Opinion ID: 4558220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendants next argue that their convictions for attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery and the use or carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence were insufficiently supported by the evidence. We apply de novo review to such challenges, United States v. Lee, 359 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir. 2004), and inquire whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 13 the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In doing so, we do not “reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” Brown v. Konteh, 567 F.3d 191, 205 (6th Cir. 2009). We will consider Defendants’ convictions in turn.
The Hobbs Act penalizes those who “in any way or degree obstruct[], delay[], or affect[] commerce . . . by robbery . . . or attempt[] or conspire[] to do so.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Robbery is defined as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence . . . to his person or property.” Id. § 1951(b)(1). Defendants contest the government’s proof of this crime for multiple reasons. First, Defendants Somerville and Poindexter argue that there was insufficient evidence to show that their alleged actions interfered with interstate commerce. This argument is unpersuasive. The Supreme Court has held that “to satisfy the [Hobbs] Act’s commerce element, it is enough that a defendant knowingly stole or attempted to steal drugs or drug proceeds, for, as a matter of law, the market for illegal drugs is ‘commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.’” Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074, 2081 (2016). Under this standard, the evidence introduced at trial was clearly sufficient to allow a rational juror to find the interstate commerce element satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. First, government witnesses testified at trial that Edwards was a drug dealer and that he was actively selling cocaine from his home around the time of his death. While Somerville argues that some witness testimony at trial suggested that Edwards was not selling drugs from his home at that time, it is not our place to “reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” Brown, 567 F.3d at 205. Moreover, according to codefendant Armoni Hall, the purpose of Defendants’ robbery was to take drugs and money from Edwards. (Trial Tr., R. 280 at PageID ##2793–94, 2857); Taylor, 136 S. Ct. at 2081–82 (finding evidence that “robberies were committed with the express intent to obtain illegal drugs and the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs” supported the Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 14 interstate commerce element). Somerville argues that some of the codefendants’ testimony did not support this intent. But “[t]he uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice alone may support a conviction,” and so the jury could appropriate rely on Hall’s testimony even if that had been the only evidence relevant to the interstate commerce point. United States v. Clark, 18 F.3d 1337, 1343 (6th Cir. 1994). Somerville further tries to undermine this testimony by arguing that Hall “changed his story” about the crime, but again, credibility determinations are appropriately the province of the jury, not this Court. See Brown, 567 F.3d at 205. Finally, a government witness testified that the plant used to make cocaine is not grown in Tennessee, and so a jury could reasonably infer that the cocaine Edwards sold—and Defendants attempted to steal—had to travel across state lines. While the Supreme Court has clarified that “the Government need not show that the drugs that a defendant stole or attempted to steal either traveled or were destined for transport across state lines,” Taylor, 136 S. Ct. at 2081, this evidence certainly bolsters the government’s showing on that element, see United States v. Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684, 692 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding sufficient evidence to show an effect on interstate commerce because the drugs sold by the victim in that case “originated in Latin America, and thus had to get to Michigan through interstate commerce”). Altogether, there was ample evidence presented to allow a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants’ offense affected interstate commerce. Defendants Sherrill and Poindexter further argue that there was insufficient evidence to show that they actively planned or participated in the relevant robbery. This argument also fails, as the evidence was demonstrably sufficient to allow a rational juror to conclude that both aided and abetted the attempted robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2. Under that section, “those who provide knowing aid to persons committing federal crimes, with the intent to facilitate the crime, are themselves committing a crime.” Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 71 (2014) (quoting Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 181 (1994)). As this Court has explained, “[a]iding and abetting requires that a defendant ‘in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participates in it as something he wishes to bring about, and that he seek by his action to make it succeed.’” United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398, 409 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Lowery, 60 F.3d 1199, 1202 (6th Cir. 1995)). Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 15 Thus, to be convicted, a defendant must (1) perform an act “which contributes to the execution of a crime” (2) with “the intent to aid in its commission.” Id. (quoting Lowery, 60 F.3d at 1202). With regard to Sherrill, the record suggests that he helped recruit Hall into committing the crime by showing up at his house with Somerville on January 17 and asking him whether he was “going to go or not.” (Trial Tr., R. 280 at PageID ##2852–53.) The record also suggests that Sherrill drove his codefendants to the scene of the crime and waited to pick them up afterward.3 And the fact that he was present for the planning of the robbery and later participated in its execution also gives rise to the reasonable inference that he actively participated in this planning. Certainly this evidence would also allow a reasonable juror to infer that Sherrill intended to aid in the robbery. With regard to Poindexter, by his own admission, he agreed to participate in the robbery, went with his codefendants to pick up firearms, and went with them to Edwards’ house to commit the robbery. Poindexter’s primary argument on appeal is that he did not kick in Edwards’ door at the scene of the robbery, but this misses the point. While kicking in Edwards’ door could have been an overt act towards the commission of the robbery, the acts that Poindexter himself admitted to also constitute overt acts. Moreover, Poindexter’s statement that he agreed to participate in the robbery is an explicit admission of his intent. Thus, as with Sherrill, the evidence clearly supports the jury’s determination that Poindexter performed an act contributing to the commission of the robbery with the requisite intent.
