USA v. Tawanda Burkett

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tawanda Lakaye Burkett. 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: 16-14217

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-14217
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00009-MW-GRJ-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TAWANDA LAKAYE BURKETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(April 24, 2017)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tawanda Lakaye Burkett appeals her convictions for knowingly
participating in the sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Case: 16-14217

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 2 of 3

§§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), and for knowingly benefiting from the sex trafficking of a
minor, in violation of § 1591(a)(2). On appeal, Burkett argues that the district
court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of Rachel Andres, a
government witness, because Andres’s testimony was not credible. She also
argues that her motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because
the evidence was insufficient to establish that she knowingly participated in and
benefitted from the sex trafficking of a minor.
The record contains evidence that Burkett drove E.B., a minor, to locations
where E.B. would have sex for money. She charged E.B. for the drive. Andres
testified that she worked with Burkett in prostitution and Burkett similarly drove
Andres to “out-calls,” received phone calls from Andres’s clients, and “set
everything up.”
We review the admission of Andres’s evidence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). Credibility
determinations rest within 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 (internal
2

Case: 16-14217

Date Filed: 04/24/2017

Page: 3 of 3

quotation marks omitted). Andres’s testimony was not unbelievable on its face.
Her credibility was for the jury to consider, and there was no abuse of discretion by
the district court in admitting it.
We review de novo a claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient. See
United States v. White, 663 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). After a de novo
review, we conclude that a jury “reasonably could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt” based on Andres’s testimony and the other evidence admitted at
Burkett’s trial. See United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 587 (11th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

3