[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11807

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EN CHIM, 

a.k.a. Junior, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00064-TFM-B-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 1 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

En Chim appeals his convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and 

brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. He argues that a reasonable 

jury would not have believed the testimonial evidence presented 

at trial and that the district court abused its discretion by admitting 

evidence of an uncharged staged robbery. He also argues that the 

court abused its discretion at sentencing by declining to reduce his 

283-month sentence to compensate for the severity of the mandatory consecutive sentences for brandishing a firearm. After careful 

review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

We presume familiarity with the factual and procedural history and describe it below only as needed to resolve the issues 

raised in this appeal.

A federal grand jury indicted Chim for two robberies that 

occurred nine days apart in Bayou La Batre, Alabama—the first at 

a Value Express convenience store, and the second at a Subway 

restaurant. The indictment charged two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Counts One and Two); 

two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts Three and Four); and one 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 2 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 3

count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (Count Five).

A. The Government’s Case at Trial 

At trial, the government called Naif al Samet. Al Samet testified that he was working behind the counter at Value Express 

when two robbers entered, pointed a gun at him, and stole around

$300 from the cash register. The first robber had his face partially 

covered and the second wore a mask. A few days later, while al 

Samet was working at the store, a man with the same eye features, 

voice, pants, and mannerisms as the first robber visited the store. 

Al Samet then called the police, pointed the man out on the store’s 

surveillance video, and identified him as one of the men who had 

robbed him days earlier. Police identified the man in the surveillance video as Chim.

The government then called Chasity Silloway. Silloway testified that, nine days after the Value express robbery, she was working at Subway when a hooded man wearing a bandana over his face 

entered and pulled out a gun. He made Silloway open the cash register, remove the drawer, and take the drawer to the back door 

where another robber was waiting to put the money in a bookbag. 

The robbers then located and took the box where Subway kept its 

petty cash, leaving with around $800. Silloway did not immediately

reveal to police that she knew one of the robbers because she was 

“really shaken up.” But she later told police that she recognized one

of the robbers as Chim. She believed it was Chim because Chim

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 3 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

was the fiancé of the night shift manager, Britney Owens, and often

came to the restaurant to see Owens. Silloway also testified that 

five minutes before the robbery, Owens had called her. She added 

that only employees who worked at the store knew where the 

petty cash box was hidden. Finally, she identified Chim in the 

courtroom.

The government then called Silloway’s coworker at the time 

of the robbery, Chelsea Johnson. Johnson’s description of events 

matched Silloway’s—including that she too had received a call 

from Owens minutes before the robbery. She testified that the second robber was wearing a distinctive mask from the “Scream”

movies, that the robbers wore matching gray shoes, and that the 

first robber was wearing a bandana that left his eyes uncovered. A 

few hours after the robbery, she sent police a picture of Chim and 

identified him as one of the robbers. She also identified Chim in the 

courtroom.

The government next called Kory McClantoc. McClantoc 

testified that on the night of the Subway robbery he noticed a car 

belonging to Chim’s “wife[] . . . or girlfriend[]”driving slowly in 

front of him near Subway. McClantoc testified that he had not recognized the driver at the time. But after the government refreshed 

McClantoc’s memory on the stand, McClantoc confirmed that he 

had first told police that on the night of the robbery he had seen

Chim driving slowly down the road near Subway.

The government next called Jennifer Renee Lee, Subway’s 

general manager. Lee was not at the store during the robbery. She

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 4 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 5

testified that knowledge of the petty cash lockbox’s location was

“insider information,” that Owens knew its location, and that Owens and Chim were living together at the time of the robbery. She 

also testified that she received a call from an unknown number on

the morning after the robbery, and that the caller told her “[y]ou 

got what you deserve, bitch.” She recognized the caller’s voice as 

Chim’s.

