[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10254

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20613-DMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK JACQUES, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 1, 2017)

Before WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TITUS,

∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

 

∗ Honorable Roger W. Titus, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland,

sitting by designation.

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Patrick Jacques appeals his below-the-guidelines range sentence, imposed 

after he was convicted by a jury for (1) possession of a firearm and ammunition by 

a felon, (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and 

(3) possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. On appeal, 

Jacques argues that his trial was plagued by several errors: insufficient evidence, 

improperly admitted testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury 

instructions. Although he contends that any of these errors alone warrants relief, 

Jacques claims that the multiple errors worked together, causing his trial to be 

fundamentally unfair. Jacques also argues that the district court made a sentencing 

error in designating him as a career offender. After a careful review of the parties’ 

briefs, the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

On September 24, 2014, Patrol Officer Edgar Rivera of the Miami Police 

Department was on duty in the “Little Haiti” neighborhood of Miami when he 

received an assault call. At the scene, he spoke to a woman who gave him a 

description of her assailants. Officer Rivera was parked just a few blocks away 

writing up his incident report when he received another assault call from the same 

address; this time for shots fired. He drove the short distance back to the scene and 

again spoke to the same woman, who now reported that a couple in a gray Nissan 

with paper license plates had approached her and fired a gun at her. The woman 

provided a description of the couple and a partial license plate number. Officer 

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 2 of 7 
3

Rivera responded by issuing a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) notice for the alleged 

assailants, the car, and the partial license plate number. 

Nearby, Patrol Officer Reynold Philippe, who was also on duty in Little 

Haiti, spotted a car and a couple matching the description of Officer Rivera’s 

BOLO—a gray Nissan Altima with a female driver and a male passenger. Officer 

Philippe, with the assistance of other officers, pursued the car and ordered its 

occupants out. The female driver was identified as Marlene Phanor and the male 

passenger was identified as Patrick Jacques. The car, which belonged to Phanor, 

was searched at the scene. From it, the police recovered a small .32 caliber 

handgun, 37 individual baggies of marijuana, and a pill bottle containing 10 rocks 

of crack cocaine, all concealed in the trunk. Both Jacques and Phanor were 

arrested and transported to the police station in separate vehicles. 

At the station, Jacques was interrogated by Officer Philippe and two Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agents. During the interrogation, and 

after waiving his rights, Jacques made several incriminating admissions and 

statements. He admitted to being near or at the address where the incidents 

occurred. He claimed that he was there arguing with a man whom he identified 

only as “Peterson,” and Peterson’s girlfriend. Jacques said that Peterson shot at 

him—not the other way around, as was reported by the woman that spoke to 

Officer Rivera. Jacques also disclosed that he had been smoking marijuana that 

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 3 of 7 
4

day and that he had some marijuana in the ashtray of the car, or on his person. But 

he denied selling marijuana that day and he denied having ever sold crack cocaine. 

Jacques, however, indicated that he had sold marijuana in the past and expressed 

that, on that day, he had “at least like 175 weed.” Jacques also revealed that he had 

knowledge of what he described as a “bomb” in the car. Moreover, while Jacques 

initially denied knowing about the gun, he eventually divulged that he was the one 

that put the gun in the trunk; he has always denied firing it. 

At trial, no gunshot residue (GSR) or DNA evidence was presented because 

the evidence had been destroyed. Officer Philippe testified as a lay witness 

regarding the interrogation and Detective Wayne Tillman testified as an expert

based on his experience as an undercover narcotics officer. Detective Tillman 

testified as to the street value of the crack cocaine and marijuana, as well as to the 

packaging of the marijuana that was found in the car, opining that the substances 

were intended for distribution. More specifically, Detective Tillman testified that 

the 37 individual bags of marijuana recovered from the car were packaged in small 

zip-lock baggies and that each bag would likely sell for $5 on the street—meaning 

the amount of marijuana in the car was worth approximately $185.00. Detective 

Tillman also testified to the meaning of the term “bomb,” explaining that it means

a container or bag with smaller amounts of drugs in it. Finally, Detective Tillman 

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 4 of 7 
5

testified that the gun found in the car was frequently used by drug dealers because 

it was small and easy to conceal. 

Jacques was convicted. At sentencing, Jacques objected to his career 

offender designation. His objection was overruled, and he was sentenced to 120 

months’ imprisonment. He timely appealed.

Jacques’ various trial-related arguments fail because there were either no 

errors at all or only harmless ones; and none of them worked together to create the 

kind of fundamental unfairness needed to raise a cumulative effect of errors claim. 

There also was no error in Jacques’ classification as a career offender. We briefly 

discuss each argument in turn.

First, there was sufficient evidence to support Jacques’ conviction. His own 

statement not only establishes that he had marijuana on the day that he was 

arrested and that he frequently sold it, but it also places the gun in his possession. 

Vacating a jury’s guilty verdict is appropriate only when no “reasonable 

construction of the evidence” points to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United 

States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1308 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Given the evidence, the jury was not unreasonable in finding that 

Jacques was guilty. 

Second, the testimony by Officer Philippe regarding Jacques’ interrogation 

was admissible. But even if some of it was admitted in error, it was harmless 

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 5 of 7 
6

because Jacques was not prejudiced. Officer Philippe’s testimony was based on 

his own personal perceptions from his participation in the interrogation. It was 

also helpful to the jury. We have held that lay opinion testimony is admissible 

when it is based on the witness’s personal knowledge or perceptions and is helpful 

to the jury in determining an issue of fact. United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 

1094 (11th Cir. 2015); United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 967 (11th Cir. 2015). 

All the same, Officer Philippe’s testimony was duplicative of Detective Tillman’s 

testimony; thus, if there was any error in admitting it, such error was harmless. 

Third, Jacques challenges the prosecutor’s remarks during closing 

arguments. While the prosecutor’s remark implying that the police only arrest 

criminals was improper, it did not warrant reversal given that Jacques’ substantial 

rights were not prejudiced. United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 1256–57 (11th 

Cir. 2009) (explaining that a “reasonable probability [] that, but for the remarks, 

the outcome of the trial would have been different” is necessary for reversal) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). It was only one stray remark in a lengthy 

closing argument and the jury likely would have convicted Jacques irrespective of 

the remark. Jacques’ own statements made up the other evidence against him, 

which was strong proof of his guilt. 

Fourth, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a 

spoliation jury instruction, because we have yet to recognize whether a spoliation 

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 6 of 7 
7

jury instruction is applicable in a criminal context and decline to do so here. 

Because the law is unclear, there is no way to establish that Jacques’ instruction 

was a correct statement of the law, meaning that the district court was not required 

to give the instruction. United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1302 (11th Cir. 

2011).

Finally, Jacques’ career offender designation was not erroneous. Regardless 

of whether Florida burglary of an occupied dwelling is a crime of violence under 

the enumerated clause, it is so under the residual clause. Beckles v. United States, 

580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10254 Date Filed: 12/01/2017 Page: 7 of 7