United States v. Willie Clinton Lovett , 662 F. App'x 838 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 1 of 35
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10707
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00143-WTM-GRS-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE CLINTON LOVETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 23, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Willie Lovett, a former officer in the Savannah-Chatham
Metropolitan Police Department (“SCMPD”), who retired after serving as Chief of
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 2 of 35
Police, was indicted on charges of commercial gambling, conspiracy to obstruct
the enforcement of state commercial gambling laws, extortion, and making false
statements during an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”). The indictment alleged that, over a fourteen-year period,
Randall Roach, who conducted an illegal and swindling gambling operation, paid
off Lovett for protection of his scheme and to avoid arrest. Following a five-day
trial, Lovett was out of aces. A jury found him guilty of commercial gambling,
conspiracy to obstruct enforcement of state gambling laws, two counts of extortion,
and two counts of making false statements.
Lovett now appeals his conviction, contending that the government did not
present evidence sufficient for the jury to find him guilty of the counts charged.
Lovett also argues that, before the trial began, the government used its peremptory
challenges to improperly strike African-American jurors, in violation of Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986). Finally, Lovett asserts that the
district court improperly applied a six-level enhancement when it sentenced him to
a term of ninety months in prison. We find no reversible error and affirm.
I. Background
A. The Scheme
Lovett was a police officer with SCMPD for forty years and served as its
chief from 2010 until he resigned in September 2013.
2
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 3 of 35
Roach owned and operated the Magic Midway carnival, which traveled
throughout Georgia and South Carolina. For celebrations surrounding New Year’s
Day, Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, and St. Patrick’s Day, Roach often took his
carnival to Savannah. Roach also went to Savannah on other occasions, setting up
his gambling trailer by gas stations to “roadside”—that is, to swindle people who
were playing games of chance for money. During trial, Roach testified that he
operated his gambling trailer in Savannah from at least 2000 through 2013. In this
timeframe, Roach admitted, he or one of his employees paid Lovett money for
protection against arrest.
Various witnesses testified to the fact that Roach’s trailer contained two
gambling games, and players of both games were regularly hustled out of their
money. The person running the game—referred to as the “agent”—would cheat in
favor of the player in early rounds, lulling the player into wrongly believing that
chances of winning were very high. Then, once the player invested more money,
the agent would cheat in favor of Roach, causing the player to lose.
Three to six agents worked out of Roach’s carnival trailer, along with a
person called the “duker,” who drew players into the game. The proceeds of any
given day were divided among the duker, the agents, and Roach. But, before the
money was divided up, Roach caused a portion to be taken off the top to pay for
police protection. In return for these payments, the police—including Lovett when
3
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 4 of 35
Roach was in his jurisdiction—would allow the swindling to continue and quash
complaints of victims.
B. The Trial
Various witnesses testified during Lovett’s five-day trial, including police
officers, agents from the FBI, Roach, and the agents who ran Roach’s gambling
trailer. Generally speaking, Roach and his agents testified that, for many years,
Roach paid Lovett to avoid arrest. And the law-enforcement officers’ testimony
fully supported that.
According to the witnesses’ collective testimony, before going to Savannah,
Roach would call Lovett to advise him where and when Roach would set up the
gambling trailer. Lovett would then drive out to the trailer to meet Roach and
collect Lovett’s portion of the proceeds. Roach’s agents testified that they never
concealed the gambling activity while in Savannah because they knew that Roach
was paying Lovett and had protection.
Although the government presented testimony supporting a finding that
Lovett had protected Roach’s gambling operation for fourteen years, the trial
centered on four specific instances: the St. Patrick’s Day festivals in March 2004
and March 2013, a roadsiding incident in January 2010, and the W.W. Law
Foundation Festival in May 2013, during which the FBI used a confidential
4
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 5 of 35
informant. The evidence that Lovett protected Roach’s swindling gambling
operation for years was overwhelming.
1. St. Patrick’s Day 2004
Kevin Ryan, who served as a detective in Savannah in March 2004, testified
regarding an experience he had while working undercover during the 2004 St.
