USA v. Jean Cazy

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Jean Cazy and Andre Saint Cyr. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. 14-12500X.

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 1 of 10

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12056
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cr-60267-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEAN CAZY,
ANDRE SAINT CYR,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 14, 2015)
Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This criminal case began with a government-created reverse sting operation

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 2 of 10

during which Jean Cazy and Andre Saint Cyr agreed to rob a fictional cocaine
stash-house. In 2013, a confidential informant told the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that Cazy had been involved in several
drug-related robberies. In order to investigate these allegations, an ATF agent
contacted Cazy and told him that he knew where a group of Colombian drug
traffickers kept their cocaine. Cazy agreed to rob the drug traffickers and promised
the agent a share of the stolen cocaine in exchange for this information.
Cazy recruited several other men, including Saint Cyr, for the job. After a
series of meetings in which Cazy, Saint Cyr, and the others discussed how to carry
out the robbery, ATF agents arrested the defendants immediately before the
robbery was supposed to take place. Cazy had a loaded revolver in his pocket, and
agents found four other firearms, ammunition, a silencer, a bulletproof vest, and
ski-masks in Saint Cyr’s car.
Following their arrests, Cazy and Saint Cyr were convicted of conspiracy to
commit Hobbs Act robbery; conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to
distribute; attempted possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute; conspiracy
to use, carry, and possess a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug
trafficking crime; using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence; and using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking offense. Saint Cyr was also convicted of possessing an
2

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 3 of 10

unregistered silencer.
On appeal, Cazy and Saint Cyr argue that the reverse sting operation
constituted outrageous government conduct and violated their Fifth Amendment
rights, the district court erred by denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal
based on entrapment, and the district court erred by denying their motion to vacate
one of the two firearm possession convictions as multiplicitous because both
convictions are based on the same conduct. Saint Cyr also argues that there was
insufficient evidence to convict him of possessing an unregistered silencer and that
the district court clearly erred at sentencing by applying a four-level role
enhancement to his offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines §
3B1.1 and a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1. We find
no reversible error and affirm.
I.
Cazy and Saint Cyr argue that the reverse sting operation constituted
outrageous government conduct because the ATF played a central role in creating
the criminal conspiracy. “Outrageous government conduct occurs when law
enforcement obtains a conviction for conduct beyond the defendant’s
predisposition by employing methods that fail to comport with due process
guarantees.” United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1111–12 (11th Cir. 2011)
(quotation omitted). In order to prevail, appellants must show that ATF’s
3

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 4 of 10

involvement in the criminal scheme was “shocking to the universal sense of justice
mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” United States v.
Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 1643 (1973) (internal quotation and
punctuation marks omitted).
This is a high bar, and one that appellants cannot meet. Indeed, this Court
has repeatedly rejected Due Process challenges to nearly identical reverse sting
operations. See, e.g., United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169, 1173–76 (11th Cir.
2007); United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410, 1413 (11th Cir. 1998) (collecting
cases). Sanchez is instructive. In that case, we explained that sting operations
generally satisfy the Due Process clause because the “[g]overnment infiltration of
criminal activity is a recognized and permissible means of investigation.” 138
F.3d at 1413. In rejecting the defendants’ outrageous conduct argument, we placed
importance on the fact that the defendants had previously been suspected of
participating in robberies and became involved in the scheme voluntarily and
without any instigation from the government. Id. at 1413–14.
The same is true here. The ATF contacted Cazy only after receiving a tip
from a confidential informant that Cazy had already been involved in drug-related
robberies; Cazy and Saint Cyr agreed to the scheme voluntarily and over the
repeated cautionary statements by the undercover ATF agent that the robbery
would be dangerous; and perhaps most importantly, Cazy and Saint Cyr planned
4

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 5 of 10

the robbery without interference from the ATF. On these facts, appellants have not
shown that the ATF’s involvement in the reverse sting was outrageous government
conduct.
II.
We next consider appellants’ argument that the district court erred by
denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal based on entrapment. “A
successful entrapment defense requires two elements: (1) government inducement
of the crime, and (2) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant.” United
States v. Miller, 71 F.3d 813, 816 (11th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Where, as
here, a jury has rejected a defendant’s entrapment defense, we ask only “whether
the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant
was predisposed to take part” in the crime. Id. at 815. Predisposition may be
shown “simply by a defendant’s ready commission of the charged crime” or
“evidence that the defendant was given opportunities to back out of illegal
transactions but failed to do so.” Id. at 816 (quotation omitted).
The jury in this case had sufficient evidence to find that Cazy and Saint Cyr
were predisposed to participate in the criminal conspiracy. Most notably, both
Cazy and Saint Cyr were provided several opportunities to back out, but did not.
For instance, when the undercover ATF agent voiced concern about the danger
involved, Cazy reassured him that the robbery would go smoothly. And at another
5

