Court Opinion

ID: 9393390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 00:00:26.754983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.988455
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30275         Document: 00516744272             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                      May 9, 2023
                                       No. 22-30275
                                     Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Clifton Lamar Dodd,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:18-CR-243-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury convicted Clifton Lamar Dodd of four counts of conveying false
   information and perpetuating a hoax concerning a biological agent, in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)(A). He challenges his convictions on the
   grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support them; the district court
   erroneously admitted evidence of his prior convictions for the same and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30275      Document: 00516744272           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                     No. 22-30275

   similar offenses; and the district court violated his right to compulsory
   process by denying a continuance that would have allowed him to present the
   live testimony of a key defense witness and instead requiring the witness to
   testify by teleconference. We decline to consider his inadequately briefed
   challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. See United
   States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v.
   Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010).
          We review Dodd’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de
   novo. See United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2013). On de
   novo review, we will affirm a jury verdict “if a reasonable trier of fact could
   conclude from the evidence that the elements of the offense were established
   beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
   to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to
   support the verdict.” United States v. Reed, 908 F.3d 102, 123 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We do not consider
   whether the jury correctly determined innocence or guilt, but whether the
   jury made a rational decision.” United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762,
   765 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Dodd does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
   specific element of the § 1038(a)(1)(A) offenses, such as intent or the
   conveyance of false information regarding a biological agent; instead, he
   argues that the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence to
   establish that he was the person who committed the charged offenses. He
   contends that the testimony of the handwriting and fingerprint experts
   should not have been considered and that the only other evidence supporting
   his convictions should not have been admitted under Federal Rule of
   Evidence 404(b). Dodd’s challenges to the testimony of the fingerprint and
   handwriting experts essentially attack their credibility and the weight of their
   testimony, which are issues that we cannot revisit when assessing the

                                               2
Case: 22-30275        Document: 00516744272         Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                     No. 22-30275

   sufficiency of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict. See United States v.
   Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir. 2011). Given their testimony and other
   testimony and documentary evidence presented by the Government, a
   rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Dodd
   committed the charged offenses. See Brown, 727 F.3d at 335; Nolasco-Rosas,
   286 F.3d at 765.
          Next, Dodd contends that evidence of his prior convictions and the
   underlying investigations should have been excluded because it was proffered
   only to prove that he had a propensity to commit the charged offenses.
          “This court applies a highly deferential standard in reviewing a
   district court’s evidentiary rulings, reversing only for abuse of discretion.
   Even then, the error is not reversible unless the defendant was prejudiced.”
   United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir. 2003). Federal Rule of
   Evidence 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act
   is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
   particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
   Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However, “[t]his 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).
          Here, the similarities between the conduct underlying the prior
   convictions and the charged offenses were sufficient to establish a distinct
   pattern of conduct that in turn could support a jury finding of knowledge,
   intent, and identity. See United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 826 (5th
   Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
   admitting evidence of Dodd’s prior convictions and the underlying
   investigations. See id.; Booker, 334 F.3d at 411.

                                              3
Case: 22-30275      Document: 00516744272          Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/09/2023

                                    No. 22-30275

          Finally, Dodd asserts that because the district court could have
   continued the trial to allow a key defense witness to testify in person, its
   denial of a continuance and requirement that the witness testify via
   teleconference was an abuse of discretion that resulted in a miscarriage of
   justice.
          The district court’s decision to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad
   testificandum is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Redd, 355
   F.3d 866, 878 (5th Cir. 2003). However, whether a defendant’s Sixth
   Amendment right to compulsory process has been violated is a legal issue
   that we review de novo. Id. Violations of the defendant’s right to compulsory
   process are subject to harmless error review. See Janecka v. Cockrell, 301 F.3d
   316, 327 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689 (1986)).
          Even if the district court violated Dodd’s right to compulsory process
   by requiring the witness to testify via teleconference, an issue we do not
   reach, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the
   witness’s testimony was of nominal value to the defense and the witness was
   thoroughly impeached. See Janecka, 301 F.3d at 327.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             4