[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 16045 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr - 00411

- WSD

- RGV

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus CLIFFORD DEANGELO JACKSON, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ No. 12

- 16046 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docke t No. 1:11

- cr - 00252

- WSD

- RGV

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 1 of 72 CLIFFORD DEANGELO JACKSON, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeals from th e United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (August 21, 2013) Before TJOFLAT , PRYOR and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Clifford Deangelo Jackson appeals his convictions and 194

- month total
sentence in this consolidated appeal . Jackson pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting an attempted armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2 ( Bank Count 1) , and one count of aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and 2 ( Bank Count 2)

. A jury then convicted Jackson on one count of conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery at Weeyums Ph illy Style restaurant (Weeyums ), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Weeyums Count 1 ) , and one count of aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery at Weeyums, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), and 2 (Weeyums Count 2 )

. The district court sentenced Jackson to concurrent 74

- month sentences for B ank Count 1 and

Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 2 of 73 Weeyums Counts 1 and 2 , followed by a consecutive mandatory minimum 10

- year sentence for Bank Count 2. With respect to the Weeyums Counts , Jackson a sserts the district court erred in instructing the jury that a minimal effect on interstate commerce was sufficient
to convict h im . He contends even under a de minimis standard, the G overnment failed to present sufficient evidence that the robbery had an effect on interstate commerce such that it supported his convictions . As to Bank Count 2, Jackson

a sserts the district court er red in sentencing him to a ten

- year mandatory minimum
sentence because he is not accountable for his codefendant ’s accidental discharge of a firearm after they left the bank. 1 After review, we affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentences. Interstate commerc e We review the sufficiency of the evidence of a Hobbs Act violation de novo

. United States v. Dean ( Dean I ), 517 F.3d 1224, 1227 (11th Cir. 2008), aff’d in part , 556 U.S. 568 (2009). “[ W ] e consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the G overnment, drawing all reasonable inferences an d credibility choices in the G overnment’s favor.” United States v. Friske , 640 F.3d 1288, 1290

- 91 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation s omitted). We will not overturn a jury’s verdict “if any

1 After brie fing concluded, Jackson filed supplemental authority citing to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) , without further explanation o f how th e case applied to his appeal. We deem arguments not fully articula ted on appeal as abandoned. United States v. Capers , 708 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir. 2013)

. Accordingly, we do not address Jackson’s citation to Alleyne

.

Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 3 of 74 reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1291 (quotation omitted). The Hobbs Act prohibits robbery and conspiracies to commit robbery that

“ in any way or degree obstruct[], delay[], or af fect[] commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). To prove a Hobbs Act conspiracy, “the government need only prove a robbery and effect on commerce.” Dean I , 517 F.3d at 1227

- 28. As to the interstate commerc e element, “the government is only required to establish a minimal effect on interstate

commerce. Id. at 1228 (quotations omitted). “[A] ‘ mere depletion of assets ’ is sufficient proof of an effect on interstate commerce.” Id. Jackson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to the robbery element of his Weeyums convictions ; thus, the parties’ arguments are limited to the interstate commerce element. Jackson’s contention the G overnment failed to present sufficient evidence of an effect on interstate c ommerce is without merit. The G overnment presented evidence that Jackson’s codefendant took $500

- 600 from the cash register at Weeyums , and w e have held that “a mere depletion of assets” is sufficient evidence of an ef fect on interstate commerce. See Dean I , 517 F.3d at 1228 . Even if such a depletion of the restaurant’s assets were not sufficient, however, the G overnment also presented evidence that Weeyums had interstate customers, ordered supplies from other states, banked with a national

Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 4 of 75 bank, and closed for at least three days as a result of the robbery. Thus, it presented evidence of, at the least, a minimal effect on interstate commerce sufficient to support Jackson’s convictions for conspiracy to commit, and ai ding and abetting the commission of, a Hobbs Act robbery. See id. We also “review de novo a challenge to the district court’s jury instructions.” United States v. Williams , 526 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court has “broad discretion in formulating jury instructions provided that the charge as a whole accurately reflects the law and the facts,” and we will only reverse a conviction based on a jury instruction if “the issues of law were presented inaccurately, or the charge i mproperly guided the jury in such a substantial way as to violate due process.” Id. (quotations omitted). As to Jackson’s a ssertion the district court’s jury instruction was erroneous, the district court did not err by instructing the jury that a minimal effect on interstate commerce was sufficient, because that charge accurately reflects the law. See id. ; see also Dean I , 517 F.3d at 1228 . Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s convictions for conspiracy to commit, and aiding and abetting the commission of, a Hobbs Act Robbery.

Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 5 of 76 Accidental discharge of firearm We review “[t]he district court’s legal interpretation of statutes and Sentencing Guidelines . . . de n ovo. ” United States v. Carillo

- Ayala , 713 F.3d 82, 87 (11th Cir. 2013). Section 924(c) states, in relevant part, that: [A]ny person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence . . . uses or carries a firearm . . . shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence

. . . --

. . . . (ii) if the firearm is brandishe d , be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and (iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of impr isonment of not less than 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

- (iii). The Supreme Court has held a defendant’s accidental discharge of a firearm is punishable by the ten

- year mandatory minimum set forth in § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Dean v. United States (Dean II ), 556 U.S. 568, 577 (2009). Section 2 of Title 18 provides that “[w]hoever

. . . aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the commission of an offense against the United States] is punishable as a principal.” 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). “Under § 2, the acts of the principal become those of the aider and abettor as a matter of law.” United States v. Williams , 334 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, a defendant who aided

Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 6 of 77 and abetted a § 924(c) offense “ is accountable for the entiret y of the conduct” relating to the § 924(c) offense. Id. at 1233. The district court did not err in applying the ten

- year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) to Jackson. A defendant’s accidental discharge of a firearm is punishable by the ten

- year mandatory minimum sentence
. Dean II , 556 U.S. at 577. The indictment charged Jackson with violating §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2 by aiding and abetting his codefendants in knowing ly using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence. At Jackson’s change

- of

- pl ea hearing, he agreed with the G overnment’s descriptio n of the attempted bank robbery and admitt ed that a firearm was discharged from the vehicle in whi ch he and his codefendants escaped from the bank. The criminal judgment indicates that Jackson was adjudged guilty of violating §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2. On appeal, Jackson does not contest that his codefendant discharged his firearm. Moreover, an acc idental discharge of a firearm is a reasonably foreseeable result of bringing a gun to an attempted bank robbery. Accordingly, u nder § 2 , Jackson is accountable for hi s codefendant’s accidental discharge of the firearm and he is punishable by the ten

- year mandatory minimum sentence
. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; Williams , 334 F.3d at 1232

- 33. Thus , we affirm Jackson’s sentences. AFFIRMED. Case: 12-16045 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 7 of 7