Court Opinion

ID: 9901290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 17:00:37.046699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:30.106838
License: Public Domain

22-50
   United States v. Curry

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                        SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS
GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH
THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
   City of New York, on the 21st day of November, two thousand twenty-three.

   PRESENT:

              JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
              REENA RAGGI,
              RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
                    Circuit Judges.
   _____________________________________

   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Appellee,

                            v.                                                 No. 22-50

   DALVON CURRY, a.k.a. DALE, a.k.a. DALO,

                    Defendant-Appellant. *
   _____________________________________

   * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above.
For Defendant-Appellant:                      ANDREW H. FREIFELD, New York,
                                              NY.

For Appellee:                                 MONICA J. RICHARDS, Assistant
                                              United States Attorney, for Trini E.
                                              Ross, United States Attorney for the
                                              Western District of New York,
                                              Buffalo, NY.

      Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western

District of New York (Lawrence J. Vilardo, Judge).

      UPON      DUE    CONSIDERATION,          IT    IS   HEREBY     ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the December 22, 2021 judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

      Dalvon Curry appeals from his judgment of conviction following a jury trial

in which he was convicted of nine counts stemming from his involvement in the

“Cash Been Long”/“Brothers for Life” (“CBL/BFL”) gang, including one count of

racketeering conspiracy (Count One); one count of narcotics conspiracy (Count

Two); one count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking

crime (Count Three); two counts of murder in aid of racketeering activity (Counts

Four and Seven); two counts of discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of

violence (Counts Five and Eight); and two counts of discharge of a firearm causing

death in furtherance of a crime of violence (Counts Six and Nine). Following the

                                        2
jury’s verdict, Curry moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 29 or, in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.           The district court denied Curry’s posttrial

motions and sentenced him to a statutorily mandated term of life imprisonment

on each of Counts Four and Seven, to run concurrent with a sentence of 300 months

on each of Counts One and Two and to be followed by consecutive terms of 60

months on Count Three and 120 months on each of Counts Six and Nine, for a total

aggregate term of life plus 300 months.

       On appeal, Curry asserts that he is entitled to judgments of acquittal on all

counts except for Count One, as to which he nonetheless challenges the special

factor findings relevant to that count. 1 With regard to those counts related to the

shooting of Jacquan Sullivan – namely, Counts Four, Six, and Special Factor Two

under Count One (the “Sullivan Counts”) – Curry argues that the district court

erroneously charged the jury on three exceptions to Curry’s justification defense.

As to the remaining counts (concerning the shooting of Xaiver Wimes and the

CBL/BFL narcotics conspiracy), Curry argues that the government’s evidence was

1 In entering judgment, the district court dismissed Counts Five and Eight as lesser included

offenses of Counts Six and Nine, respectively. Curry accordingly does not advance any
arguments pertaining to Counts Five or Eight on appeal.

                                             3
legally insufficient to prove the requisite elements of each offense. We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on

appeal.

I.     Sullivan Counts

       Curry argues that judgments of acquittal are warranted on the Sullivan

Counts because the district court erred in instructing the jury as to three instances

in which the defense of justification is not available – namely, when the defendant

was the initial aggressor, when the defendant could have safely retreated but

failed to do so, and when the defendant engaged in illegal combat by agreement.

Curry asserts that the record evidence was insufficient to justify any of the three

challenged instructions, that the combat-by-agreement instruction was legally

deficient, and that the government otherwise failed to carry its burden of

disproving Curry’s justification defense. 2

       We review preserved claims of error in jury instructions de novo, “reversing

only where, viewing the charge as a whole, there was a prejudicial error.” United

2  At various points in his briefing, Curry criticizes the government for purportedly making
deceptive statements before the jury. Curry does not, however, assert a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct or request any relief in connection with the government’s purported bad faith. We
therefore do not consider any such issue to have been properly presented on appeal. See Gross
v. Rell, 585 F.3d 72, 95 (2d Cir. 2009).

                                              4
States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 88 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Where such a claim is unpreserved, we review solely for plain error. See United

States v. Miller, 954 F.3d 551, 557–58 (2d Cir. 2020); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). To

prevail on plain-error review, an appellant must demonstrate that the error “is

clear or obvious,” “affected the appellant’s substantial rights,” and “seriously

affects the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

United States v. McCrimon, 788 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.

Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).

      Curry concedes that he did not object to the initial-aggressor or failure-to-

retreat instructions before the district court, such that plain-error review applies.

Curry did, however, object to the combat-by-agreement instruction.               We

therefore review that instruction de novo.

      We begin with Curry’s argument that the evidence presented at trial was

insufficient to warrant the initial-aggressor instruction.       “Because the law

pertaining to self-defense is a matter of federal common law,” we “look to state

court decisions for guidance” in evaluating whether it was appropriately charged.

United States v. Desinor, 525 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2008); see also United States v.