Along with evidence of the charged Value Express and Subway robberies, the government offered extrinsic evidence of an uncharged theft from a Chevron station that occurred just before the 

second charged robbery in nearby Irvington, Alabama. The government argued that the evidence was probative because of the 

Chevron theft’s similarity to the charged robberies. Just like those 

robberies, the Chevron theft involved: two robbers wearing grey 

shoes, blue gloves, and hooded sweatshirts; the first robber carrying a silver pistol, wearing black pants, and covering his face up to 

his eyes; and the second robber dressed in black, handling the 

money, and wearing a Scream mask. Moreover, the first Chevron 

robber appeared to be wearing the same hooded sweatshirt—a distinctive blue and white varsity-style jacket with light blue writing—

that he wore during the Value Express robbery.

At trial, the district court admitted the extrinsic offense evidence over Chim’s objection. It concluded that the evidence was 

relevant to Chim’s “modus operandi, identity, lack of mistake or 

accident, part of [a] plan, scheme,” and that it was not unduly prejudicial. The court gave a limiting instruction, explaining that the 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 5 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

jury could use evidence of the Chevron theft to help “decide 

whether the similarity between those acts and the ones charged in 

this case suggest that the same person committed all of them.” And 

it clarified that Chim was “on trial only for the crimes charged in 

the superseding indictment.”

The government’s extrinsic offense witness was Victoria 

Lindsay. Lindsay testified that she worked at the Chevron station 

around the time of the robberies and had previously bought narcotics from Chim. She testified that she helped Chim rob the Chevron station in exchange for money. She also testified that she spoke 

with Chim on her cell phone right before the Chevron theft, communicating that the coast was clear. Video surveillance footage

showed Lindsay letting two men—one of whom she identified as 

Chim—into the store. Chim was wearing a blue and white jacket. 

The other man was wearing a Scream mask. The man in the 

Scream mask emptied the cash register. Lindsay claimed to remember what Chim looked like, but when the government asked her to 

identify him in court, she identified a juror rather than Chim. She

stated that she had not seen Chim in over two years.

The government also relied on testimony from Officer Michael Goodin, who investigated the Value Express and Subway 

robberies. He testified that he recognized the man that al Samet 

identified as one of the Value Express robbers as Chim. He also 

stated that during his investigation, Chim’s brother contacted him 

about a cell phone he had found in Chim’s old house. Officer 

Goodin retrieved the phone and gave it to FBI Special Agent Paul 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 6 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 7

Roche for examination. Special Agent Roche testified that the 

phone had been used to call Lindsay on the morning of the Chevron robbery and Lee on the morning after the Subway robbery. 

After the government rested, Chim moved for a judgment 

of acquittal, arguing that the government had failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on any counts. The district 

court denied Chim’s motion. Chim presented no evidence or witnesses and chose not to testify. He then renewed his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal, and the district court denied it for the same 

reasons it earlier stated. The jury found Chim guilty on all counts. 

B. Sentencing

A probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report. The report calculated a total offense level of 23. It calculated 

a criminal history score of 13, establishing a criminal history category of VI. Based on a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history 

category of VI, the report calculated a guideline imprisonment 

range of 92 to 115 months for Counts One, Two, and Five. With 

two consecutive seven-year (84-month) mandatory minimum sentences for Counts Three and Four, the aggregate guidelines range 

was 260 to 283 months. Neither party objected to the report, which 

the district court adopted.

At his sentencing hearing, Chim argued that because his

convictions for Counts Three and Four required a “very significant” sentence, that the court ought to impose a “minimal” sentence below the guidelines range for his other offenses to track the 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 7 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The government requested a sentence at the high end of the guidelines range: 283 months. The government argued that Chim was a “menace” who would not hesitate to arm himself and confront members of his community. The 

district court agreed, sentencing Chim to 283 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release. Neither party objected.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the 

verdict. United States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 

2009). 

We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). 

We also review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

III. DISCUSSION 

Chim raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that the 

government’s evidence was insufficient to identify him as one of 

the robbers, and thus cannot support his convictions on Counts 

One through Four. Chim does not challenge his conviction on 

Count Five. Second, he argues that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of the uncharged Chevron 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 8 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 9

robbery under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Third, he argues 

that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence that was substantively unreasonable. We address 

each argument in turn.

