because they were not timely raised in Baptiste’s initial brief. United 

States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004).

Case: 13-12651 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 2 of 5 
3

564 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009).

“The elements of a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are (1) an agreement 

among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and 

voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in 

furtherance of the agreement.” United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 

(11th Cir. 2003). The overt act may be innocent in nature as long as it furthers the 

purpose of the conspiracy. United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1002 (11th Cir. 

2008). The Government may prove a conspiracy with circumstantial evidence 

alone “[b]ecause the essential nature of conspiracy is secrecy.” United States v. 

Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147, 1153 (11th Cir. 1998). 

To convict a defendant of dealing in firearms without a license, the 

Government must show that the defendant: (1) engaged in the business of dealing 

in firearms; (2) did not have a license issued under federal law; and (3) knew that 

his conduct was unlawful. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A); Bryan v. United States, 

524 U.S. 184, 188-89, 196, 118 S. Ct. 1939, 1943-44, 1947 (1998). 

Section 921(a)(21)(C) defines “engaged in the business” relative to a dealer in 

firearms as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms 

as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood 

and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 921(a)(21)(C). The fact finder examines the intent of the defendant and all 

Case: 13-12651 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 3 of 5 
4

surrounding circumstances to determine if the defendant engaged in the business of 

dealing in firearms. See United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1392 (11th Cir. 

1997).

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm.

Baptiste’s argument, that the evidence is insufficient because two of the 

witnesses, Agent Ali Berisha and Michel Bosquet, are not credible, is unavailing 

because this Court assumes the jury made all credibility choices in favor of the 

verdict. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1285. Based on Bosquet’s testimony, that Baptiste 

shipped guns to Pierre Mendes, and the circumstantial evidence of Baptiste 

purchasing guns, shipping dog food to Bosquet, and flying to Haiti shortly after the 

purchases and shipments, the Government proved the three elements of conspiracy 

under § 371. See Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1270. Baptiste’s argument, that it was legal 

for him to buy firearms, ship dog food, and fly to Haiti, does not undermine the 

sufficiency of the evidence because the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy 

may be innocent acts. See Campa, 529 F.3d at 1002. Further, the testimony of 

Bosquet and Berisha, if believed by the jury, supports the inference that the 

firearms purchases, dog food shipments, and flights to Haiti were in furtherance of 

the conspiracy. See id.

Regarding Baptiste’s argument that he was not engaged in the business of 

Case: 13-12651 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 4 of 5 
5

dealing in firearms and therefore did not need to apply for a license from the 

Attorney General, § 921(a)(21)(C) does not require a threshold number of sales, 

profit, or hours spent before a person has engaged in the business of dealing in 

firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C). A reasonable jury could infer that 

Baptiste’s principal objective was livelihood and profit based on Bosquet’s 

testimony that Baptiste suggested they ship guns to Haiti for Mendes to sell and the 

timing of Baptiste’s firearms purchases, shipments, and flights to Haiti. See 

Bailey, 123 F.3d at 1392. A jury would therefore be justified in concluding beyond 

a reasonable doubt that Baptiste engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. 

Accordingly, we affirm Baptiste’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.2

 2 The Government’s motion to strike portions of Baptiste’s reply brief is denied as moot.

Case: 13-12651 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 5 of 5