Court Opinion

ID: 9910367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 16:01:08.942396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:48.607847
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12930    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 12/15/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12930
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JONATHAN JERMAINE THOMAS,
       a.k.a. Webbie,
       a.k.a. JT,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12930      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12930

                    D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00033-JA-PRL-1
                          ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jonathan Jermaine Thomas appeals his convictions for con-
       spiracy to possess with the intent to distribute controlled sub-
       stances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
       conspiracy, and possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or
       more of a substance containing fentanyl. On appeal, he raises three
       arguments. First, he asserts that the district court erred by instruct-
       ing the jury on the alternative charge of aiding and abetting the
       possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking conspir-
       acy. Second, he contends that the district court plainly erred by
       determining that the government’s closing remarks did not violate
       his right to a fair trial. Third, he argues that the evidence was in-
       sufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm in
       furtherance of a drug-trafficking conspiracy. After careful review,
       we affirm.
              The facts are known to the parties, and we repeat them here
       only as necessary to decide the case.
                                         I.
              Thomas first challenges the jury instructions on his charge
       of aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of
       a drug-trafficking conspiracy. In particular, he argues that the dis-
       trict court should never have instructed on that charge because
USCA11 Case: 22-12930     Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 12/15/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-12930              Opinion of the Court                        3

       prosecutors (1) failed to list the aiding and abetting charge in his
       superseding indictment and (2) did not mention the charge at trial.
              We review the legal correctness of a jury instruction de
       novo and review questions of phrasing for abuse of discretion.
       United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). We
       will reverse the conviction on such grounds only if the district
       court presented the issues of law inaccurately or improperly guided
       the jury in a significant matter that violated the defendant’s due
       process rights. Id.
               Aiding and abetting is a means of holding a defendant guilty
       as a principal on the ground that he assisted someone else in the
       commission of an offense. United States v. Martin, 747 F.2d 1404,
       1407 (11th Cir. 1984). To be clear, though, it is not a separate
       crime—only a separate ground of liability. Id. The main aiding and
       abetting statute under federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 2. That statute
       provides that an individual may be punished as a principal if he
       “commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, coun-
       sels, commands, induces or procures its commission,” or “willfully
       causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or an-
       other would be an offense against the United States.” Id. § 2 (a)–
       (b). Under our case law, the government does not need to specifi-
       cally allege aiding and abetting in the indictment for the district
       court to instruct the jury on the charge. Martin, 747 F.2d at 1407.
              Applying these straightforward legal principles, we conclude
       that Thomas’s challenge to the aiding and abetting jury instruction
       fails. Even though the government did not specifically charge
USCA11 Case: 22-12930         Document: 32-1         Date Filed: 12/15/2023         Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12930

       Thomas with aiding and abetting, our case law is clear: An aiding
       and abetting instruction is allowed even when the government
       does not indict on that particular count. Id. 1
                                              II.
               Thomas next argues that prosecutors called him an “idiot”
       during their closing argument and thus violated his right to a fair
       trial. Typically, we review de novo a claim of prosecutorial mis-
       conduct during closing arguments. United States v. House, 684 F.3d
       1173, 1197 (11th Cir. 2012). When a defendant fails to object at
       trial, though, we review the statements for plain error. United
       States v. Mueller, 74 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 1996). To show plain
       error, the defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) that
       is plain, (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and
       (4) it “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
       of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314,
       1320 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). During their clos-
       ing argument, it is improper for prosecutors to exceed the evidence
       presented at trial. United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 505 (11th
       Cir. 2014). That said, they may state conclusions drawn from the
       trial evidence and fairly respond to defense counsel’s arguments.
       Id. Closing arguments prejudice a defendant’s substantial right
       when “a reasonable probability arises that, but for the [improper]

       1 It is worth noting that the superseding indictment did, in fact, list 18 U.S.C.

       § 2 among the statutes violated. This fact further demonstrates that Thomas
       had adequate notice of the charges against him and that the jury instructions
       were not improper.
USCA11 Case: 22-12930     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-12930               Opinion of the Court                        5

       remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”
       United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2006).
              As a threshold matter, we review the alleged statements at
       issue in this case for plain error because Thomas did not object to
       them at trial. See Mueller, 74 F.3d at 1157. Thomas focuses on the
       fact that the government called him an “idiot” during its closing
       remarks. But the context of the “idiot” remark in question under-
       cuts the force of his argument. During his closing argument,
       Thomas’s lawyer argued that Thomas was innocent because the
       government did not find material on his phone showing him hold-
       ing guns and drugs. In response, the government explained it could
       not uncover such evidence because Thomas was “not a complete
       idiot.” Put another way, the government was merely pointing out
       that a clever individual might take some steps to conceal criminal
       activity. The district court reasonably determined this statement
       was fairly responding to the defense counsel’s arguments. Reeves,
       742 F.3d at 505. And, even if the remark was somehow “im-
       proper,” we find no reason to conclude that “but for” the govern-
       ment’s “idiot” comment, “the outcome of the trial would have
       been different.” Eckhardt, 466 F.3d at 947.
                                       III.
               Finally, Thomas argues the evidence at trial was insufficient
       to support his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of
       a drug distribution conspiracy. When a defendant challenges the
       sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction and is denied a
       Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, we review the district
USCA11 Case: 22-12930      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 12/15/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12930

       court’s determination de novo. United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d
       480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011). While doing so, we view the evidence in
       the light most favorable to the government and make all reasona-
       ble inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict.
       Id.
               Like many criminal cases before it, a key source of evidence
       in this case is witness testimony. We will not upset a jury’s decision
       to credit a witness’s testimony unless the testimony is “incredible
       as a matter of law”. United States v. Isaacson, 752 F.3d 1291, 1304
       (11th Cir. 2014). For testimony to be incredible as a matter of law,
       it must concern “facts that the witness physically could not have
       possibly observed” or events impossible “under the laws of na-
       ture.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
              Because Thomas moved for judgment of acquittal at trial,
       we review his sufficiency of the evidence challenge de novo. See
       Gamory, 635 F.3d at 497. Under that standard, we conclude the
       government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to convict
       Thomas for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug distribu-
       tion conspiracy. For instance, one witness testified that Thomas
       routinely carried a pistol while delivering drugs. Another said he
       saw Thomas deliver and sell drugs and that Thomas routinely car-
       ried a firearm in his pocket. Notably, the jury found both wit-
       nesses’ testimonies credible. Given the substance of the testimony,
       we determine that the defendant’s actions described by the wit-
       nesses were physically observable to them, and none of the
USCA11 Case: 22-12930      Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023     Page: 7 of 7

       22-12930               Opinion of the Court                          7

       conduct detailed by the testimony is impossible under the laws of
       nature. Isaacson, 752 F.3d at 1304.
                                      * * *
              To sum up, Thomas has failed to show (1) that the district
       court’s jury instructions on the aiding-and-abetting charge violated
       his due process rights, (2) that the government’s “idiot” remark
       prejudiced his right to a fair trial, or (3) that the witness testimony
       presented in this case is insufficient to support his conviction.
       AFFIRMED.