[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 18-14119

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEX HUNTLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00008-WKW-WC-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

Before ROSENBAUM, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, Alex Huntley appeals his conviction for 

deprivation of rights under color of law resulting in bodily injury, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. On appeal, Huntley challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After 

review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

A. Offense Conduct 

Huntley is a former lieutenant of the police department in 

Tuskegee, Alabama. In December 2014, while working an offduty security detail at the Tuskegee municipal complex, he saw 

Edward Turk ride an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) through the 

Tuskegee town square toward a local liquor store. He radioed 

the police department to request assistance in responding. 

In response, Officer Justin Echols arrived in a marked 

patrol vehicle at the liquor store and stopped near Huntley and 

the ATV. Huntley was dressed in full uniform but had driven to 

the liquor store in his personal vehicle. When Turk came out of 

the liquor store, Huntley told him that he was not supposed to be 

riding an ATV in the town area. Huntley told Turk that he was 

not under arrest, but instructed him to sit in Officer Echols’s

patrol car while he wrote him a citation. 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 2 of 12
18-14119 Opinion of the Court 3

Turk sat down in the car but did not put his legs into the 

car, so Huntley put his hands on Turk’s legs and attempted to 

push them into the vehicle. Turk stood up, Huntley pushed him 

again, and Turk punched Huntley in the side of the head. After 

Turk and Huntley had been wrestling for a minute or two, Officer 

Echols handcuffed Turk and placed him in the patrol car. 

Huntley told Officer Echols to take Turk to the jail and that he 

would handle everything. 

Officer Echols drove Turk to the police station, and when 

they arrived, Turk, who was still handcuffed, complied with 

Officer Echols’s command to exit the vehicle and walk toward the 

station. Huntley met them at the front door of the station and 

had a conversation with Turk. While they were standing outside, 

Huntley sprayed Turk with mace twice, even though Turk was 

still handcuffed, not making any threatening movements, and not

attempting to escape. The mace burned Turk’s eyes. 

Huntley then took Turk inside the police station to the

holding cell room,1 where he tripped Turk and began beating him 

while he was on the ground. Officer Echols, Officer Cedric Craig,

and four trainee officers either saw Huntley hitting and kicking

Turk or heard Turk screaming while in the holding cell room. 

Huntley told the trainees to leave. 

1 The “holding cell room” was a room at the Tuskegee police station that 

had two temporary holding cells in it. 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

A few minutes later, Huntley walked Turk to the station’s

briefing room and placed him in a chair while the officers began 

to do paperwork to process his arrest. Turk was still handcuffed. 

At some point, Turk made a comment that Huntley did not like, 

and Huntley walked over to Turk, knocked him off his chair, and 

kicked him while he was on the ground. When the trainees saw 

Turk later in the briefing room, his face and eyes were swollen, 

he was spitting blood, and he had blood on his face. 

Officer Echols drove Turk to the Macon County Jail and, 

once there, Turk requested medical attention. Audrey Peterson, 

an emergency medical technician, was called to the jail to 

examine Turk. When she got there, Turk’s lip was bloody, he 

had bruises and scrapes on him, his eyes were red, and he told her 

that he was in pain all over his body. Peterson advised Turk to go 

to the hospital for further testing, which he did after he was 

released from the jail. 

B. Procedural History 

An indictment charged Huntley with one count of 

deprivation of rights under color of law resulting in bodily injury, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the indictment 

charged that Huntley willfully deprived Turk of the right to be 

free from the use of unreasonable force by one acting under color 

of law. 

At trial, the government presented evidence of the facts 

recounted above, including, among other things, (1) testimony 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 4 of 12
18-14119 Opinion of the Court 5

from Turk, EMT Peterson, Officer Echols, Officer Craig, and four

Tuskegee Police Department trainees who were at the police 

station on December 24, 2014; (2) the pants Turk wore that day, 

which had blood stains on them; and (3) pictures of Turk taken by 

his mother soon after the incident, in which he had chipped teeth, 

cuts, scratches, swollen wrists, and bruises. 

At the close of the government’s evidence, Huntley moved 

for a judgment of acquittal. Huntley’s counsel argued that Turk

was injured during the fight at the liquor store, not at the police 

station, and that Huntley had not used an unreasonable amount 

of force. The district court denied Huntley’s motion. Huntley 

renewed his motion at the close of evidence.2 After deliberation, 

the jury found Huntley guilty of the § 242 charge. The district 

court sentenced Huntley to 36 months of imprisonment, followed 

by 36 months of supervised release.3 

II. DISCUSSION 

On appeal, Huntley argues that his § 242 conviction is not 

supported by substantial evidence.

