Court Opinion

ID: 9940549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:00:36.641616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:59.772687
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30794         Document: 00517063405             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30794
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                         February 14, 2024
                                     ____________
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                     Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Devin Weaver,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:19-CR-244-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Following a jury trial, Devin Weaver was convicted of carjacking and
   aiding and abetting a carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 and 2;
   brandishing and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 22-30794         Document: 00517063405               Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/14/2024

   in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 168 months of
   imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
           On appeal, Weaver challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
   support his convictions, urging that there was no physical evidence or
   identification testimony connecting him to the offense or the weapon found.
   He also complains that his convictions rest solely on the uncorroborated
   testimony of his codefendant brother, Tommie Mango, whom he asserts was
   the lone perpetrator of the offense. 1
           We review the district court’s denial of Weaver’s post-verdict motion
   for a judgment of acquittal de novo and consider whether a reasonable jury
   could have found that the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable
   doubt. United States v. Barnes, 803 F.3d 209, 215 (5th Cir. 2015). Our review
   “is highly deferential to the jury’s verdict, so the jury’s verdict will be
   affirmed unless no rational jury, viewing the evidence in the light most
   favorable to the prosecution, could have found the essential elements of the
   offense to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Harris,
   960 F.3d 689, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
           To convict Weaver of carjacking under Section 2119, “the
   [G]overnment must prove that: [he], (1) while possessing a firearm, (2) took
   from the person or presence of another (3) by force and violence or
   intimidation (4) a motor vehicle which had moved in interstate or foreign
   commerce.” Id. at 692 (quotation marks and citation omitted). To convict
           _____________________
           1
             Weaver’s argument focuses on his carjacking conviction. He maintains that,
   because that conviction cannot stand, his convictions on the related gun charges must also
   be reversed. Weaver does not separately challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
   support his Section 924(c) or Section 922(g) convictions. Because his challenge to the
   sufficiency of the evidence to support the aiding and abetting carjacking conviction fails for
   the reasons stated herein, we do not separately address the sufficiency of the evidence to
   support his convictions under Sections 924(c) and 922(g).
Case: 22-30794      Document: 00517063405          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/14/2024

   Weaver of aiding and abetting a crime under Section 2, “the Government
   must prove (1) that [he] associated with the criminal venture, (2) participated
   in the venture, and (3) sought by action to make the venture succeed.”
   United States v. Sorrells, 145 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, ample
   evidence supports the jury’s finding Weaver guilty of aiding and abetting
   carjacking. There is no dispute that a carjacking occurred, and Mango’s
   testimony established Weaver’s knowing and active participation in the
   offense and his undertaking of acts in support. The evidence was that
   Weaver suggested the robbery, helped create the disguises, berated Mango
   for hesitating when they found their potential victim, assisted in the getaway
   and attempt to get rid of evidence in the car, fled from the scene when
   discovered by police, and tried after the fact to get Mango to lie for him and
   take sole responsibility for the offense.
          “A defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of
   a coconspirator . . . unless the coconspirator’s testimony is incredible” as
   a matter of law. United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted). Weaver has abandoned by
   failing to brief any argument that Mango’s testimony was incredible as
   a matter of law. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
   Inasmuch as he asserts that Mango’s testimony should not have been
   believed because it was given in exchange for a more lenient sentence, the
   jury was presented with the fact of Mango’s culpability, his guilty plea, and
   the possibility of a more lenient sentence and still chose to believe him; on
   appeal, this court may not second guess that determination. See United States
   v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2005).
Case: 22-30794      Document: 00517063405         Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/14/2024

          Furthermore, Mango’s testimony was corroborated by significant
   circumstantial evidence: (1) the victim’s testimony that she saw another
   robber holding a gun by the gate next to her vehicle at the time of the offense
   and that the carjacker picked up the other man as he fled in the stolen car;
   (2) Weaver’s presence in the vehicle following the carjacking; (3) the
   discovery of the victim’s cellphone in Weaver’s home later that morning;
   (4) the additional discovery in Weaver’s home of a wig matching the victim’s
   description of the one worn by the carjacker and matching the one found in
   the stolen vehicle at the time of Mango’s arrest; (5) the further discovery in
   Weaver’s home of a bullet matching the ones found in the firearm used in the
   carjacking; (6) surveillance camera footage and testimony confirming
   Weaver’s flight from law enforcement; and (7) the letter Mango received
   from Weaver in prison concocting a defense, containing details concerning
   the offense that could have been known only by a person committing it.
          To the extent Weaver relies on his own testimony as establishing his
   innocence, the jury clearly discredited it. This court will not review that
   determination, as credibility was for the jurors to decide. United States v.
   Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013). To the extent he contends the
   circumstantial evidence equally supported his innocence and that jury must
   therefore have had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the argument is
   unpersuasive.
          AFFIRMED.