United States v. Wright

993 F.3d 1054

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.Cedric Antonio WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant

No. 19-3190

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 18, 2020

Filed: April 16, 2021

Martin Joseph McLaughlin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Cory Jon Goldensoph, CORY GOLDENSOPH, P.C., Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant - Appellant.

Cedric Antonio Wright, Pro Se.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Cedric Antonio Wright was arrested after he robbed a cellphone store. The car used during the robbery had been stolen by a carjacker the previous day. Wright's involvement in the robbery thus implicated him in the carjacking, as well as several firearm counts. He pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951. A jury convicted him of carjacking, see 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) ; two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii) ; and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Wright moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts and that the district court gave erroneous jury instructions and made erroneous evidentiary rulings. The district court¹ denied both motions. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Wright's sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) and 2B3.1(b)(5). On appeal, Wright argues that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for a new trial, (2) denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and (3) applying the sentencing enhancements. We affirm.

I. Background

JB, who was driving a black Honda, had her car stolen from her at gunpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on October 22, 2017. JB identified the attacker as a black male wearing a black mask and camouflage. The attacker had pointed a black handgun at JB's head and told her to exit the car. She complied, and her assailant drove away in her car. JB's cellphone, credit cards, purse, and personal items remained in the car.

The day after the carjacking, JB's mother used a cellphone location app to locate JB's stolen phone. The app located JB's phone at 12th Avenue and 15th Street SE in Cedar Rapids. The same day, Wright visited a friend, Gage Rupp, at a residence located two doors away from that address. This was the home of Cecilia Givens, Rupp's girlfriend.

While Wright was there, Rupp asked Derek Ford to pick him up at Givens's home. When Ford arrived in his white van, Rupp and Wright both entered the van. Wright told Ford to drive across town so they could "use [his] sister's car." Trial Tr., Vol. 2, at 143:8–9, United States v. Wright , No. 1:18-cr-00015-LTS-MAR-1 (N.D. Iowa 2019), ECF No. 282. What he called his "sister's car" was actually JB's stolen Honda. Wright, Rupp, and Ford got into the Honda, and Ford then drove them to a Sprint cellphone store in Cedar Rapids.

As the store was closing, Wright and Rupp exited the car. Ford stayed in the car while Wright and Rupp robbed the store. Security cameras captured Wright entering the store with his hand in the air, while Rupp kept his hand around his waistband. The security footage did not show a gun. A Sprint employee was the only person in the store at the time. He later testified that he "could not say for certain that there was a gun in [either of their] hand[s]," but that Wright and Rupp were "carrying themselves in a way that they had one." Trial Tr., Vol. 1, at 87:9–10, 21–22, United States v. Wright , No. 1:18-cr-00015-LTS-MAR-1 (N.D. Iowa 2019), ECF No. 281. Wright and Rupp soon emerged from the store with stolen phones, including a "bait" phone that allowed the police to track them.

Ford testified that when Wright and Rupp got back into the Honda, Rupp said it was "sweet" that they did not need to use a gun. Trial Tr., Vol. 2, at 150:8. Wright then revealed that the Honda was stolen and instructed Ford to drive back to Ford's van. After they reentered Ford's van and attempted to flee, the police stopped them. Ford testified that as he stopped the van for the police, Wright took out a handgun and told Ford to stow it away inside the van. When Ford refused, Wright tossed the gun towards the front of the van, where it landed behind the driver's seat. Police recovered a loaded black Smith & Wesson .40-caliber handgun from the floor of the van, as well as cash and cellphones—valued at over $38,000—that had been taken from the store.

Wright eventually admitted his involvement in the robbery but denied involvement in the carjacking and firearms offenses.

After determining that the car used in the robbery was JB's car, police informed JB's family. JB used an app called "MobilePatrol" to try to identify the person who carjacked her. "MobilePatrol" displays pictures of people who were recently arrested. JB found Wright on the app and asked her mother if he was involved in the Sprint store robbery. Her mother confirmed that he was. Around the same time, JB saw a news story stating that two people were arrested in connection with the robbery. The story featured pictures of Rupp, who is white, and Wright, who is black. A few days later, police presented JB with a photo line-up that included a photo of Wright. It did not include a photo of Ford, who is also black. JB identified Wright as the carjacker.

Investigators discovered that shortly after the carjacking, someone attempted to purchase shoes online using JB's stolen credit card. The shoes were to be shipped to Indiana. The phone number associated with the attempted purchase belonged to Rupp, and his call history included a call to an Indiana phone number. Investigators also discovered that the handgun found in Ford's van after the robbery was registered to an individual named Saleem El-Amin and that El-Amin and Wright were "friends" on Facebook.

Wright's Facebook account contained a photo of him wearing camouflage shorts, several photos of a black Smith & Wesson handgun, a video of Wright holding a black handgun and counting cash, a photo of a black male wearing a black ski mask and holding cash, photos of Wright holding a partially silver handgun, and a photo of Wright holding one gun with three more guns at his feet. His Facebook entries also contained conversations in which Wright discussed the Smith & Wesson handgun and indicated that he wanted to trade it, writing that he had a "40 for trade." Government's Trial Ex. 16, at 1, United States v. Wright , No. 1:18-cr-00015-LTS-MAR-1 (N.D. Iowa 2019), ECF No. 185-25. In one conversation regarding the gun, El-Amin said to Wright, "Let me know before you do anything wit that b**ch." Id. at 2.

Wright was charged with carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) ("count 1"), two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)–(ii) ("count 2" and "count 7"); possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ("count 3"); interference and attempted interference with commerce by threats and violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951 ("count 5"); and conspiracy to interfere and attempt to interfere with commerce by threats and violence, in violation of §§ 2 and 1951 ("count 6").

Wright pleaded guilty to counts 5 and 6, but he proceeded to trial on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7. Regarding count 3, the parties stipulated that Wright was a "prohibited" person within the meaning of § 922(g)(1). A jury found him guilty on all counts.

Wright moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of the jury's verdicts. He also moved for a new trial, arguing that (1) the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence; (2) the district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the "intent" requirement for carjacking under § 2119(1) and the definition of "carrying" a firearm under § 924(c) ;² and (3) the district court erroneously admitted several prejudicial government exhibits.

The district court rejected both motions. It concluded that (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain each conviction; (2) even under the "more lenient standards for a motion for new trial," Wright failed to show that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, Order Den. Mot. Acquittal at 10, United States v. Wright , No. 1:18-cr-00015-LTS-MAR-1 (N.D. Iowa 2019), ECF No. 219; (3) its jury instructions properly stated the law as articulated by the Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit;³ and (4) it did not err in admitting the challenged government exhibits.

At sentencing, the district court imposed a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) because it found that Wright was responsible for three to seven firearms in relation to his § 922(g)(1) conviction. It concluded that this enhancement was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including a photo of Wright with four different handguns and his "direct involvement with other firearms." Sentencing Tr. at 40:7, United States v. Wright , No. 1:18-cr-00015-LTS-MAR-1 (N.D. Iowa 2019), ECF No. 280. The district court also imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for carjacking pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5).

Wright timely appeals. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for a new trial based on its erroneous admission of prejudicial government exhibits and erroneous jury instructions; (2) denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence; and (3) imposing sentencing enhancements pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) and § 2B3.1(b)(5).

II. Discussion

A. Admissibility of Government Exhibits at Trial

We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, giving "great deference to the district court's balancing of the probative value...