Melhuish, 6 F.4th 380, 396–97 (2d Cir. 2021). Under New York law, “a defendant

                                         5
is justified in using ‘deadly physical force’ upon another only if that defendant

‘reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical

force.’”   People v. Brown, 33 N.Y.3d 316, 320 (2019) (quoting N.Y. Penal Law

§ 35.15(2)). This justification defense is not available, however, “if [a] defendant

is the ‘initial aggressor’” – i.e., “the first person in an altercation who uses or

threatens the imminent use of deadly physical force.” Id. at 320–21 (quoting N.Y.

Penal Law § 35.15(1)(b)).

      Here, we cannot say that the district court committed plain error in

instructing the jury as to the initial-aggressor exception to justification. A witness

testified that gunshots came from “the people on the porch” of the house where

Curry was temporarily staying, while the individual on the street simply ran

away. App’x at 676. Another witness testified that Curry told him how, upon

seeing Sullivan’s car drive past the porch, Curry walked towards the car, pulled

out his gun before Sullivan could reach his, and continued to shoot even as

Sullivan ran away. In light of this evidence, the district court was wholly justified

in giving the initial-aggressor instruction. The fact that other evidence may have

allowed Curry to argue that he was not the initial aggressor did not preclude an

instruction advising the jury as to this exception to justification. Cf. Harris v.

                                          6
O’Hare, 770 F.3d 224, 238 n.9 (2d Cir. 2014) (“All that a party needs to show is that

there is some evidence supporting the theory behind the instruction so that a

question of fact may be presented to the jury.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

      We turn next to Curry’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to

justify the failure-to-retreat instruction. New York law prohibits an individual

from “us[ing] deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete

safety . . . avoid the necessity of doing so by retreating.” Matter of Y.K., 87 N.Y.2d

430, 433 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if a defendant faced

with deadly physical force knows he can safely retreat and fails to do so, the

justification defense “is lost.” Id. at 434.

      Again, the district court did not plainly err in giving the failure-to-retreat

instruction. As noted above, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding

that Curry walked towards, rather than away from, Sullivan when he saw him

drive by. And, given the evidence indicating that Curry was on the porch of a

house when the encounter began (as well as the lack of any evidence suggesting

that the house was locked), a reasonable juror could have concluded that Curry

was capable of retreating inside the house to avoid the encounter.

                                           7
      Finally, we turn to Curry’s challenges to the district court’s combat-by-

agreement instruction, which Curry claims was both inadequately supported by

the record and legally insufficient.

      As an initial matter, we discern no error in the content of the district court’s

combat-by-agreement instruction, which was entirely consistent with New York

law. Compare App’x at 2437, with N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(1)(c), and N.Y. Crim.

Jury Instructions, Penal Law § 35.15(2) (2d ed.).

      Turning next to Curry’s challenge to the evidentiary basis for the

instruction, New York law is clear that a justification defense is negated when the

“physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically

authorized by law.” N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(1)(c). New York courts have held

that the combat-by-agreement exception to the justification defense “is generally

limited to agreements to combat between specific individuals or small groups on

discrete occasions.” People v. Anderson, 180 A.D.3d 923, 924 (2d Dep’t 2020), aff’d,

36 N.Y.3d 1109 (2021). Nevertheless, “[a]n agreement to engage in combat not

authorized by law” need not be express and may be “a tacit agreement.” People

v. Agosto, 203 A.D.3d 841, 842 (2d Dep’t 2022).        For example, a combat-by-

agreement instruction may be warranted where “there [is] evidence to support a

                                          8
conclusion that [the] defendant and the victim were members of ‘rival groups that

tacitly agreed, pursuant to an unwritten code of macho honor, that there would be

mutual combat.’”       People v. Young, 33 A.D.3d 1120, 1124 (3d Dep’t 2006)

(alterations omitted) (quoting People v. Russell, 91 N.Y.2d 280, 288 (1998)); see also

People v. Rosario, 292 A.D.2d 324, 325 (1st Dep’t 2002) (upholding combat-by-

agreement instruction when “there was adequate proof to establish that defendant

and his opponent had tacitly agreed to engage in a gun battle”).

      Here, contrary to Curry’s suggestion, the government’s evidence

demonstrated more than a generic rivalry between local gangs. Cf. Anderson, 180

A.D.3d at 923 (concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support a

combat-by-agreement charge when the record only contained “generalized

evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang which had a rivalry with

other local gangs”).    The government introduced exchanges on social media

between Sullivan and Curry, including an exchange approximately one week

before the shooting, in which the two traded insults and threatened in-person

altercations at specific locations, as well as evidence suggesting that each was

aware that the other was in possession of firearms.

                                          9
      Having determined that the district court did not err as to any of the

challenged jury instructions, we reject Curry’s claim that he is entitled to

judgments of acquittal or a new trial on the Sullivan Counts.

II.   Wimes Counts

      We next address Curry’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to

sustain his convictions in connection with the fatal shooting of Xavier Wimes –

Counts Seven, Nine, and Special Factor Three under Count One (the “Wimes

Counts”) – because the government failed to establish that Curry shot Wimes in

order to maintain or increase his position in CBL/BFL.