Patrick’s Day festival. Ryan was working in plain clothes, and he responded to a
report of an illegal gambling operation conducted at Roach’s trailer in the
downtown area. As Ryan approached the trailer, he saw Lovett, a major at the
time, in uniform, about twenty feet away.
Ryan explained that he and another undercover officer went over to the
game and attempted to play in order to implicate Roach in illegal gambling. But
according to Ryan, after he placed his money on the table, Lovett “threw himself
on the table, pushed the balls back toward the operator, pushed [Ryan’s] money
back toward [him], and said, ‘No, no. They are closed. They are closed.’” Ryan
testified that Lovett took these actions even though he knew that the officers were
working undercover.
2. January 2010 Roadsiding
Devin Kennedy, a police sergeant in Savannah, testified about an incident
that occurred in January 2010. At that time, Kennedy responded to a call involving
an illegal gambling operation at a gas station. When Kennedy arrived, he saw
5
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 6 of 35
several men with dice, as well as a board with numbers on it. A man who had
played the game admitted that he was gambling and complained that he was
cheated out of money.
Based on what he witnessed, Kennedy called fellow officer Detective Roy
Coleman to join him at the scene because Coleman had a background in
investigating illegal gambling. Kennedy testified that he saw Lovett, who was then
the chief of police, at the gas station, dressed in his uniform. When Kennedy told
Lovett that he was investigating the possibility of an illegal gambling operation,
Lovett stated, “I know these guys.”
Detective Roy Coleman also testified concerning this incident. According to
Coleman, when Coleman arrived at the gas station, Roach told Coleman that he
knew Lovett and had called Lovett on his cell phone. In the meantime, Coleman
concluded, based on what he observed, that Roach’s operation was probably an
illegal gambling scheme.
While Coleman was speaking with the victim, Lovett drove up in his Crown
Victoria, got out of the car, and approached Coleman. Though Coleman explained
to Lovett that the victim had lost money gambling, Lovett mentioned that he knew
Roach and vouched that Roach had been around a long time. Then Coleman saw
Lovett speak to the law-enforcement supervisors on the scene and to Roach. The
situation was resolved when one of the men working at the gambling trailer told
6
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 7 of 35
the victim that he would return half of the money that he lost. No arrests were
made for illegal gambling.
3. St. Patrick’s Day 2013
FBI Special Agent Joshua Hayes testified that he conducted video
surveillance of Roach’s gambling operation during the week of the 2013 St.
Patrick’s Day festivities, from March 13th through March 17th. William Holtz,
one of Roach’s agents who was working as an FBI informant, had called,
prompting Hayes to go to the carnival and conduct in-person surveillance. While
there, Hayes saw Lovett visit the gambling trailer six times.
During Hayes’s testimony, the government played surveillance video of the
transactions occurring between Lovett and Roach during the period. Hayes
testified that each time Lovett visited the trailer, he parked his car nearby, and
Roach walked up to the car, stuck his arm in the car, and pulled his arm back out,
and the two men continued to talk for several minutes. On one occasion, Hayes
saw Lovett exit his car, reach into his pocket, pull out money, and count the
money. Hayes had a handheld camera that captured the transactions. According to
Hayes, most of the time, Lovett was in uniform and was parked approximately 15-
20 feet away from the trailer, where people could be seen gambling.
7
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 8 of 35
4. 2013 W.W. Law Foundation Festival
Special Agent Hayes also testified that Roach returned to Savannah in May
2013, for the W.W. Law Foundation Festival. During this event, Hayes again
recorded Lovett visiting the gambling trailer and meeting with Roach several
times.
In an effort to recreate the January 2010 gas-station roadsiding incident, on
May 10th, Hayes sent a confidential informant to the festival. The informant
started a dispute with one of Roach’s agents and called 911. Roach immediately
attempted to reach Lovett on his cell phone to provide assistance.