Poindexter also challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), arguing that he could not be convicted thereunder because there was insufficient evidence supporting his predicate conviction under the Hobbs Act. Sherrill, for his part, argues that he did not carry a firearm on the day of the robbery. Again, a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sherrill and Poindexter aided and abetted the commission of this crime. 3Sherrill asserts on appeal that when he heard Somerville’s gunshots, he “fled the scene” and did not pick up Somerville, Hall, and Poindexter. (Sherrill Br. at 22.) But even if this is true, Sherrill evidently participated in the robbery until that point. One cannot abandon a crime after it has been committed. Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 16 To convict a defendant under the relevant portion of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the government must show that he used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence for which he could be prosecuted in federal court. 4 Id. § 924(c)(1)(A). To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting such a crime, the government must show that he “(1) [took] an affirmative act in furtherance of that offense, (2) with the intent of facilitating the offense’s commission.” Rosemond, 572 U.S. at 71. Notably, the government need not prove that Defendants facilitated their codefendants’ use or carrying of firearms in particular. Id. at 74. Defendants “could assist in § 924(c)’s violation by facilitating either the [crime of violence] or the firearm use (or of course both). In helping to bring about one part of the offense . . . [they] necessarily helped to complete the whole.” Id. Turning then to Defendants’ arguments, Poindexter’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his § 924(c) conviction because there was insufficient evidence to support his underlying Hobbs Act conviction fails on its own terms.5 As previously discussed, the evidence was sufficient to support Poindexter’s Hobbs Act conviction. This same evidence also suffices to support his conviction under § 924(c). Sherrill’s arguments, too, are unavailing. Whether or not he carried a firearm on the day of the robbery and whether or not he specifically aided his codefendants’ use of a firearm, for the same reasons previously discussed, the evidence sufficiently showed that he aided and abetted the attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery. This is likewise sufficient to support his conviction under § 924(c). We therefore affirm Defendants’ convictions. 4We have yet to address whether attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s elements clause, and we decline to do so here. Defendants do not contest this point, and so it is not before us for review. 5At oral argument, Defendant Somerville also asserted that his convictions under Counts 2, 3, and 4 were insufficiently supported because his Hobbs Act conviction was insufficiently supported. Somerville did not clearly advance this argument in his briefs, and it is thus insufficiently preserved for our review. See Huntington Nat’l Bank, 574 F.3d at 331. However, were we to nonetheless consider this contention, it also fails on its own terms, as there was sufficient evidence to support Somerville’s Hobbs Act conviction for the reasons previously discussed. Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 17 IV. Substantive and Procedural Reasonableness of Sherrill and Poindexter’s Sentences Defendants Sherrill and Poindexter next contest their sentences, arguing that those sentences are both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Our procedural reasonableness inquiry turns on whether “the trial court follow[ed] proper procedures and [gave] adequate consideration to [the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors.” United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020)). Under the substantive reasonableness inquiry, by contrast, we “determine[] if the length of a sentence conforms with the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and ask[] whether the district judge ‘abused his discretion in determining that the § 3553(a) factors supported the sentence imposed.’” Id. (quoting Holguin-Hernandez, 140 S. Ct. at 766 (internal quotation omitted)). “In short, procedural review of a sentence concerns the propriety of the factors that go into a sentence; substantive review assesses the reasonableness of the sentence that results.” Id. We generally review both aspects of a district court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), but considering the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo in so doing, United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019). However, where a defendant fails to appropriately preserve a procedural reasonableness argument, we review it for plain error only. United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 578, 580 (6th Cir. 2009). Substantive reasonableness arguments “do not need to be raised before the district court to be preserved for appeal,” and so we apply abuse of discretion review even where such arguments were not raised below. United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 473 (6th Cir. 2011). A. Sherrill’s Sentence Beginning with Defendant Sherrill’s challenges to his sentence, he first argues that the district court erred by failing to apply a two-level Guidelines adjustment based on his purportedly minor role in the attempted robbery. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The government responds that Sherrill waived this argument before the district court by agreeing to pursue a variance, rather than an adjustment, based on his role. Generally speaking, we will not review Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 18 arguments that a party explicitly declined to pursue below, as one “cannot agree in open court with a judge’s proposed course of conduct and then charge the court with error in following that course.” United States v. Aparco-Centeno, 280 F.3d 1084, 1088 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Sloman, 909 F.2d 176, 182 (6th Cir. 1990)). We apply this rule out of recognition that such explicit agreement constitutes waiver, or the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732–33 (1993)). Upon review of Sherrill’s sentencing hearing transcript, it is not clear that he intentionally declined to pursue a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) adjustment. Instead, this potential waiver seems to have resulted from a simple miscommunication between Sherrill’s counsel and the district court. At sentencing, Sherrill’s counsel mistakenly stated that § 3B1.2(b) called for a “departure” from the Guidelines based on his role, rather than an “adjustment” to his offense level under the Guidelines.6 (See Sherrill Sent’g Hr’g Tr., R. 273 at PageID #2313.) Apparently confused by counsel’s misstatement, the district court explained that “an adjustment for the role in the offense is a guideline adjustment . . . [and] if you don’t succeed under the guideline itself, it comes up more frequently as a variance argument,” rather than as a departure argument.7 (Id.) After its attempt to clarify, the court asked what course Sherrill wanted to pursue, and counsel agreed to pursue a variance. The court did not explicitly rule on the applicability of the § 3B1.2(b) adjustment thereafter, instead denying Sherrill a variance based on the same argument. Based on this exchange, it is unclear whether Sherrill intended to pursue a variance only after the district court considered the applicability of the § 3B1.2(b) adjustment, or if he intended to pursue a variance instead of a § 3B1.2(b) adjustment. 6While frequently conflated, adjustments and departures are conceptually distinct under the Guidelines. Adjustments permit the court to modify the defendant’s offense level based on specific circumstances including, for instance, his acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, or—as relevant here—role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. Ch.3. Departures allow the court, after it has calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, to impose a sentence outside that range based on other circumstances generally identified by the Guidelines, including the death of a victim, a victim’s extreme psychological injury, or otherwise. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. n.1(F); U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a). 7A variance is itself conceptually distinct from both an adjustment and a departure, as it allows the district court to impose a sentence outside of the Guidelines range based upon the court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Denny, 653 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir. 2011). Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 19 All things considered, whether Sherrill waived his § 3B1.2(b) argument does not matter, as that argument fails even if we treat it as appropriately preserved. We turn then to consider its merits. Section 3B1.2(b) calls for a two-level adjustment to a defendant’s base offense level if he was a “minor participant” in the offense, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), or in other words, was “less culpable than most other participants in the criminal activity,” id. § 3B1.2 comment. n.5. The Guidelines commentary clarifies that, in deciding whether to apply this adjustment, a court should consider the degrees to which a defendant understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity, participated in planning or organizing the activity, influenced or exercised decision-making authority, and stood to benefit from the activity, in addition to the nature and extent of his participation in the activity. Id. § 3B1.2 comment. n.3(C). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his minor role by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766, 790 (6th Cir. 2019). While the district court did not explicitly rule on the applicability of § 3B1.2(b) in sentencing Sherrill, any error it made in that regard was harmless and cannot support reversal. Indeed, the factual findings that the district court made in denying Sherrill a variance based on his purportedly minor role demonstrate that, even if the court had considered the applicability of § 3B1.2(b), it would have declined to apply that adjustment. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 444 F.3d 519, 522 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding a sentencing error harmless where the reviewing court was sure that the district court would have imposed the same sentence even without the error); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”). The district court analyzed the factors relevant to § 3B1.2(b) in considering whether to grant Sherrill’s requested variance. The court reasoned that Sherrill understood the scope of the crime because he “was part of” or “at least present [for]” its planning, heard Somerville assign the various roles, and knew that his codefendants were bringing guns along with them to the robbery. (Sherrill Sent’g Hr’g Tr., R. 273 at PageID #2333.) The court also explained that Sherrill’s role in the offense was not a minor one, nor was he “less responsible” merely because his “task was driving the car, as opposed to walking into the house with a gun,” as “everyone ha[d] to do . . . their assigned task . . . in order for the crime to occur.” (Id.) While the court did Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 20 think that Sherrill’s decision making had been swayed by Somerville’s influence over him, it decided to take that fact into account by granting a separate downward variance, rather than one based on his role. The district court did not clearly err in making these factual findings. And altogether, this analysis suggests that if the district court had explicitly considered the applicability of § 3B1.2(b), it would have declined to apply that adjustment. Thus, any error Sherrill alleges was harmless and provides no basis for reversal. Turning to Sherrill’s next argument, Sherrill contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was “greater than necessary” to achieve the goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In considering this argument, we ask whether the district court abused its discretion in determining Sherrill’s sentence. As that sentence fell below Sherrill’s Guidelines range, he must bear a heavy burden to show that it was substantively unreasonable. United States v. Greco, 734 F.3d 441, 450 (6th Cir. 2013). “One way to gauge the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is to ask whether ‘the court placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on others’ in reaching its sentencing decision.” Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 753–54 (quoting Parrish, 915 F.3d at 1047). Sherrill points out his minor role in this offense, his minimal criminal history, and his efforts to overcome his difficult childhood as factors weighing in favor of a lesser sentence. Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript confirms that the district court reasonably balanced the § 3553(a) factors in imposing its chosen sentence. The district court considered the facts that Sherrill now points to and found that his sentence was justified despite them. As discussed, it concluded that his role as a getaway driver was not a minor one. It noted that Sherrill had only one prior conviction, but that he had committed the instant crime soon after the end of his prison term for the prior crime. And the court observed that Sherrill had grown up in “a difficult situation,” but despite this had graduated from high school and maintained employment. (Sherrill Sent’g Hr’g Tr., R. 273 at PageID ##2336–37.) After considering these facts, it concluded that a significant sentence was nonetheless appropriate, both in order to deter future conduct like this and to achieve “just punishment” for Edwards’ death. (Id. at ##2337– 38.) This reasoning provides us no reason to question the district court’s decision. Its weighing Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 21 of the § 3553(a) factors was reasonable, and so too was its sentence. We therefore affirm the sentence. B. Poindexter’s Sentence Defendant Poindexter, for his part, first argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court “(1) failed to address his personal characteristics under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) failed to relate the § 3553(a) factors to the variance; and (3) based the sentence on general deterrence principles not specific” to Poindexter. (Poindexter Br. at 28.) Poindexter did not raise these procedural reasonableness arguments before the district court, and so we review them for plain error. Poindexter provides almost no argument in support of any of these points, and each of them is meritless. First, the district court did indeed address Poindexter’s personal characteristics in articulating its § 3553(a) analysis. In particular, it emphasized the seriousness of the robbery, Poindexter’s long and violent criminal history, and his gang membership, balancing these against his mental health issues, the trouble he had getting treatment for those issues, the difficulty of his childhood due to his mother’s substance abuse issues, and his positive performance in school. Second, the district court did relate the § 3553(a) factors to its decision to vary downwards, explaining that it granted a variance in recognition of the fact that Poindexter had attempted to get mental health treatment but had been prevented from doing so by his mother and, as a result, had “less control” over his decision making with respect to the instant crime “than [he] should have had.” (Poindexter Sent’g Hr’g Tr., R. 272 at PageID #2301). His variance thus relates to his personal history and characteristics, including his mental health and family background. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Finally, the court imposed its chosen sentence in service of general penal goals—deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation—but in a manner specific to Poindexter. In particular, it explained its interest in “send[ing] a message to [Poindexter]” that he could not engage in violent behavior like this, ensuring that Poindexter’s sentence reflected the seriousness of his offense, and providing Poindexter with access to education and mental health and substance abuse treatment. (Poindexter Sent’g Hr’g Tr., R. 272 at PageID ##2298–300.) Thus, Poindexter has not demonstrated that the district court erred in Nos. 19-5815/5817/5983 United States v. Sherrill Page 22 any of the matters he asserts, let alone plainly erred. Accordingly, we need not consider the remaining elements of the plain error analysis. Poindexter next argues that a lesser sentence of 210 months “would have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary” in this case. (Poindexter Br. at 29.) This is a substantive reasonableness argument which we review for an abuse of discretion. Like Sherrill, Poindexter cannot carry his heavy burden to show that his below-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See Greco, 734 F.3d at 450. Even if Poindexter is right that a lesser sentence might have sufficed, this Court “cannot reverse a sentence simply because [it] determine[s] that a different sentence would be appropriate.” United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381, 398 (6th Cir. 2009). And to the extent that Poindexter argues that the district court wrongly balanced the § 3553(a) factors, affording his “age, youth, difficult upbringing, and other characteristics” insufficient weight, (Poindexter Br. at 29), the record demonstrates otherwise. The district court took stock of Poindexter’s youth, his history of mental health issues, his difficult family circumstances, and other mitigating factors—even accounting for them in affording him a downward variance—but nonetheless concluded that a lengthy sentence was appropriate, given the gravity of Poindexter’s offense, his serious criminal history, and his gang membership. Poindexter provides no convincing argument to the contrary. Thus, we affirm Sherrill and Poindexter’s sentences in full.