Court Opinion

ID: 9408542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 00:00:49.901926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.481551
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30391         Document: 00516818020             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                             July 12, 2023
                                        No. 22-30391                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                               Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kevondric Fezia,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 2:21-CR-77-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, Southwick and Oldham, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Kevondric Fezia appeals his jury conviction for sex trafficking in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and attempting to entice a minor to engage
   in prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He contends that the
   prosecutor violated his constitutional rights at trial.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30391       Document: 00516818020           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/12/2023

                                      No. 22-30391

          Fezia did not object at trial, so our review is for plain error. See United
   States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2022). To prevail, the defendant
   must show an error that is “clear or obvious” and not “subject to reasonable
   dispute.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Such error must
   also affect the defendant’s substantial rights. Id. And even if the defendant
   can make satisfy these threshold requirements, the court of appeals has
   “discretion to remedy the error—discretion which ought to be exercised only
   if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
          Fezia first argues that his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confron-
   tation Clause were violated when the prosecutor, in his closing argument,
   referenced what the minor victim would have said if she testified at trial. But
   closing arguments do not implicate the Confrontation Clause so this claim
   fails. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 442 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Fezia next contends that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial
   misconduct by referencing evidence not presented at trial and blaming
   defense counsel’s theoretical cross-examination as the reason that the victim
   did not testify. While “[c]ounsel is accorded wide latitude during closing
   argument,” United States v. Reagan, 725 F.3d 471, 492 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (quotation omitted), and may attempt to rebut assertions made by defense
   counsel, see United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486, 495 (5th Cir. 2010), a
   prosecutor may not refer to or even allude to evidence that was not produced
   at trial, see United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 491 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Fezia cannot show that the prosecutor’s statements were improper.
   See Vargas, 580 F.3d at 279 (noting that the absence of an objection by
   defense counsel supported the court’s determination that the prosecutor’s
   remarks did not rise to the level of clear or obvious error); see also, e.g., United
   States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1390 & n.56 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.

                                            2
Case: 22-30391      Document: 00516818020          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/12/2023

                                    No. 22-30391

   Livingston, 816 F.2d 184, 195 (5th Cir. 1987). The prosecutor’s remarks must
   be considered in the context of the entire trial. See Mendoza, 522 F.3d at 492;
   see also United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1985) (“[I]f the
   prosecutor’s remarks were ‘invited,’ and did no more than respond
   substantially in order to ‘right the scale,’ such comments would not warrant
   reversing a conviction.”). Here, the record reflects that the prosecutor’s
   challenged remarks were made in response to defense counsel’s closing
   argument, emphasizing the absence of the victim’s testimony and explaining
   why such sexually charged testimony from a minor was unnecessary.
          Moreover, Fezia has not shown that these statements had a strong
   prejudicial effect or that they “cast serious doubt on the correctness of the
   jury’s verdict.” United States v. Smith, 814 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (quotation omitted). The prosecution introduced considerable evidence that
   Fezia recruited the minor victim to engage in sex work after meeting her
   online and took her from Louisiana to Texas to engage in prostitution. The
   evidence of Fezia’s guilt—viewed in context with the district court’s
   instruction that the questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the
   lawyers are not evidence—outweighs any prejudicial effect of the
   prosecutor’s comments. See United States v. Turner, 674 F.3d 420, 439-40
   (5th Cir. 2012); see also Livingston, 816 F.2d at 196. Fezia has not and cannot
   show that the remarks constituted plain error.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3