FBI Special Agent Adam Rogalski also testified about his involvement with
surveillance during the W.W. Law Foundation Festival, as well as surveillance
conducted during the 2013 St. Patrick’s Day festivities. Agent Rogalski’s
testimony supported the other officers’ version of these events.
5. Testimony of Roach and His Agents
Besides these officers, Roach and two of his agents testified during trial.
Roach confirmed that he conducted a gambling operation out of the trailer in
Savannah and other cities in Georgia and South Carolina. As Roach explained,
when he went to Savannah, he was not concerned about being arrested because he
paid the police for protection. Specifically, Roach claimed that in 1999 or 2000, he
began paying Lovett for protection from arrest. According to Roach, if a player
8
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 9 of 35
complained to police of being scammed, Roach would simply call Lovett on his
cell phone, and Lovett would extinguish the complaint by telling the victim that he
or she could be arrested for gambling.
As for particular incidents involving Lovett, Roach confirmed the January
2010 roadsiding incident at the gas station. Roach also substantiated the FBI’s
surveillance tapes from the 2013 St. Patrick’s Day festivities. He stated that he did
not hide any of the illegal gambling activities while Lovett was around because he
was paying Lovett to avoid arrest.
Two of Roach’s agents provided additional support.
First, Emerson Healy stated that he worked for Roach at the gambling trailer
for roughly twenty years. Healy confirmed that the games played at the trailer
were not legitimate. He also explained how Roach paid police for protection
against arrest. Finally, Healy testified that he had witnessed Roach pay Lovett for
protection on numerous occasions.
William Holtz, another of Roach’s agents, similarly testified that he had
worked at Roach’s gambling trailer for many years. As we have noted, Holtz
eventually became an informant for the FBI. Like Healy, Holtz explained that the
games in the trailer were illegal gambling games designed to cheat people out of
money. Holtz, who testified that he saw Roach pay Lovett, likewise spoke of how
9
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 10 of 35
the operation enjoyed police protection and how, in Savannah, Lovett provided
very good protection.
As for the January 2010 roadsiding incident, Holtz verified that Lovett
showed up after Roach called him to handle the situation. As Holtz recalled,
Roach paid Lovett that day for protection, and no one was arrested for illegal
gambling.
After Holtz became a confidential informant in March 2012, Holtz testified,
he provided Special Agent Hayes with information regarding Roach’s illegal
gambling operation during Savannah’s 2013 St. Patrick’s Day festivities.
Essentially, Holtz gave Hayes real-time information on the payments that Roach
made to Lovett. As Holtz testified about this event at trial, the government played
surveillance tapes of gambling activities.
Finally, Holtz testified about the W.W. Law Foundation Festival at which he
worked in 2013. Following the incident where 911 was called, Holtz verified with
Roach that he had made payments to Lovett for protection. At the time, Holtz was
not aware that Roach’s phone calls were being recorded by the FBI.
6. Lovett’s Statements
After the government rested, Lovett took the stand. He flatly denied
receiving money from Roach for protection concerning Roach’s illegal gambling
activities. Instead, Lovett claimed that he and Roach were friends and that Lovett
10
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 11 of 35
had worked legitimate off-duty jobs providing security for the carnival beginning
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But, Lovett testified, after he became the Chief
of Police, he stopped working off-duty jobs and did not receive any money from
Roach.
Notably, before trial, Lovett gave statements to FBI Special Agent Rogalski
on two occasions. During these interviews, Agent Rogalski testified at trial, Lovett
contended that once he became Chief of Police, he stopped working security
details and received no money from Roach. Lovett also claimed that he was not
aware that Roach was running a gambling operation. Lovett’s statements formed
the basis of the two counts of making false statements to the FBI.
7. Verdict
Following the close of evidence, the jury deliberated and found Lovett guilty
of one count of aiding and abetting commercial gambling, one count of conspiring
to obstruct Georgia’s gambling laws, two counts of extortion for the events of
March 17, 2013, and two counts of making false statements to FBI agents. Lovett
filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for new trial, but the district
court denied the motions. Lovett now appeals.
