[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 12 90 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 03 07 -J DW -MAP- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES BERNARD TOLSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st28 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .
PER CURI AM: Ch arl es Bern ardTol so n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 1 25 -m on th sen te nc e fo r Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 1 of 6th ree c ou nt s o f kn owi ng ly andun lawfu ll y ob st ru ct in g c omm erce by rob be ry , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1, an d h is co nv ic ti on s an d c on se cu ti ve li fe s en te nc es fo r th ree c ou nt s o f kn owi ng ly bran di sh in g afir earm du rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Tol so n fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o co nduc t an in qu iry int o wh ethe r hi s co de fen da nt , Lash ay Co op er, was un de r th e in flu en ce o f drug s wh enhe tes ti fie d a t tria l. We revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Carab al lo , 59 5 F.3 d 1 21 4, 1 22 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng Co op er’s t es ti m on y

an d d et erm in in g t ha t h e was co m pe te ntto tes ti fy . The d is tri ct co urt’s co nc lu si on th atCo op er h adfei gn edm em ory lo ss , di zzi ne ss , andfat ig ue be cau se he si m

pl y di d n otwantto tes ti fy

at tria l i s amply sup po rte d b y th e rec or d. Co op er s ta te d e arl y

on inhi s t es ti m on y

(on m ul ti pl e o ccas io ns ) th athe di d n ot in te ndto co op erat e wit h aut ho rit ie s, as requi redby his pl ea ag reem en t. Co op er was incu st od y

when he tes ti fie d a t To ls on ’s tri al , bu t h e co ul d n otna m e wha t drug s h e was on an d s ay

if the jail pro vi de d t he m . Coo pe r wen t o n t o s ay th athe was ti red , cou ldno t func ti on , andth athe di d n otwantto an swe r qu es ti on s. Ev en if t he di stric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng Co op er’s t es ti m on y , any erro r was ha rm le ss : 2 Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 2 of 6Co op er d idno t i m pl ic at e Tol so n i n t he rob be rie s. Co op er ex pr es sl y st at edth at Tol so n was no t i nv ol ve d i n the rob be rie s an d t ha t h e d idno t ev enkn ow To ls on . Tol so n n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y pe rm it ti ng th e g ov ern m en t t o que st io n C oo pe r attri al ab ou t two p retria l s tate m en ts be cau se th ey co ns ti tu te d i na dm is si bl e h ears ay an d a ffec te d t he ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l. The fir stst at em en t was all eg ed ly m ad e b y Co op er wh il e in a jail ho ld in g c el l, i n wh ic h he to lda pr os ecu to r th athe pl an ne d o n n ottes ti fy in g b ecau se he fear edno t b ei ng ab le to see hi s ch il dr enag ai n. Inad di ti on , Tol so n a ss ert s tha t the sec on d st at em en t -- ab ou t wh ethe r Co op er an d To ls on to ldon e an ot he r th atth ey lo ve d each othe r in th e jail ho ld in g c el l -- was i na dm is si bl e h ears ay be cau se itsu gg es te d to th e jury tha t To ls on kn ew Co op er, ev enth ou gh su chanin fere nc e h adne ve r be enest ab li sh edby the go ve rn m en t. Hears ay (whi chge ne ral ly is n otadm is si bl e attri al ) is de fin edas ast at em en t, ot he r th anon e m ad e b y

th e d ecl aran t wh il e te st ifyin g a t the tri al or h eari ng , of fere d i n e vi de nc e to pro ve th e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d. Fe d.R .Evi d. 8 01 (c), 80 2. A st at em en t m ig htbe adm is si bl e as no nh ears ay if i t i s p ro ba ti ve of a n i ss ue attri al ap artfro m

th e trut h o r fal si ty of it s co nt en ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pos ta l, 5 89 F.2 d 8 62 , 88 8 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ).

3

Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 3 of 6Inth e fi rs t i ns tanc e Co op er, wh il e te st ifyin g at tria l, d en ie d m ak in g e ithe r

pr etria l s ta te m en t. Nev erthe le ss , ass um in g t ha t Co op er h adut te redth e o ut -o fco urt s ta te m en ts -- th athe wou ldno t t es ti fy be cau se he fear edno t b ei ng ab le to se e h is ki ds an d tha t h e to ldTol so n t ha t h e lo ve d h im , th ey do no t co ns ti tu te he ars ay be cau se he was b ot h the de cl aran t an d t he tes ti fy in g wi tn es s. See Cit y of Tus cal oo sa , et al . v. Harc os Ch em ic al s, In c., 15 8 F .3d54 8, 5 60 -6 1 (1 1th C ir. 19 98 ) (co nc lu di ng th atst at em en ts were n othe ars ay if the de cl aran t p ers on al ly pa rti ci pa te d i n o r ob se rv edth e subjec t o f th e te st im on y ). Even if the se qu es ti on s pr es en te d h ears ay , th ey

