2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-25-2014

USA v. Hakeem Paris

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1232

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Hakeem Paris" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1004.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/1004
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-1232

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HAKEEM PARIS,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D. C. No. 2-11-cr-00211-001)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin 

 

 

Argued on September 9, 2014

Before: SMITH, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 25, 2014) 

Michael J. Diamondstein, Esquire (Argued)

Jason D. Javie, Esquire 

Two Penn Center Plaza

1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 900

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellant
2

Thomas M. Zaleski, Esquire (Argued)

Office of United States Attorney 

615 Chestnut Street 

Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellee

O P I N I ON 

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Hakeem Paris appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction and the District Court erroneously denied his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal. We will affirm.

I. Background

This case arises from a robbery of a pizzeria in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 

May 10, 2010, and an attempted robbery of a Wawa convenience store located a few 

blocks south of the pizzeria on May 23, 2010. Only the conviction for attempted robbery

and the ensuing sentence are at issue in this appeal. 

On May 23 at 2:00 a.m., Paris entered a Wawa convenience store wearing a multicolored knit hat and a dreadlock wig. Despite the hour and the warm temperature, Paris 

wore sunglasses, a hooded sweatshirt, and a black jacket. The store clerk, who was at the 

front of the store, noticed that Paris was holding his hand in his pocket next to a silver 

handgun. Paris stood by the newsstand and, when asked if he needed anything, asked the 
3

clerk if there were copies of the Daily News. The clerk, frightened, told him that the store 

did not have copies of the Daily News. Paris walked out. After the clerk told his 

manager that he saw a gun, the manager called the police. 

When the officers arrived, they interviewed the employees at the scene. During 

these discussions, the officers saw a dark-colored sedan with its headlights off slowly 

pass by the store. The manager, who had also seen the vehicle, told the officers that the 

passenger was wearing the same hat she had seen the man with dreadlocks wearing. The 

officers stopped the vehicle and found Paris reclined in the front passenger seat. The 

officers could see a multi-colored knit hat and dreadlock wig through the rear window. 

When they removed the wig from the floor of the car, a loaded silver gun with a 

scratched-out serial number fell out.

In October 2010, Paris was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit 

robbery which interfered with interstate commerce, one count of robbery which interfered 

with interstate commerce, one count of attempted robbery which interfered with interstate 

commerce, two counts of carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence, and 

one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. After a three-day trial, a 

jury convicted Paris of all charges on December 13, 2012. Paris moved for a judgment of 

acquittal on the attempted robbery conviction, which the District Court denied. Paris 

appeals.

II. Discussion1

 

1

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 

appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4

Paris argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the 

attempted robbery charge and the District Court erred in denying his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a judgment of acquittal pursuant to 

Rule 29. United States v. Flores, 454 F.3d 149, 154 (3d Cir. 2006). We must sustain the 

verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation 

omitted). We “must be ever vigilant in the context of Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 not to usurp the 

role of the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by 

substituting [our] judgment for that of the jury.” Id. (citing United States v. Jannotti, 673 

F.2d 578, 581 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc)).

To convict a defendant of an attempted crime, a jury must find that the defendant 

“(1) acted with the requisite intent to violate the statute, and (2) performed an act that, 

under the circumstances as he believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in the 

commission of the crime.” United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 469 (3d Cir. 2006)

(citation omitted). A substantial step goes beyond “mere preparation” but falls short of 

completion of the offense. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 134 (2d Cir. 2003).

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence 

presented at trial demonstrated that Paris acted with the requisite intent to rob the Wawa 

store and took a substantial step toward commission of the robbery. Paris entered the 

store in a disguise of a multi-colored knit cap with dreadlocks, sunglasses, and multiple 
5

layers of clothing on a warm night. His hand was in his pocket next to the handgun. He

saw that the cash register was unattended and lingered at the newsstand before asking for 

a newspaper and walking out. A rational jury could have inferred that Paris intended to 

rob the Wawa but did not complete his attempt because there was no one at the register to 

retrieve the money. The jury also could have rationally concluded that entering a store in 

a disguise with a hand near a gun was a substantial step toward commission of the

robbery.2 

III. Conclusion

The evidence was sufficient to support Paris’s conviction for attempted robbery. 

We find the other arguments raised in Paris’s brief unpersuasive. Accordingly, we will 

affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 

2 Additionally, the jury could have concluded that Paris’s conduct constituted “casing.” 

Our sister circuits have held that “casing” a robbery location can constitute a substantial 

step. See, e.g., United States v. Green, 115 F.3d 1479, 1487 (10th Cir. 1997) 

(“‘[R]econnoitering of the object of a crime and the collecting of the instruments to be 

used in that crime, together, can constitute a substantial step.’”) (quoting United States v. 

Prichard, 781 F.2d 179, 181 (10th Cir. 1986)); United States v. Johnson, 962 F.2d 1308, 

1312 (8thCir. 1992) (“By driving to the bank with disguises and weapons, slowly 

circling the bank three times, and stopping once to open the doors of the vehicle, the three 

crossed the shadowy line from mere preparation to attempt.”) (citation and quotation 

marks omitted).