Court Opinion

ID: 9366471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 19:00:43.184653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.451421
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50126        Document: 00516623843             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50126
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 26, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Cyril Lartigue,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:20-CR-156-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         A jury convicted Cyril Lartigue of possessing an unregistered
   destructive device, specifically, a combination of glass bottles, a flammable
   liquid, pieces of cloth, and a lighter, which constituted parts that Lartigue
   intended to assemble into a Molotov cocktail, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
   § 5861(d). The district court sentenced him below the applicable guidelines
   range to 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50126      Document: 00516623843          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-50126

   On appeal, he argues that (1) the statute of conviction was unconstitutionally
   vague, (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress,
   (3) Twitter messages sent to Lartigue were inadmissible hearsay and violated
   the Confrontation Clause, (4) the evidence was insufficient to convict him,
   and (5) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
          First, we have held that a person of reasonable intelligence would be
   forewarned of what conduct is prohibited by § 5861(d) and that a Molotov
   cocktail is a destructive device under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(f) and 5861(d).
   United States v. Price, 877 F.2d 334, 337-38 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v.
   Wilson, 546 F.2d 1175, 1177 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d
   1144, 1145 (5th Cir. 1972); see also United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 428
   (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Lartigue cannot demonstrate a plain error as to
   his argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. See United States v.
   Anderton, 901 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Next, Lartigue contends that the district court should have granted
   his motion to suppress the evidence discovered in a warrantless search of his
   backpack because, he claims, there were no exigent circumstances to justify
   the search. Here, the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing showed
   that law enforcement officers observed Lartigue on video assembling what
   appeared to be a Molotov cocktail, which he placed in his backpack before he
   was detained by police. Therefore, there was a fair probability that Lartigue
   was in possession of a potentially dangerous device. See United States v.
   Contreras, 905 F.3d 853, 858 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Juarez, 573 F.2d
   267, 274 (5th Cir. 1978). Moreover, Lartigue was detained near a chaotic
   protest, and there were multiple fires and fireworks in the area. Therefore,
   police officers reasonably believed that the backpack, which potentially
   contained an incendiary device or flammable liquid, posed a genuine danger
   to people in the vicinity. See United States v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 393, 400-01
   (5th Cir. 2019); see also Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 402 (2014). A

                                         2
Case: 22-50126      Document: 00516623843          Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-50126

   reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court’s findings that the
   officers had probable cause to believe Lartigue was in possession of an
   incendiary device and that exigent circumstances existed to justify a search
   of his backpack. See Daniels, 930 F.3d at 401; Contreras, 905 F.3d at 858;
   United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014).
          Lartigue further argues that messages sent to him on Twitter were
   inadmissible hearsay and that their admission violated the Confrontation
   Clause. In the Twitter messages, Lartigue and another user discussed their
   plans to attend protests against police violence, and Lartigue stated that he
   planned to bring as many as three Molotov cocktails to a protest. The other
   user’s statements, which discussed her own political beliefs and protest
   plans, had no bearing on Lartigue’s alleged conduct in the case. Therefore,
   the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the
   statements were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted in the
   statements. See United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011);
   Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); see also § 5861(d). Additionally, the statements were
   not testimonial because they were not “solemn declaration[s] or
   affirmation[s] made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact,”
   Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004), and the district court did not
   plainly err in admitting the messages, see United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473,
   485 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Lartigue next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
   conviction. In this case, in addition to the video showing Lartigue apparently
   assembling a Molotov cocktail, Lartigue’s backpack contained lighter fluid, a
   lighter, and two glass beer bottles, one empty and one full. These materials
   alone, as components that could readily be combined into a destructive
   device, constituted a destructive device. See § 5845(f)(3); see also Wilson, 546
   F.2d at 1177. Moreover, text messages and Twitter messages sent by
   Lartigue reflected his intention to bring Molotov cocktails to the protest.

                                          3
Case: 22-50126      Document: 00516623843          Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-50126

   Accordingly, the record is not “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt,” nor is
   the evidence “so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” United States v.
   Ocampo-Vergara, 857 F.3d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          Finally, Lartigue challenges his below-guidelines sentence. As to
   Lartigue’s argument that the district court failed to consider all the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) factors, he cannot demonstrate plain error. See United States v.
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court
   delivered extensive reasons for imposing a below-guidelines sentence, and
   the record reflects that the court considered the evidence, the arguments,
   and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d
   592, 596-97 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26
   (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Regarding Lartigue’s substantive reasonableness challenge, he has not
   overcome the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his sentence. See
   United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 & n.51 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          4