Court Opinion

ID: 9351942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 15:00:24.513352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.700630
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11704    Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023   Page: 1 of 17

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11704
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        DARICK DEWAYNE DILLARD,

                                                   Defendant- Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00029-KD-B-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11704   Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023   Page: 2 of 17

        2                   Opinion of the Court                22-11704

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11705
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        DARICK DEWAYNE DILLARD,
        LAMETRIUS DILLARD,

                                                Defendants-Appellants.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00066-KD-B-1
                          ____________________

        Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 22-11704       Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 01/04/2023      Page: 3 of 17

        22-11704                 Opinion of the Court                            3

               Siblings Darick Dillard and Lametrius Dillard appeal their
        respective convictions following their trial in the Southern District
        of Alabama. The jury convicted Darick of two counts of possession
        of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of possession with
        intent to distribute a controlled substance, and one count of
        possession of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The
        jury convicted Lametrius of witness tampering. 1 On appeal,
        Darick argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
        dismiss the indictment based on outrageous governmental
        conduct. Lametrius argues that there is insufficient evidence to
        support her conviction for witness tampering and that the district
        court abused its discretion in admitting an unauthenticated
        Facebook post at trial. After review, we affirm.
                                    I.      Background
                In February 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Darick on
        two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), based on his sale of firearms to a
        confidential informant (“CI”), Sarah Turner. Later, Darick and his
        sister, Lametrius, were indicted in a separate case on charges of
        (1) possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of
        cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
        (Darick only), (2) possessing a firearm during and in relation to a
        drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)

        1 The jury also convicted Darick of witness tampering, but his post-verdict
        motion for judgment of acquittal was granted as to that count.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 4 of 17

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11704

        (Darick only), and (3) witness tampering, in violation of 18
        U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) (both Darick and Lametrius).
               Darick filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in the first
        case (charging him with two counts of possession of a firearm by a
        convicted felon), arguing that “the Government violated the law
        by using a convicted felon to conduct the controlled buys” that
        formed the basis of the charges. He conceded that he could not
        “find any case in support of [his] argument,” but maintained that
        the indictment should still be dismissed. The district court denied
        the motion in an endorsed paperless order.
                Thereafter, the district court consolidated the two cases, and
        Darick and Lametrius proceeded to trial. At trial Michael Kiser, a
        sheriff with Alabama’s Dallas County Sheriff’s Department,
        testified that he had known Sarah Turner, a CI, for “five or six
        years,” and she had reliably provided tips on narcotic activity in the
        Selma, Alabama, area. In May 2020, Turner approached him and
        stated that Darick “was a menace to her area,” because he was
        involved in drug and firearm activity in her neighborhood, and she
        wanted “to help get [him] off the street.” Kiser investigated and
        corroborated the information Turner provided. He then arranged
        for Turner to purchase firearms from Darick through controlled
        buys on two separate occasions. When officers arrested Darick at
        his home for the firearm transactions, they discovered large
        amounts of marijuana, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and
        methamphetamine, and digital scales. Officers also discovered a
        loaded firearm under Darick’s bed.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 01/04/2023        Page: 5 of 17

        22-11704                  Opinion of the Court                               5

               Kiser admitted that he discovered that Turner was a
        convicted felon shortly before the trial. Kiser explained that he
        conducted background checks on CIs; however, he only checked
        the state database for convictions, which did not reveal Turner’s
        federal felony conviction.2
               During the course of the trial, the government introduced a
        recorded jail call between Darick and his sister, Lametrius, from
        the day of Darick’s arraignment. During the conversation, Darick
        denied selling a firearm and said, “that’s why I need you to go down
        to [Turner], because I need to see what the hell [Turner] and them
        got going on, cause [Turner] knows that I ain’t never sold them no
        gun.” Darick stated that Arthur Harris (“Arthur”), his nephew, had
        sold Turner the gun. Darick stated “[s]o, shit, they need to get that
        shit together. Because [Turner] or somebody’s telling lies. They
        know I ain’t sell ‘em, cause Arthur sold them that gun.” He then
        reiterated to Lametrius that he needed her to “go by there and
        holler at [Turner], ask [Turner] what the hell’s going on. Because
        I think her son probably got caught with the gun and they probably
        said that I was, because Arthur was with me. But . . . Arthur’s the