A. Sufficient Evidence Supported the Jury’s Verdict

First, Chim argues that there was insufficient evidence for a 

reasonable jury to convict him of the acts charged in Counts One

through Four because the government failed to prove that he was 

one of the robbers. We disagree.

The relevant question in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Demarest, 570 F.3d at 1239 (quotation marks omitted). In evaluating 

evidence, jurors may “apply their common knowledge, observations and experiences in the affairs of life.” United States v. CruzValdez, 773 F.2d 1541, 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Credibility 

determinations are for the jury, and we will not disturb them unless 

the witness testimony is “incredible as a matter of law.” United 

States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997)). 

Testimony is “incredible” as a matter of law if it “relates to ‘facts 

the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could 

not have occurred under the laws of nature.’” Id.

Here, the government produced sufficient evidence to sustain Chim’s convictions for Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 9 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

firearm. First, the eyewitness to the Value Express robbery—al 

Samet—later identified a man on the store’s surveillance footage as 

one of the robbers, and Officer Goodin identified that man as 

Chim. Al Samet testified that he was sure that one of the robbers 

was Chim, as he could see Chim’s features “right above his nose,” 

and recognized Chim’s eyes, voice, pants, and manners when he 

returned to the store days later. Second, two eyewitnesses to the 

Subway robbery—Silloway and Johnson—both identified Chim as 

one of the robbers. Silloway identified Chim based on his eyes, 

which were uncovered, and his voice. Johnson testified that she 

identified Chim based on his eyes, body type, and sweatshirt. 

Third, several witnesses who did not observe the robberies supplied testimony that supported the jury’s verdict. McClantoc

placed Chim near Subway shortly before it was robbed. And Lee 

testified that she recognized Chim’s voice when he called her the 

morning after the Subway robbery and told her “[y]ou got what 

you deserve, bitch.”

Because these witnesses’ testimonies related to their own experience and observations, they were not incredible as a matter of 

law. See Flores, 572 F.3d at 1263. Furthermore, the eyewitnesses’ 

failure to identify Chim to police right after the robberies does not 

preclude a reasonable juror from concluding that they accurately 

identified him later. A reasonable juror could have found that any 

delay in identifying Chim stemmed from shock or fright caused by 

being robbed at gunpoint. In sum, the evidence presented at trial 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 10 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 11

was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Chim committed the charged offenses.

B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Admitting Evidence About the Staged Chevron Robbery

Chim argues that the district court abused its discretion by 

admitting evidence of the uncharged Chevron robbery. He contends that the Chevron robbery lacked probative value because it

was factually unlike the charged robberies. He also contends that 

the government failed to link him to the Chevron robbery because 

Lindsay, the extrinsic offense witness, misidentified Chim at trial 

and because there was no evidence that the cell phone linked to the 

Chevron theft was his. We disagree.

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) bars the admission of evidence of prior crimes to prove that a defendant has a criminal disposition to create the inference that he committed the charged 

crimes. But such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, 

such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. 

R. Evid. 404(b)(2). To be admissible, such evidence must satisfy 

three criteria: (1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other 

than the defendant’s character; (2) the evidence must include sufficient proof that a jury could find that the defendant committed the 

extrinsic act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not 

be substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice and

should satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See United States v. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 11 of 15
12 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206, 1217 (11th Cir. 2013). In this context, “sufficient proof” requires merely a preponderance of the evidence. See 

United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000)).

