USA v. Vladimyr Baptiste

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Vladimyr Jean Baptiste. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to strike filed by Appellee USA is DENIED as MOOT. [7295164-2].

Case: 13-12651

Date Filed: 04/20/2015

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12651
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60101-RSR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VLADIMYR JEAN BAPTISTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 20, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Vladimyr Jean Baptiste appeals his convictions for conspiracy to smuggle

Case: 13-12651

Date Filed: 04/20/2015

Page: 2 of 5

firearms from the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and dealing in
firearms without a federal license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A),
923(a), and 924(a)(1)(D). On appeal, Baptiste argues that the evidence was
insufficient because two witnesses were not credible, and most of the other
evidence only documented his legal activities, such as buying firearms, flying to
and from Haiti, and shipping personal effects and dog food to Haiti. Baptiste also
argues that the Government did not prove that he was engaged in the business of
selling firearms because it did not prove that he devoted time, attention, and labor
to selling firearms, and therefore he was not required to apply for a license from
the Attorney General.1
We review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and the
sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 744 (11th Cir.
2008). In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the verdict. United States v. Verbitskaya, 406 F.3d 1324, 1335 (11th Cir.
2005). We affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential
elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The Court assumes that the jury made all
credibility choices in a manner that supports its verdict. United States v. Jiminez,
1

In his reply brief, Baptiste also objects to hearsay evidence and claims a violation of his
due process rights under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173 (1959). We will not
entertain these issues because they were not timely raised in Baptiste’s initial brief. United
States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004).
2

Case: 13-12651

Date Filed: 04/20/2015

Page: 3 of 5

564 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009).
“The elements of a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are (1) an agreement
among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and
voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in
furtherance of the agreement.” United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270
(11th Cir. 2003). The overt act may be innocent in nature as long as it furthers the
purpose of the conspiracy. United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1002 (11th Cir.
2008). The Government may prove a conspiracy with circumstantial evidence
alone “[b]ecause the essential nature of conspiracy is secrecy.” United States v.
Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147, 1153 (11th Cir. 1998).
To convict a defendant of dealing in firearms without a license, the
Government must show that the defendant: (1) engaged in the business of dealing
in firearms; (2) did not have a license issued under federal law; and (3) knew that
his conduct was unlawful. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A); Bryan v. United States,
524 U.S. 184, 188-89, 196, 118 S. Ct. 1939, 1943-44, 1947 (1998).
Section 921(a)(21)(C) defines “engaged in the business” relative to a dealer in
firearms as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms
as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood
and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 921(a)(21)(C). The fact finder examines the intent of the defendant and all
3

Case: 13-12651

Date Filed: 04/20/2015

Page: 4 of 5

surrounding circumstances to determine if the defendant engaged in the business of
dealing in firearms. See United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1392 (11th Cir.
1997).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
Baptiste’s argument, that the evidence is insufficient because two of the
witnesses, Agent Ali Berisha and Michel Bosquet, are not credible, is unavailing
because this Court assumes the jury made all credibility choices in favor of the
verdict. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1285. Based on Bosquet’s testimony, that Baptiste
shipped guns to Pierre Mendes, and the circumstantial evidence of Baptiste
purchasing guns, shipping dog food to Bosquet, and flying to Haiti shortly after the
purchases and shipments, the Government proved the three elements of conspiracy
under § 371. See Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1270. Baptiste’s argument, that it was legal
for him to buy firearms, ship dog food, and fly to Haiti, does not undermine the
sufficiency of the evidence because the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy
may be innocent acts. See Campa, 529 F.3d at 1002. Further, the testimony of
Bosquet and Berisha, if believed by the jury, supports the inference that the
firearms purchases, dog food shipments, and flights to Haiti were in furtherance of
the conspiracy. See id.
Regarding Baptiste’s argument that he was not engaged in the business of
4

Case: 13-12651

Date Filed: 04/20/2015

Page: 5 of 5

dealing in firearms and therefore did not need to apply for a license from the
Attorney General, § 921(a)(21)(C) does not require a threshold number of sales,
profit, or hours spent before a person has engaged in the business of dealing in
firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C). A reasonable jury could infer that
Baptiste’s principal objective was livelihood and profit based on Bosquet’s
testimony that Baptiste suggested they ship guns to Haiti for Mendes to sell and the
timing of Baptiste’s firearms purchases, shipments, and flights to Haiti. See
Bailey, 123 F.3d at 1392. A jury would therefore be justified in concluding beyond
a reasonable doubt that Baptiste engaged in the business of dealing in firearms.
Accordingly, we affirm Baptiste’s convictions.
AFFIRMED. 2

2

The Government’s motion to strike portions of Baptiste’s reply brief is denied as moot.
5