        2 Turner testified that in 2009 she was convicted of stealing money from the
        United States. She explained that, at that time, she lived in Section 8 housing
        and when she got a job, she did not report it. Thus, she was convicted of
        stealing money from the government in the form of unpaid rent. Turner
        erroneously believed that she could possess a firearm after five years from the
        date of conviction. She did not remember whether she reported being a
        convicted felon on her CI application, but she “assum[ed] they knew about it”
        because they did a background check.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023      Page: 6 of 17

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11704

        one [who] went around there and sold the gun. I didn’t sell
        [Turner] no gun.” He continued, “you need to go there—you need
        to go ask her. You need to see. Because that shit ain’t gonna fly
        with me, because [Turner] know I ain’t sold her nothing.”
        Lametrius told Darick that she was “headed over there now.”
        Darick continued, telling Lametrius that “Arthur knows for hisself
        [sic] that he sold that gun to [Turner]. You need to go by there and
        tell [Turner] the truth—because she knows the truth.” “Go over
        there, holler at [Turner]. See what she said. Because let her know
        that they called, like she’s the one saying that I—I ain’t sold
        [Turner] shit.” 3
               Following the call, Lametrius went to Turner’s home. The
        government introduced a recording of the conversation that took
        place between Turner and Lametrius.
               [Lametrius]: [Darick] said they said something about
               you had put—said that your boyfriend or somebody
               got caught with a—some .22 and said that you signed
               the thing and said he sold you a gun. He said he ain’t
               sold you no gun.
               ...
               Something about he said he don’t know what going
               on or what done happened but he said somebody put
               it in writing, said it came from you—that your—

        3 In other recorded calls between Darick and other individuals that were
        introduced at trial, Darick referred to Lametrius as “his muscle.”
USCA11 Case: 22-11704     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023    Page: 7 of 17

        22-11704              Opinion of the Court                        7

              somebody sold you a .22 gun. A pistol. He said he
              ain’t sell you no damn gun.
              [Turner]: I don’t even know what y’all talking about
              no—huh-uh.
              ...
              [Lametrius]: They had called, something about
              talking about they indicted him for and said that you
              said that your—somebody got caught with a gun or
              you had the gun in your car. I don’t know who—I
              don’t know what it was. I don’t know how the
              incident came up. But [Darick]—he ain’t sell you no
              gun. But he said you put it in writing that he sold you
              a pistol.
              [Turner]: Ain’t put nothing in no writing. I don’t
              even know what you talking about.
              [Lametrius]: Huh?
              [Turner]: Who I need to call?
              [Lametrius]: I don’t know who you need to—they
              need to call somebody ‘cause [Darick] said I know
              [Turner] ain’t told nobody no shit like that. He say
              Arthur had sold her a gun one time. He ain’t had shit
              to do with nobody selling you no gun or buying no
              gun from—for—you know, from him.
        Turner continued to deny knowing what Lametrius was talking
        about, but Lametrius continued to ask Turner whether Darick sold
        her a gun. Lametrius also asked Turner why she would “put
        something in writing saying that [Darick] sold [her] a gun [when]
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 8 of 17