Here, the district court ruled that the extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to show “modus operandi, identity, lack of 

mistake or accident, part of plan, [or] scheme.” Though any one of 

the proposed grounds might justify admission, we focus on one: 

identity. When extrinsic offense evidence is introduced to prove 

identity, “the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideration” 

and “must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of 

the accused.” Id. (quoting United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 

1099, 1108 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

“The extrinsic act must be a signature crime, and the defendant 

must have used a modus operandi that is uniquely his.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The two crimes must “bear such peculiar, unique, or bizarre similarities as to mark them as the handiwork of the same individual.” United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 

1036, 1045– 46 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 

492 F.2d 1141, 1154 (5th Cir. 1974)).

Evidence of the Chevron robbery was relevant to prove 

Chim’s identity because that theft was strikingly similar to the 

charged robberies. See Whatley, 719 F.3d at 1217. First, all robberies featured the presence of a money-handling accomplice wearing a distinctive Scream mask. Second, Chim allegedly wore the 

same gray shoes and black pants, and carried the same silver gun, 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 12 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 13

in all three robberies. And he appears to have worn the same blue 

and white varsity-style jacket during the Value Express robbery and 

the Chevron robbery. Finally, the Chevron robbery was committed close in time and geographic proximity to the charged robberies. These factual similarities overcome the differences between 

the crimes—namely, that the Chevron robbery occurred several 

miles from Bayou la Batre and was coordinated with a Chevron 

employee. 

The government also supplied sufficient proof for the jury 

to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Chim committed 

the Chevron robbery, even without an in-court identification by 

Lindsay. Id. The jury heard Lindsay testify that she had purchased 

narcotics from Chim, that Chim organized the Chevron robbery 

and persuaded her to participate, and that Chim participated in the 

robbery. And it heard Lindsay testify that she had not seen Chim in 

over two years. The jury also heard evidence that a burner phone 

found in Chim’s old house was used in relation to the Chevron and 

Subway robberies.

Finally, given the similarity of the Chevron robbery to the 

charged robberies, we cannot say the district court erred in concluding that the probative value of the extrinsic offense evidence 

outweighed the risk of undue prejudice, which the district court 

mitigated with its limiting instruction. Id. 

When, as here, we review for abuse of discretion, it “means 

that the district court had a ‘range of choice’ and that we cannot 

reverse just because we might have come to a different conclusion 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 13 of 15
14 Opinion of the Court 21-11807

had it been our call to make.” United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 

912 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 

922, 934 (11th Cir. 2007)) (quotation marks omitted). See also Rasbury v. I.R.S. (In re Rasbury), 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir. 1994) (“By 

definition, however, under the abuse of discretion standard of review there will be occasions in which we affirm the district court 

even though we would have gone the other way had it been our 

call.”). Though we might have come to a different conclusion had 

we weighed the evidence ourselves, we cannot say that the district 

court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Chevron 

robbery. Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1297.

C. Chim’s Within-the-Guidelines Sentence Was Reasonable

Chim argues that the district court abused its discretion by 

imposing an “excessive sentence” that was greater than necessary 

to accomplish the sentencing objectives in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Again, we disagree.

A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court: 

“(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due 

significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or 

irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 

1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We will vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if we are “left with the definite and 

firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the [Section] 3553(a) factors by arriving at a 

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 14 of 15
21-11807 Opinion of the Court 15

sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 1190 (quotation marks omitted). We ordinarily expect a sentence within the guideline range to 

be reasonable. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th 

Cir. 2008).

We cannot say the district court erred in declining to reduce 

Chim’s sentence for Counts One, Two, and Five to offset his two

mandatory consecutive sentences for brandishing a firearm. The 

district court did not deny that it had the authority to reduce 

Chim’s overall sentence to account for his mandatory minimums. 

See Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). But it gave good 

reasons for declining to do so—namely, the violent nature of 

Chim’s robberies, which “thank God . . . didn’t result in anyone’s 

death,” and which the district court initially thought justified an 

above-guidelines sentence of 360 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Ultimately, however, the district court imposed a sentence within 

the guideline range, which we ordinarily expect to be reasonable. 

See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. And Chim gives no reason for us 

to conclude with a “definite and firm conviction” that his sentence 

is outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of 

the case. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Accordingly, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in imposing Chim’s sentence.

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-11807 Date Filed: 08/16/2022 Page: 15 of 15