Court Opinion

ID: 9684547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:00:37.926052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:11.297809
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10369    Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 08/24/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10369
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CLIFFORD EDWARD ALBRITTON, III,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00234-CEH-AAS-4
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10369      Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 08/24/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   22-10369

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellant Clifford Albritton appeals his convictions for pos-
       session of fentanyl with intent to distribute and conspiring to do
       the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), and
       841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). On appeal, Albritton argues that the district
       court erred by allowing the government to conduct a demonstra-
       tion during closing argument that impermissibly exceeded the
       scope of the evidence. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed
       the record, we affirm Albritton’s convictions.
                                            I.
              “In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, we review
       the district court’s failure to correct an improper closing argument
       for plain error.” United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1204
       (11th Cir. 2002). To correct under plain-error review, (1) there
       must be error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect
       the appellant’s substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously
       affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial pro-
       ceedings. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467-68, 117 S. Ct.
       1544, 1549 (1997).
                                            II.
               An appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced when there
       is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of
       the trial would have been different. United States v. Maradiaga, 987
USCA11 Case: 22-10369     Document: 45-1      Date Filed: 08/24/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-10369               Opinion of the Court                        3

       F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). The burden is on the defendant
       to show that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
       United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). If
       the effect of the error is uncertain, we do not find plain error. Id.
       at 1300. “Where errors could have cut either way and uncertainty
       exists, the burden is the decisive factor in the third prong of the
       plain error test, and the burden is on the defendant.” Id.
                                           III.
               The record demonstrates that Albritton did not object to the
       prosecutor’s closing demonstration and cannot meet his burden of
       showing plain error. See Pendergraft, 297 F.3d at 1204. The ques-
       tionable demonstration at issue occurred when the prosecutor
       asked DEA Special Agent Hery to demonstrate how an individual
       could hide drugs in his pants. Agent Hery was the case agent for
       the drug investigation, and he worked with the Tampa Police De-
       partment to arrest Albritton and his co-conspirator. While arrest-
       ing Albritton, an officer searched him and found multiple bags of a
       substance later proven to be illegal drugs underneath the waist-
       band of Albritton’s shorts. Another special agent with the DEA
       testified that Albritton was wearing tight-fitting jean shorts at the
       time of his arrest. This agent also testified that she saw another
       officer remove the drugs from Albritton’s shorts. The prosecutor
       conducted the demonstration in response to Albritton’s closing ar-
       gument that it was impossible for him to have hidden the drugs in
       his shorts, and his assertion that the drugs were on the ground and
       not in his possession.
USCA11 Case: 22-10369      Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 08/24/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10369

               Even assuming it was error for the district court to allow the
       demonstration, Albritton cannot meet his burden to show that the
       demonstration likely affected the outcome of the trial. See Rodri-
       guez, 398 F.3d at 1299. The demonstration only affected the issue
       of whether Albritton possessed the drugs at the time of his arrest.
       The government presented significant independent evidence that
       the drugs were in Albritton’s shorts when he was arrested. None
       of the supposed inconsistencies argued for by Albritton during clos-
       ing argument were affected by the demonstration. Moreover, the
       district court instructed the jury that none of the attorneys’ com-
       ments during closing argument were to be considered as evidence,
       and they were to decide the case based solely on the evidence pre-
       sented at trial. This cured any possible prejudice to Albritton re-
       sulting from the prosecutor’s demonstration. See United States v.
       Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1402 (11th Cir. 1997). Because Albritton can-
       not show that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings,
       we conclude that there was no plain error. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d
       at 1300.
             Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
       firm Albritton’s convictions.
             AFFIRMED