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 6 of 10

meeting, when the agent told Cazy and Saint Cyr that they could complete the
robbery at a later time, Cazy said that he was ready and Saint Cyr added that he
already had the necessary weapons. Because of this evidence of predisposition, we
affirm the district court’s denial of appellants’ motion for a judgment of acquittal
based on their entrapment defenses.
III.
Next, we address appellants’ argument that the district court erred by
denying their motion to vacate one of the two firearm possession convictions as
multiplicitous. Specifically, Cazy and Saint Cyr argue that their convictions for
using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and
using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because both
convictions are based on precisely the same conduct—possessing firearms
immediately before they were supposed to carry out the stash-house robbery.
Although we have previously recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause
may be implicated where multiple convictions are based on “the same course of
conduct,” United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d 753, 758 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam),
any claimed multiplicity does not require reversal in this case because the district
court imposed concurrent sentences for the two firearm possession convictions.
Thus, any error was harmless. United States v. Pacchioli, 718 F.3d 1294, 1308
6

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 7 of 10

(11th Cir. 2013) (stating that where a defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms
of imprisonment, “any claimed multiplicity in the indictment would have been
harmless error anyway”).
IV.
Next, we address Saint Cyr’s argument that there was insufficient evidence
to convict him of possessing an unregistered silencer. “The evidence is sufficient
so long as a reasonable trier of fact, choosing among reasonable interpretations of
the evidence, could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. DiazBoyzo, 432 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).
Under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), it is unlawful for any person to possess a
silencer that is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record. See also 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (defining firearm to include
silencers). The government may prove possession by showing either actual or
constructive possession. United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 576 (11th Cir.
2011) (per curiam). The government can prove a defendant’s constructive
possession of an item by demonstrating that (1) he was aware of the item’s
presence, and (2) he “had the ability and intent to later exercise dominion and
control” over the item. Id.
The district court did not err by denying Saint Cyr’s motion for a judgment
of acquittal. After Cazy and Saint Cyr were arrested, law enforcement agents
7

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 8 of 10

found the silencer in Saint Cyr’s rental car, in close proximity to Saint Cyr’s other
belongings. Beyond that, both the undercover ATF agent and one of Saint Cyr’s
co-conspirators testified that Saint Cyr had previously told them that he had a
silencer available for the robbery. Thus, the government presented sufficient
evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Saint Cyr constructively possessed
an unregistered silencer.
V.
Finally, we address Saint Cyr’s argument that the district court erred by
applying a four-level role enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1 and a two-level
obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1. We review a district court’s
enhancement of a defendant’s offense level under both USSG § 3B1.1 and § 3C1.1
for clear error. United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2003);
United States v. Singh, 291 F.3d 756, 763 (11th Cir. 2002).
The Sentencing Guidelines require a four-level enhancement if a defendant
“was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more
participants or was otherwise extensive.” USSG § 3B1.1(a). “The factors that a
sentencing court considers in determining if this enhancement applies are: (1)
exercise of decision-making authority, (2) nature of participation in the
commission of the offense, (3) recruitment of accomplices, (4) claimed right to a
larger share of the fruits of the crime, (5) degree of participation in planning or
8

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 9 of 10

organizing the offense, (6) nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) degree
of control and authority exercised over others.” Rendon, 354 F.3d at 1331–32
(quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not clearly err by applying a four-level role
enhancement. Saint Cyr exercised decision-making authority and controlled other
members of the conspiracy by assigning his co-conspirators to various roles in the
robbery. He also recruited another individual and participated extensively in
planning the offense. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding that
Saint Cyr was an organizer or leader of the criminal conspiracy.
Neither did the district court clearly err by applying a two-level
enhancement for willfully obstructing or impeding the administration of justice.
See USSG § 3C1.1. Specifically, it found that Saint Cyr committed perjury when
he testified that he did not know about the silencer that was found in his car. This
conclusion is supported by the testimony of the undercover ATF agent and one of
Saint Cyr’s co-conspirators, both of whom testified that Saint Cyr planned to use a
silencer during the robbery. Because we must “defer to the district court’s
credibility finding[s],” Singh, 291 F.3d at 763–64, Saint Cyr cannot show clear
error.
VI.

9

Case: 14-12056

Date Filed: 07/14/2015

Page: 10 of 10

For the foregoing reasons, Cazy’s and Saint Cyr’s convictions and Saint
Cyr’s sentence are AFFIRMED.

10