Court Opinion

ID: 9896286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:34.486313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:34.087579
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10581    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 11/09/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10581
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ROYSTIN DAVID,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20141-PCH-3
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10581      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 11/09/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10581

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Roystin David appeals his jury convictions for conspiracy to
       possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and posses-
       sion with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C.
       § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. David argues that the district court
       abused its discretion in admitting certain exhibits and testimony—
       specifically text messages seized from Mr. David’s phone and an
       officer’s testimony that he had never previously seized this amount
       of drugs. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs,
       we affirm.
                                         I
              On January 12, 2021, Mr. David and three co-defendants ar-
       rived at the Opa Locka Executive Airport on a private plane from
       St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. When they landed, a Cus-
       toms and Border Patrol Officer inspected their luggage and found
       cocaine weighing approximately 329 kilograms. In a post-Miranda
       statement, Mr. David denied knowing about the cocaine.
              An agent seized Mr. David’s cell phone as evidence. A
       search of the phone revealed several text messages between Mr.
       David and his co-conspirators, and some of these messages were
       introduced by the government as evidence that he knew about the
       drugs in his bags.
USCA11 Case: 22-10581       Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 11/09/2023       Page: 3 of 7

       22-10581                 Opinion of the Court                             3

              The first series of text messages were between Mr. David,
       Teshawn Adams, and Tevon Adams (two of Mr. David’s co-de-
       fendants) in June of 2019. In these text messages they discussed “a
       line with a couple [of] buyers,” a “set of buyers in New York,” and
       getting their “own product.” In a second series of text messages
       sent in September of 2019, all three individuals discussed how
       much profit they expected to make, and cutting out middlemen.
             The third series of messages were between Mr. David and
       Teshawn Adams in February of 2020. Mr. Adams explained that
       he had a plan to invest in “bricks” that would make them millions.
       Mr. David responded, “that don’t sound bad at all.”
              The fourth series of texts were from September of 2020. Mr.
       Adams texted Mr. David that “we need run up and steal some
       bricks,” to which David replied, “who and when?” Mr. David sent
       another text to Mr. Adams suggesting that they “recruit a flight at-
       tendant” because “they go on the plane normally all the time” and
       are “less likely to be checked” by TSA.1
             Before trial, the government moved to admit text messages
       from 2020–2021 into evidence. Mr. David opposed the govern-
       ment’s motion and moved separately to exclude the text messages.
       The district court granted the government’s motion and denied
       Mr. David’s because the messages were directly relevant to the
       conspiracy.

       1 Another series of texts, from January of 2021, concerned “moving product.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10581     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 11/09/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10581

              At trial, the government introduced the text messages as
       well as the testimony of four federal agents, including CBP Officer
       Jay Erskine, who had stopped Mr. David and his co-defendants at
       the Opa Locka Executive Airport. Officer Erskine testified about
       his interactions with Mr. David and his co-conspirators and about
       finding the cocaine in the luggage. On redirect, the government
       asked Officer Erskine whether this was a “memorable seizure” of
       cocaine and how many times he had seized 300-plus kilograms of
       cocaine. Mr. David’s attorney objected to the relevance of the
       question, but the district court overruled the objection, and Officer
       Erskine responded: “Never. That was the first time.”
               On appeal, Mr. David argues that the district court abused
       its discretion in admitting the text messages into evidence because
       they were too old and unrelated to the cocaine charges. He also
       argues that the district court erred in allowing Officer Erskine to
       testify that he had never previously seized more than 300 kilograms
       of cocaine.
                                        II
             We review a district court’s rulings on admission of evi-
       dence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jiminez, 224
       F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009).
                                        III
              “To convict a person of possession with intent to distribute
       a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government
       is required to prove three elements: (1) knowledge; (2) possession;
       and (3) intent to distribute.” United States v. Hernandez, 743 F.3d
USCA11 Case: 22-10581       Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 11/09/2023      Page: 5 of 7

       22-10581                Opinion of the Court                           5

       812, 814 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ele-
       ments of the offense of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 are: (1) an
       agreement between the defendant and one or more persons, (2) the
       object of which is to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by
       unlawful means.” United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1426 (11th
       Cir. 1998).
              Mr. David argues that the text messages between June of
       2019 and October of 2020 were too remote to be relevant to the
       narcotics charges and that they should be excluded as irrelevant
       prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We disagree.
               First, the text messages constituted direct evidence—and
       not other acts evidence under Rule 404(b)—that Mr. David and Mr.
       Adams were planning to import cocaine by way of a plane and
       make substantial amounts of money. The messages were central
       to the charged conspiracy because Mr. David and Mr. Adams dis-
       cussed logistics for drug transports, potential buyers, and recruits.
       For example, in September of 2020, the two men discussed recruit-
       ing a flight attendant as a way to avoid security checks or conceal
       the cocaine. “Relevant direct evidence of a crime is always admis-
       sible unless it falls under a rule of exclusion.” United States v. Troya,
       733 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2013). Mr. David has not pointed to
       any such rule.
              Second, the text messages also constituted intrinsic evidence
       of the charged offenses, and as a result Rule 404(b) did not preclude
       their admission. They were, at the very least, an “integral and nat-
       ural part of the account of the crime” and “necessary to complete
USCA11 Case: 22-10581        Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 11/09/2023        Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                     22-10581

       the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Edouard, 485
       F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). 2
                Third, the fact that these text messages were sent approxi-
       mately nineteen months and three months before the actual im-
       portation of the cocaine does not render them irrelevant or stale.
       Because the planning and execution of a drug importation scheme
       takes time, messages between the co-conspirators within two years
       of the crimes’ commission are not too remote. Indeed, one of Mr.
       Adams’ text messages to Mr. David in February of 2020 contem-
       plates a lengthy scheme running into 2021: “Okay for the whole
       year we gotta invest all the money from our bricks. . . . So by next
       year [i.e., 2021] we [sic] going [sic] have over a hundred of our own
       . . . . [W]e going [sic] just live off the airport trips.” D.E. 226 at 44.
                                            IV
              With respect to the challenged testimony of CBP Officer Er-
       skine, we also affirm.
              First, Mr. David attempted on cross-examination to cast
       doubt on Officer Erskine’s memory and recollection of the seizure
       at the Opa Locka Airport in January of 2021. Given that line of
       attack, it was not an abuse of discretion to allow the government
       to ask Officer Erskine on redirect examination if he had ever seized
       300-plus kilograms of cocaine. His answer—that he had never

       2 Given our conclusion, we do not discuss admissibility under Rule 404(b) fur-

       ther.
USCA11 Case: 22-10581     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 11/09/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-10581               Opinion of the Court                        7

       seized that amount of cocaine—tended to suggest that this was a
       memorable interdiction that he would likely remember.
               Even if the district court abused its discretion, we will not
       reverse if the error was harmless. See United States v. Augustin,
       661 F.3d 1105, 1123 (11th Cir. 2011). An error is harmless unless,
       in light of the record as a whole, there is a reasonable likelihood
       that it had a substantial influence on the outcome of the proceed-
       ing. See id. See also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (an error that “does not
       affect substantial rights” is harmless and “must be disregarded”).
       Here, any error was harmless because the jury already knew that
       the cocaine seized was over 300 kilograms. We are confident that
       hearing the weight of the cocaine again from Officer Erskine did
       not affect the jury’s verdict.
                                        V
             We affirm Mr. David’s convictions.
             AFFIRMED.