        8                      Opinion of the Court                22-11704

        you sitting here telling me you don’t know nothing about it and
        you ain’t sold him nothing.” Turner stated that she was “not trying
        to get caught up in no bullshit like this” and would “straighten it
        out.” Lametrius responded, “No. It ain’t that you trying to get
        caught up in none of that. Tell the truth. If [Darick] ain’t sold you
        no pistol, just tell them folks straight.” She reiterated “I’m just
        going to be honest because I’m for real . . . ain’t nobody got time
        for that shit. These folk plotting and telling folks—telling lies and
        stuff, now. Tell the truth. You understand what I’m saying.”
        Turner denied that Darick sold her a gun, and she told Lametrius
        that she would call someone and fix the situation.
               Turner testified that the conversation with Lametrius made
        her feel “scared” because Lametrius referenced “Arthur,” and
        Turner knew that Arthur was dead. Turner “was kind of scared
        that somebody was going to kill [her]” and confirmed that she was
        intimidated by the conversation with Lametrius. She confirmed
        that Lametrius made it clear that she wanted Turner to lie and tell
        the police that Darick did not sell her the gun. Turner contacted
        Kiser after Lametrius’s visit, and they moved Turner out of Selma
        for her safety.
               Sometime after the conversation with Lametrius, Turner
        saw a Facebook post from Lametrius that implicated Turner’s
        involvement as a CI. Turner took a screenshot of the post and sent
        it to Kiser. Turner testified that she recognized the post as
        Lametrius’s because the post contained Lametrius’s name and
        likeness in the upper left-hand corner, and she was friends on
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 9 of 17

        22-11704               Opinion of the Court                        9

        Facebook with Lametrius at the time. The government then
        offered the screenshot of the Facebook post into evidence.
              Lametrius objected to the admission of the post as “hearsay
        without any proper predicate,” and argued that Turner “lack[ed]
        foundation to determine whether or not [Lametrius] had sent it.”
        She also argued that the evidence was more prejudicial than
        probative and should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence
        403. The district court overruled her objections without
        explanation, and the post was admitted. The post stated:
              How many more people paperwork she’s on????? If
              any of y’all been involved with Sarah Turner she
              working for CIS Snitching she have been recording
              Darick Dillard for 9 months she’s all over his paper
              Murder Mill than run club 27 it’s real she’s Working
              for the Feds thank it’s a joke I have proof but God has
              the last say so!!!! Rat[t]ing on people video recording
              pictures taking be careful out their y’all she’s
              snitching posting truth in Jesus name.

        The post also contained two photographs of Turner. Turner
        testified that she was terrified and thought that Lametrius was
        “put[ting] [her] out there so somebody [could] actually kill [her] or
        something.” On cross-examination, Turner confirmed that,
        although the Facebook post was made on Lametrius’s Facebook
        account, Turner had no way to confirm that Lametrius actually
        made the post.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 10 of 17

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11704

                At the close of the government’s case-in-chief, both Darick
        and Lametrius rested and moved for a judgment of acquittal on all
        charges. In particular, Lametrius argued, as to her sole charge of
        witness tampering, that she asked Turner to “tell the truth” and
        that her actions did not rise to the level of witness tampering. The
        district court took their motions for judgment of acquittal on the
        witness tampering charge under advisement. Following closing
        arguments, the district court denied the motions, noting that the
        court needed “research and case law” on the issue, which counsel
        was not prepared to provide at that time. The district court noted
        that, if the jury returned a guilty verdict, then the defendants could
        reargue the motion.
               Following deliberations, the jury convicted Darick and
        Lametrius as charged. Lametrius did not renew her motion for a
        judgment of acquittal. Darick, on the other hand, filed a renewed
        motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts. With regard to his
        conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, he
        argued in relevant part, that because Turner was a convicted felon,
        it was illegal for her to possess a firearm, and, therefore, the
        government could not obtain a conviction against Darick based on
        Turner’s alleged purchase of firearms from him. The district court
        denied his motion as to his conviction for being a felon in
        possession of a firearm, but granted the motion as to his conviction
        for witness tampering. The district court sentenced Darick to a
        total of 147 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ supervised
        release. It sentenced Lametrius to 12 months’ imprisonment,
USCA11 Case: 22-11704        Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 01/04/2023        Page: 11 of 17

