USA v. Darius Holmes

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Darius Andre Holmes. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13501
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cr-00144-WTM-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARIUS ANDRE HOLMES,
a.k.a. Arnie,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 6, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Holmes appeals his convictions for distribution of heroin, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Holmes argues that: (1)

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 2 of 7

there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions; and (2) the district court
erred by refusing to give an entrapment-defense jury instruction. After careful
review, we affirm.
First, we are unpersuaded by Holmes’s claim that the evidence supporting
his distribution and firearm convictions was insufficient.

We review the

sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
jury’s verdict. United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 587 (11th Cir. 2015). It is
not enough for a defendant to put forth a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, since
the issue is not whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted, but whether it
reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Credibility
determinations are the exclusive province of the jury, and will not be disturbed
unless the testimony the jury relied on was incredible as a matter of law. See
United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2005). In order to
be incredible as a matter of law, testimony must be unbelievable on its face -- i.e.,
testimony as to facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events
that could not have occurred under the laws of nature. Id. at 1291.
To sustain a conviction for distribution of heroin under § 841(a)(1), the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the knowing or intentional
distribution of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). To sustain a conviction for felon in
2

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 3 of 7

possession of a firearm under § 922(g)(1), the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and had been
previously convicted of a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); United States v. Gunn, 369
F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain Holmes’s convictions
for distribution of heroin. As the record shows, the government’s confidential
informant, Jacob Daughtrey, testified that he met with Holmes twice on August 18,
2012. He said that in the first instance, he obtained $1,500 for the purchase of
heroin from Holmes, met with Holmes in his truck, and purchased the heroin. In
the second instance, he met with Holmes in order to facilitate an exchange of
heroin from Holmes for guns from an undercover officer. Holmes had placed the
heroin on the console of Daughtrey’s truck. They met with an undercover officer,
who provided the guns in a backpack in exchange for the heroin. Thus, based on
this testimony, a jury reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Martin, 803 F.3d at 587.
Further, any inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony were not incredible
as a matter of law. For starters, none of the witnesses’ testimony, independently,
was impossible or contrary to the laws of nature. Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1291-92.
It is true that there were inconsistencies about whether the heroin was light brown
or dark brown, whether the heroin was in rock-form or powdery, and whether 71
3

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 4 of 7

bills or 86 bills were in the buy money. But the jury was free to weigh the
inconsistencies and choose which testimony to believe. Id. Moreover, none of the
inconsistencies were relevant to the elements of the offense, and the evidence was
sufficient to demonstrate that Holmes distributed heroin twice, regardless of its
color, consistency, weight, or the number of bills used to purchase it. 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1).
The evidence was also sufficient to sustain Holmes’s conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm. The government presented evidence that Holmes
was previously convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a
felony.

See O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30(c). In addition, Daughtrey and a counter-

narcotics agent, Brian Krouse, each testified that they saw Holmes in possession of
multiple firearms. On this record, a jury reasonably could have found guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. Martin, 803 F.3d at 587. Thus, the district court did not err in
denying Holmes’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
We also disagree with Holmes’s claim that the district court abused its
discretion by refusing to give an entrapment-defense jury instruction. We review a
refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 1223, 1236 (11th Cir. 2016). The district court enjoys broad
discretion to formulate jury instructions provided those instructions are correct
statements of the law. Id. A refusal to incorporate a requested instruction will be
4

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 5 of 7

reversed only if (1) the requested instruction was substantively correct, (2) the
court’s charge to the jury did not cover the gist of the instruction, and (3) the
failure to give the instruction substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to
present an effective defense. Id.
There are two elements to an entrapment claim: (1) governmental
inducement of the crime and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to commit
the crime before the inducement. United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169, 1178
(11th Cir. 2007). In order to be allowed to present an entrapment defense, a
defendant bears the initial burden of production as to the element of governmental
inducement. United States v. Sistrunk, 622 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2010). The
sufficiency of the defendant’s evidence of governmental inducement is a legal
issue to be decided by the trial court. Id. at 1332-33. Once the defendant has met
his burden of production as to governmental inducement, the burden then shifts to
the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was
predisposed to commit the crime. Id.
A defendant can show inducement by the production of evidence sufficient
to create a jury issue that the government “created a substantial risk that the
offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it.”
United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 623 (11th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted).
The defendant meets this burden if he produces evidence that the government’s
5

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 6 of 7

conduct included some form of persuasion or mild coercion. Id. Such persuasion
may be shown by evidence that the defendant “had not favorably received the
government plan, and the government had to ‘push it’ on him, or that several
attempts at setting up an illicit deal had failed and on at least one occasion he had
directly refused to participate.” United States v. Ryan, 289 F.3d 1339, 1344-45
(11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). But the government’s mere suggestion of a
crime or initiation of contact is insufficient to demonstrate inducement. Brown, 43
F.3d at 623.
Here, Holmes has failed to demonstrate that an entrapment instruction was
warranted. Importantly, he has failed to show any inducement -- i.e., he does not
points to any evidence that he was coerced, that he was not in favor of the
government’s plan, that he in anyway refused to participate in the crime, or that he
directly refused to participate. Ryan, 289 F.3d at 1344-45. He suggests that the
government may have raised the idea, but the government’s mere suggestion or
initiation of contact is insufficient. Brown, 43 F.3d at 623. Holmes also notes that
the government offered to buy him a clip for the firearms, but at that point, Holmes
had already obtained heroin to trade for the guns and traveled to the location with
the heroin. Further, Daughtrey brought up purchasing the extra clip for Holmes in
response to Holmes’s noticing that one of the weapons lacked one. Daughtrey
testified that he offered to buy the clip for Holmes, not because he was afraid that
6

Case: 16-13501

Date Filed: 03/06/2017

Page: 7 of 7

Holmes would back out of the transaction, but instead to make both sides happy
with the transaction as a middle-man. In addition, because Holmes was allowed to
argue entrapment to the jury, the court’s failure to give the instruction did not
substantially impair his ability to present the defense. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at
1236.
AFFIRMED.

7