2 The district court did not make an express ruling on Huntley’s renewed 

motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the § 242 count. However, it denied 

the renewed motion implicitly by stating that it would reserve ruling on 

Huntley’s motion as to another count (which is not relevant to this appeal), 

as it had done in its earlier ruling. 

3 Huntley began his term of imprisonment on October 24, 2018, and was 

released from prison on May 13, 2021. In this direct appeal, he does not raise 

any sentencing issues.

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, the government 

must present evidence that the defendant acted (1) willfully and 

(2) under color of law (3) to deprive a person of rights protected 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States. United States v. 

House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1198 (11th Cir. 2012).4 The Fourth 

Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures 

encompasses the right to be free from the use of excessive force 

during an arrest. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95, 109 

S. Ct. 1865, 1871 (1989). An officer violates the Fourth 

Amendment if he uses gratuitous force against an arrestee who is 

under control and not resisting. See Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 

1188, 1199 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an officer’s use of force 

after the plaintiff was “arrested, handcuffed, and completely 

secure, and after any danger to the arresting officer as well as any 

risk of flight had passed” was excessive). 

When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United 

States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 744 (11th Cir. 2008). Evidence is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction if any rational trier of fact could 

have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 

4 This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of evidence supporting a 

conviction. United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011). 

However, if a defendant raised specific challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence in the district court and raises a different sufficiency challenge on 

appeal, we review his new argument for plain error. See United States v. 

Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 664 (11th Cir. 2016).

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 6 of 12
18-14119 Opinion of the Court 7

Id. at 745. “The evidence need not be inconsistent with every 

reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.” Id. Rather, the jury may 

choose from several reasonable conclusions that could be drawn 

from the evidence. Id.

Huntley argues that the government did not present 

evidence sufficient to prove that he was acting under color of law 

when he assaulted Turk or that Turk’s injuries were caused by the 

assault at the police station, as opposed to the fight at the liquor 

store’s parking lot. We address these arguments in turn.

A. “Under Color of Law” 

An act is “under color of law” for purposes of § 242 if it is 

effected by a law enforcement officer acting under pretense of 

law. House, 684 F.3d at 1200. Actions of officers who undertake 

to perform their official duties are included, whether the acts hew 

to the line of the officers’ authority or overstep it. Id. Thus, a law 

enforcement officer acts under color of law “when he acts with 

authority possessed by virtue of his employment with the 

government,” or when “the manner of his conduct . . . makes

clear that he was asserting the authority granted him and not 

acting in the role of a private person.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted).

In Almand v. DeKalb County, this Court held that a police 

officer was acting as a private person, not a state actor under the 

color of law, when he forced his way into a victim’s home and 

assaulted her. 103 F.3d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1997). There, the 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

officer was acting under the color of law initially, when he came 

to the victim’s home to speak to her about a police investigation. 

Id. But the officer left when the interview was finished. He only 

later gained entry to the victim’s apartment by bursting through 

the front door with force. Id. We explained that the second entry 

to the victim’s apartment, and the subsequent assault, were 

private acts not accomplished because of his role as a police 

officer, as any burglar could have committed the same violent 

acts. Id. at 1515.

Similarly, in Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County, this 

Court concluded that a corrections officer who held a young man 

at gunpoint after finding him in her home with her daughter was 

not acting under color of law because the officer did not use her 

law enforcement position to gain access to the house. 685 F.3d 

1261, 1267 (11th Cir. 2012). In addition, although the officer used

the pistol that she was issued through her employment as a state

officer, any adult without a felony record could lawfully possess a 

firearm, and the officer used the firearm purely for private ends. 

Id. We concluded that the officer was an angry parent who 

happened to be in uniform and have a gun at the time of the 

incident, and any other angry parent could have done what she

did. Id. 

B. No Error 

Huntley made specific sufficiency of the evidence 

arguments below but did not raise the argument that sufficient 

evidence did not support the jury’s verdict on the “under color of 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 8 of 12
18-14119 Opinion of the Court 9

law” element. Thus, we review that argument, raised for the first 

time on appeal, for plain error. See Baston, 818 F.3d at 664.