        22-11704                   Opinion of the Court                              11

        followed by 3 years’ supervised release. Darick and Lametrius both
        timely appealed, and we consolidated their appeals.
                                       II.     Discussion
            A. Whether the district court erred in declining to dismiss
               the indictment charging Darick with two counts of
               possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
               Darick raises one issue on appeal. He argues that the district
        court erred in declining to dismiss the indictment based on the
        government’s “outrageous conduct” of failing to properly
        investigate Turner’s background, which resulted in the
        government’s use of a convicted felon as a CI to purchase firearms
        from him—items which the CI could not legally possess. He
        maintains that the government’s conduct was so outrageous that it
        violated his Fifth Amendment due process right to “fundamental
        fairness within the executive and judicial process[es].”4
              “[W]e review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss
        based on outrageous government conduct.” United States v.
        Castaneda, 997 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation
        omitted). As we previously explained,

        4 The government suggests in passing that Darick’s “barebones motion in the
        district court” may not have adequately preserved the issue, but it also notes
        that we “need not linger” on this issue because his claim fails on the merits.
        Because the government did not fully brief the preservation issue and we
        conclude that the claim fails on the merits, we find it unnecessary to reach the
        preservation question.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023    Page: 12 of 17

        12                     Opinion of the Court               22-11704

              [o]utrageous government conduct is a potential
              defense that focuses on the tactics employed by law
              enforcement officials to obtain a conviction for
              conduct beyond the defendant’s predisposition. It is
              based on the Supreme Court’s recognition of the
              possibility that law enforcement’s tactics may be so
              outrageous that due process principles would
              absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial
              processes to obtain a conviction. To establish
              outrageous government conduct, a defendant must
              show that law enforcement’s techniques violate
              fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense
              of justice, mandated by the Due Process Clause of the
              Fifth Amendment.

        United States v. Cannon, 987 F.3d 924, 941 (11th Cir. 2021)
        (quotations and internal citations omitted).            Importantly,
        “[o]utrageous conduct is only a potential defense in this circuit
        because neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever found
        it to actually apply and barred the prosecution of any case based on
        it.” Castaneda, 997 F.3d at 1324 (emphasis added); United States v.
        Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1111 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that “[w]e
        have never applied the outrageous government conduct defense
        and have discussed it only in dicta”).
               Although we have yet to apply the doctrine, we have
        determined that “the actionable government misconduct must
        relate to the defendant’s underlying or charged criminal acts.
        Outrageous government conduct occurs when law enforcement
USCA11 Case: 22-11704     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023    Page: 13 of 17

        22-11704               Opinion of the Court                      13

        obtains a conviction for conduct beyond the defendant’s
        predisposition by employing methods that fail to comport with due
        process guarantees.” Jayyousi, 657 F.3d at 1111–12 (quotation
        omitted).
               Darick does not allege that the government’s use of a
        convicted felon caused him to engage in the criminal conduct in
        question. Instead, he merely asserts that had the police known of
        Turner’s felon status, they would have “as a minimum, [had to]
        find an alternate informant without such prohibitions, or seek
        proper approval to use a convicted felon in a sting operation to
        purchase firearms.” Although Darick takes issue with the fact that
        Turner as a felon could not lawfully possess a firearm, whether the
        CI could legally purchase and possess a firearm is not relevant. In
        short, the government’s alleged misconduct did not infringe on his
        fundamental Fifth Amendment due process rights. Moreover,
        Darick has cited no legal authority for the proposition that the
        government is precluded from using convicted felons as
        confidential informants. Accordingly, the district court properly
        denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
           B. Whether sufficient evidence supported Lametrius’s
              conviction for witness tampering
               Lametrius argues that the district court erred in denying her
        motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was
        insufficient to sustain her conviction for witness tampering. She
        maintains that in the conversation between her and Turner, she
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 01/04/2023       Page: 14 of 17