do no t warran t re ve rs al gi ve n the ot he r ev id en ce p res en te d attri al , in cl ud in g the po si ti ve id en ti fic at io n o f Tol so n a t ea chof t he rob be rie s an d th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo s d ep ic ti ng th e ro bb eri es an d To ls on ’s us e o f th e fi rearm . See Un it edSta te s v . Arbo la ez, 4 50 F.3d12 83 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th at to warran t a n ew tr ia l, a s ig ni fic an t p os si bi li ty m us t ex is t tha t, co ns id eri ng th e ot he r ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, the st at em en t h ada subs tant ia l i m pa ctonth e jury’ s v erd ic t). Tol so n fu rth er ar gu es th atin su ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rts hi s co nv ic ti on s. He m ai nt ai ns th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th athe co m mitte d t he ch arg ed cri m es be cau se (1) no ne of t he vi ct im s i de nt ifi edhi m as t he pe rp etrat or ; (2 ) no witne ss es tes ti fie d tha t h e co m m it te d t he rob be rie s o r carrie d t he fir earm ; (3 ) no

4 Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 4 of 6ph y si cal ev id en ce l in ke d h im to th e cri m e; an d (4 ) no ev id en ce s ho wedth at Co op er kne w Tol so n. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on de no vo , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d drawi ng al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il ity ch oi ces infav or

of t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Uni te d S tate s v . Jo ne s, 6 01 F.3d12 47 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

“ The Hob bs Act p ro hi bi ts rob be ry or e xt orti on , andatt em

pt s o r co ns pi raci es to co m m itrob be ry

or e xt orti on , th atinan y

way or d eg ree o bs tru ct , del ay , or a ffec t co m m erce or the m ov em en t o f an y art ic le or c omm od ity

inco m m erce .” Uni te d St at es v. Di az, 2 48 F.3d10 65 , 10 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io ns om itte d) . “ The go ve rn m en t n eed s o nl y to est ab li sh a min im al effe cton in te rs ta te co m m erce to supp ort a v io la ti on of t he Hob bs Act.” Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 21 8 F .3d12 43 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Sect io n 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) o f Tit le 18 of the U.S. Cod e p res cri be s en ha nc edpe na lt ie s fo r “ an y pe rs on who , du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o a ny . . . dru g traff ic ki ng cri m e . . . use s o r carrie s a f ire arm , or wh o, i n furth eran ce o f an y

su chcri m e, po ss es se s a f ire arm . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A). At To ls on ’s tri al , a rep res en ta ti ve or o wne r of each co nv en ie nc e st or e th at ha d b eenrob be d t es ti fie d tha t the y so ldgo od s an d p ro du ct s tha t trav el edin to 5 Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 5 of 6Fl or id a fro m di ffer en t p art s o f th e co un try. T hr ee o f th e st or e em pl oyees t es ti fie d th attwo m en , on e sh ort an d o ne tal l, ca m e in to th ei r res pe ct iv e st or es , andth atth e sh orte r m al e b ran di sh eda fi rearm an d i ns tru ct edth e cl erk s t o o pe n the cas h reg is te rs . The em

pl oyees d es cri be d t ha t the two m enth enst ol e cas h, as well as se ve ral cart on s o f ci ga ret te s. Each of t he res po nd in g o ffi cers tes ti fie d t ha t o nc e th ey arri ve d, the co nv en ie nc e st or es were ef fect iv el y sh utdo wn an d tha t n o fu rth er bu si ne ss was c on du ct edun ti l af te r th e p ol ic e in ve st ig at ed . Pau l Harris , a de pu ty she rif f with M an at ee Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce, t es ti fie d th athe kn ew Tol so n a ndCo op er thr ou gh hi s wo rkas asch oo l re so ur ce o ffi cer. Harri s i de nt ifi edTol so n a s the sh orte r m al e with t he fir earm an d C oo pe r as th e ta ll er m al e in each of t he su rv ei ll an ce v id eo s fr om th e cri m e sc en es . Alth ou gh Co op er d en ie d kno win g the sh orte r m al e in th e su rv ei ll an ce v id eo s an d ph ot og rap hs , he i de nt ifi edhi m se lf a s the tal le r m al e. Viewi ng th is tes ti m on y an d ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, we co nc lu de th atsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rte d To ls on ’s Hob bs Act co nv ic ti on s, as well as h is co nv ic ti on s fo r br an di sh in g afir earm

du rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce. AFFIRMED.

6 Case: 11-12907 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 6 of 6