      We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, see

United States v. Capers, 20 F.4th 105, 113 (2d Cir. 2021), and must decide 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 the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt,” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also United

States v. White, 7 F.4th 90, 98 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining that a reviewing court must

“credit[] every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor,

and defer[] to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the

                                         10
weight of the evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)).            A defendant

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence “bears a heavy burden,” as this

standard of review is “exceedingly deferential.” United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d

46, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

      For a defendant to be convicted of a violent crime in aid of racketeering, the

government must prove, among other things, that the defendant committed the

alleged crime of violence in order “to maintain or increase his position in the

[racketeering] enterprise.”     White, 7 F.4th at 101 (internal quotation marks

omitted). A defendant’s desire to maintain or increase his position need not be

his “sole or principal motive” in order for this element to be satisfied. Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). Instead, the jury need only be able to “properly infer

that the defendant committed his violent crime because he knew it was expected

of him by reason of his membership in the enterprise or that he committed it in

furtherance of that membership.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

      Here, we agree with the district court that the government offered sufficient

evidence for a rational juror to conclude that Curry killed Wimes, at least in part,

to preserve his position in CBL/BFL.           The government introduced evidence

demonstrating that violent acts were celebrated by CBL/BFL members, that such

                                          11
acts were necessary to maintain CBL/BFL’s status, and that Curry himself

recognized the importance of these violent acts to a member’s status in the gang.

More specifically, the evidence showed that, earlier on the day of the shooting,

Curry and Wimes engaged in a Facebook exchange in which Curry insulted

Wimes’s cousin, a rival gang member who was killed, and questioned Wimes’s

loyalty to CBL/BFL. The evidence also demonstrated that, after Wimes hit Curry

in the head with a bottle in front of his fellow CBL/BFL members, a fellow CBL/BFL

member threatened that Wimes was not going to “leav[e] [the] building alive,”

App’x at 428, and that at least some CBL/BFL members interpreted Wimes’s attack

on Curry as him “taking up” for a rival gang, id. at 1571, 1575.

      What is more, the record reflects that, within one month of the Wimes

shooting, Curry posted on Facebook that someone had “tr[ied] to take [his] life[,]”

so he was “supposed to shoot,” and that he “put in that work[,] that’s how [he]

blew up,” alongside an emoji of a smiley face wearing sunglasses. Id. at 2529. At

trial, witnesses explained that “putting in work” meant “[r]ob[bing], steal[ing],

kill[ing], shoot[ing] [or fighting] somebody” for the benefit of the gang. Id. at 785;

see also id. at 1405 (explaining that the term “putting in work” was used to describe

gang-related shootings).      Based on this evidence, we cannot say that no

                                         12
reasonable trier of fact could have determined that Curry killed Wimes in order to

maintain or increase his position in CBL/BFL.

III.   Narcotics Counts

       As to the remaining counts related to the CBL/BFL narcotics conspiracy –

Counts Two, Three, and Special Factors 1.b and 1.c under Count One (the

“Narcotics Counts”) – Curry contends that the government failed to demonstrate

the existence of a conspiracy or his membership in it.

       To affirm a conviction for narcotics conspiracy, the record must permit a

rational jury to find “(1) the existence of the conspiracy charged; (2) that the

defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) that the defendant

intentionally joined the conspiracy.” United States v. Barret, 848 F.3d 524, 534 (2d

Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). With regard to the knowledge

element, a defendant need not know “all of the details of the conspiracy, so long

as he knew its general nature and extent.” United States v. Huezo, 546 F.3d 174,

180 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Curry claims that he must be acquitted on the Narcotics Counts because the

government failed to prove that members of CBL/BFL who sold drugs participated

in a criminal conspiracy, as opposed to merely acting as “independent contractors

                                        13
vis-à-vis each other.” Curry Br. at 56. Curry additionally argues that, even if the

government did prove the existence of the narcotics conspiracy, the government

failed to demonstrate that Curry joined it simply by virtue of being a “shooter who

called himself BFL.” Id. at 57. Neither of these contentions has merit.

         Curry himself concedes that CBL/BFL members engaged in daily sales of

marijuana, heroin, crack, and fentanyl at the same location in the Towne Gardens

Plaza.     And the evidence at trial amply demonstrated that gang members

cooperated with one another to sell drugs, including by alerting each other to the

presence of police and by hiding and sharing firearms to protect their territory.

Moreover, trial testimony confirmed that individuals played different roles in

CBL/BFL – while some were “killers” and “shooter[s]” to keep the gang and its

territory protected, others were tasked with earning money for the gang by dealing

drugs. App’x at 1092–93; see also id. at 813–23 (explaining how CBL/BFL members

protected and encouraged the drug-dealing activities at Towne Gardens).

         Here, the record indicates that Curry was aware of CBL/BFL’s participation

in drug trafficking, took actions to protect the gang and its territory where drug

dealing occurred, and even sold drugs himself.        We therefore reject Curry’s

contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the Narcotics Counts.

                                         14
                                *     *     *

     We have considered Curry’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                    FOR THE COURT:
                                    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                     15