In any event, Huntley has not shown any error, let alone 

plain error, in the jury’s verdict as to this element. We readily 

conclude sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he was acting under color of law when he 

subjected Turk to unreasonable force.5

Although Huntley first contacted Turk while he was off 

duty and driving his personal truck, he was wearing his full police 

uniform. Without his position as a police officer, Huntley would 

not have been able to require Turk to stop, threaten him with a 

citation, or direct him to stay in Officer Echols’s patrol car and 

wait. Further, Huntley’s authority as a lieutenant allowed him to 

direct Officer Echols to transport Huntley to the police station. 

Huntley would not have been allowed to escort Turk inside the 

police station alongside Officer Echols without Huntley’s status as 

a police officer, and it was during this walk that he sprayed Turk 

in the face with mace even though, according to several trial 

witnesses, Turk was not making any threatening movements or 

trying to escape.

What’s more, but for Huntley’s authority as a police 

officer, he would not have had access to Turk in the holding cell 

room or the briefing room. According to the testimony of 

5 Huntley does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to the 

unreasonable force element. 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

numerous trial witnesses, Huntley beat Turk in the holding cell 

room and briefing room while Turk was handcuffed and not 

physically resisting. Unlike the defendant in Almand, Huntley did 

not gain access to Turk at the police station by forcing his way 

into the building to accomplish a private act, but rather was 

allowed into the building and allowed to access Huntley based on 

his employment as a police officer. See Almand, 103 F.3d at 1515. 

Further, unlike the defendant in Butler, Huntley did not do what 

any other angry individual could have done to Turk. Rather, 

Huntley had the unique ability to detain Turk and continue to 

access him in the police station because of his status as a police 

officer. See Butler, 685 F.3d at 1267.

Thus, sufficient evidence existed for the jury to conclude 

that Huntley acted under color of law while subjecting Turk to 

unreasonable force.

C. Bodily Injury 

On appeal, Huntley also argues that the government did 

not show that his actions at the police station were the only cause 

of Turk’s injuries. 

As background, the statutory maximum sentence for a 

violation of § 242 is one year of imprisonment, but “if bodily 

injury results from the acts committed in violation” of § 242, the 

statutory maximum is raised to ten years of imprisonment. 

18 U.S.C. § 242. “Bodily injury” means “(A) a cut, abrasion, 

bruise, burn, or disfigurement; (B) physical pain; (C) illness; 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 10 of 12
18-14119 Opinion of the Court 11

(D) impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or 

mental faculty; or (E) any other injury to the body, no matter 

how temporary.” See United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566, 

1572-73 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that § 242 does not define “bodily 

injury” and applying the presumption that, in drafting § 242, 

Congress adopted the term’s “established meaning” as defined in 

numerous other federal criminal statutes).

Here, the government needed to show only that Huntley’s 

unreasonable use of force against Turk caused bodily injury to 

Turk, not that the unreasonable use of force was the sole cause of 

all of Turk’s injuries. See 18 U.S.C. § 242 (enhancing the 

maximum penalty “if bodily injury results from the acts 

committed in violation of this section”). 

Moreover, the trial testimony sufficiently showed that 

Huntley’s actions leading into the police station and inside the 

building resulted in at least some bodily injury to Turk. Trial 

witnesses testified that Turk had blood in his mouth and on his 

face after the briefing room incident, indicating some kind of cut 

or abrasion occurred in the briefing room. The government 

entered into evidence a pair of bloodstained pants that Turk 

testified were stained as a result of his injuries from Huntley and 

pictures taken of Turk soon after the incident showing him with 

chipped teeth, cuts, and bruises. Peterson testified that Turk had 

a bloody lip, abrasions, and red eyes, and that Turk reported 

feeling pain all over his body. In addition, Turk himself testified 

that he was in pain because of the mace sprayed in his eyes and 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 11 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 18-14119

the physical assaults that occurred inside the holding cell room 

and the briefing room. 

This evidence of Turk’s injuries, coupled with the 

testimony from Turk, Officers Craig and Echols, and the four 

trainees that Huntley physically assaulted Turk with mace, kicked 

him, and punched him, all while he was handcuffed, not 

physically resisting, and not attempting to escape, was more than 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that Huntley’s actions in 

violation of Turk’s right to be free from unreasonable force 

caused at least some of Turk’s bruising, bleeding, and pain. Thus, 

we reject Huntley’s argument on appeal about bodily injury.

III. CONCLUSION 

In sum, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings 

that Huntley acted under the color of law when he subjected 

Turk to unreasonable force and that the use of unreasonable force 

caused bodily injury to Turk. Accordingly, we affirm Huntley’s 

§ 242 conviction.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 18-14119 Date Filed: 10/25/2021 Page: 12 of 12