        14                       Opinion of the Court                   22-11704

        only asked Turner to tell the truth, and the conversation was not
        an act of intimidation or a threat to Turner.
                We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
        conviction de novo, considering the evidence in the light most
        favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences
        and credibility choices in favor of the verdict. United States v.
        Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 958 (11th Cir. 2015). “We review de novo the
        district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal,
        applying the same standard used in reviewing the sufficiency of the
        evidence[.]” United States v. Descent, 292 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir.
        2002). “[W]e will not disturb a guilty verdict unless, given the
        evidence in the record, no trier of fact could have found guilt
        beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. White, 663 F.3d
        1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).
                It is illegal to use or attempt to use intimidation or threats
        with the intent to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of
        any person in an official proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1).
        “[W]hether a communication is a threat is a question of fact to be
        left to the [trier of fact].” United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276,
        1293 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). “If a reasonable
        recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would
        interpret it as a threat, the issue should go to the [trier of fact].” Id.
        (quotation omitted). The factfinder is free to conclude that the
        defendant intended to tamper with a witness’s testimony, even if
        the witness did not actually feel threatened. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023     Page: 15 of 17

        22-11704                Opinion of the Court                        15

                Here, the superseding indictment alleged that Lametrius
        “did knowingly attempt to intimidate, threaten, and corruptly
        persuade a[n] . . . informant . . . by directing the . . . informant to
        say that [Arthur] sold the gun . . . .” And there was sufficient
        evidence to convict Lametrius of witness tampering. The
        government presented a recorded jail call in which Darick and
        Lametrius discussed that discovery in his felon-in-possession case
        indicated that he sold a gun to Turner. Darick denied selling the
        gun to Turner, and asked Lametrius to go to Turner’s house to talk
        to her and find out “what the hell [Turner] and them got going on.”
        He told Lametrius, “[y]ou need to go by there and tell [Turner] the
        truth—because she knows the truth.” Following the call,
        Lametrius went to Turner’s house and questioned Turner about
        whether Darick sold her a gun, explaining that Darick said Arthur
        sold the gun to Turner. When Turner denied knowing what
        Lametrius was referring to, Lametrius questioned why Turner
        would allegedly make a written statement if she did not know what
        Lametrius was talking about. Lametrius repeatedly told Turner to
        “[t]ell the truth” and stated “[y]ou understand what I’m saying.”
        And Turner testified that the conversation with Lametrius made
        her feel “scared” because Lametrius referenced “Arthur,” and
        Turner knew that Arthur was dead. Viewing this evidence in the
        light most favorable to the government, the trier of fact was free to
        conclude that Lametrius knowingly intended to influence or
        tamper with Turner’s testimony. See Davis, 854 F.3d at 1293.
        Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
        sustain Lametrius’s conviction for witness tampering.
USCA11 Case: 22-11704      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 01/04/2023      Page: 16 of 17

        16                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11704

             C. Whether the district court abused its discretion in
                admitting the Facebook post
               Lametrius argues that the district court abused its discretion
        in admitting the unauthenticated Facebook post, which accused
        Turner of “snitching.” She maintains that the post did not satisfy
        Federal Rule of Evidence 901’s authentication requirements, and it
        was unduly prejudicial because it suggested she had a propensity
        to intimidate.
                “We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse
        of discretion.” United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th
        Cir. 2011). “[E]ven if an evidentiary ruling is erroneous, it will not
        result in a reversal of the conviction if the error was harmless. An
        error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it
        affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v.
        Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation and
        internal citation omitted). Thus, “[n]o reversal will result if
        sufficient evidence uninfected by any error supports the verdict,
        and the error did not have a substantial influence on the outcome
        of the case.” Id.
               We need not decide whether the district court abused its
        discretion in admitting the Facebook post because any error was
        harmless. Based on the recorded conversations between Darick
        and Lametrius, and Lametrius and Turner, as well as Turner’s
        testimony that the conversation with Lametrius scared her, the
        jury had more than enough evidence to convict Lametrius of
        witness tampering even without the Facebook post. Accordingly,
USCA11 Case: 22-11704   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 01/04/2023   Page: 17 of 17

        22-11704             Opinion of the Court                   17

        the Facebook post did not have a substantial influence on the
        outcome of the case and is not grounds for reversal. Id.
                                III.   Conclusion
              Accordingly, for the above reasons, Darick and Lametrius
        are not entitled to relief on their claims, and we affirm their
        convictions and sentences.
              AFFIRMED.