11
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 12 of 35
II. Lovett’s Batson Challenge
A. Batson v. Kentucky
In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection
Clause prohibits prosecutors from striking potential jurors “solely on account of
their race.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S. Ct. at 1719. In this respect, the
Constitution “forbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory
purpose.” Foster v. Chatman, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1746 (2016)) (quoting
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478, 128 S. Ct. 1203 (2008)). To assist district
courts in addressing Batson challenges, the Supreme Court outlined a three-step
inquiry that courts must use in order to determine whether peremptory strikes have
been used in a discriminatory manner.
First, the party challenging the strike as discriminatory must set forth a
prima facie case of discrimination. Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Lowder
Realty Co., Inc., 236 F.3d 629, 636 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 96,
106 S. Ct. at 1723).
Second, if the court agrees that a prima facie case exists, the striking party
must articulate a non-discriminatory (i.e., race-neutral) explanation for its strike.
Id. The reason given need not be a good reason; it can be irrational, silly,
implausible, or superstitious, as long as it is facially race-neutral. See, e.g., United
States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 837 (11th Cir. 2011).
12
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 13 of 35
Finally, if the striking party gives a race-neutral rationale, the court must
evaluate the persuasiveness of the proffered reason and determine whether the
objecting party has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Id.;
see United States v. Allen-Brown, 243 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2001). The
focus of the third step’s inquiry should be on the genuineness of the offered
explanation rather than the reasonableness of that explanation. United States v.
Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S.
765, 769, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1771-72 (1995) (per curiam)). But the ultimate burden
of proving discrimination remains with the party alleging discrimination. Hill, 643
F.3d at 837.
B. Making a Prima Facie Case Under Batson
In this appeal, only the first step of Batson is at issue. At the first step, the
challenging party must show enough facts to support an inference of discrimination
before a trial court requires the opposing party to reveal its reasons for a given
strike or before this Court can reach the merits of the strikes. Hill, 643 F.3d at 837
(citing United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015, 1038 (11th Cir. 2005));
Lowder Realty, 236 F.3d at 636. In other words, the establishment of a prima facie
case is “an absolute precondition to further inquiry into the motivation behind the
challenged strike.” Lowder Realty, 236 F.3d at 636. Indeed, a trial court errs when
13
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 14 of 35
it proceeds with the Batson inquiry in the absence of a prima facie case. Id. at 638-
39.
Finding a prima facie case of discrimination requires evaluating the totality
of the circumstances under which the striking party made the peremptory strikes in
question. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94, 96, 106 S. Ct. at 1721, 1723; Hill, 643
F.3d at 839. Batson offered two examples of how a prima facie case may be
established, one of which is potentially relevant here: “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against
black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an inference of
discrimination.” 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S. Ct. at 1723.
This Court has held that the fact that a party has struck only members of a
single race is, by itself, insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination. Lowder Realty, 236 F.3d at 636-37; see Hill, 643 F.3d at
838. Instead, we have in the past looked at the strikes in context, determining for
example, whether “members of the relevant racial or ethnic group served
unchallenged on the jury,” Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d at 1044; whether the striking
party struck all members of a race, or as many as it could, from the venire, id. at
1045; whether “there is a substantial disparity between the percentage of jurors of a
particular race or ethnicity struck and the percentage of their representation on the
venire,” id.; whether there is a substantial disparity between the percentage struck
and the percentage represented on the jury, id.; and whether the subject matter of
14
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 15 of 35
the case suggests a racial motive, Hill, 643 F.3d at 839. We have also compared
the voir dire answers of the struck jurors with those who were not struck, Lowder
Realty, 236 F.3d at 637, and compared the race of the defendants with the race of
the jurors struck. Bui v. Haley, 321 F.3d 1304, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003).
C. Lovett’s Challenge
At the beginning of trial, the district court randomly selected thirty-two
individuals to form a jury panel, from which the parties ultimately selected twelve
jurors and two alternate jurors. From this thirty-two person venire that included
seven African-Americans, the government used five out of its seven peremptory
challenges to remove African-American potential jurors. Two African-Americans
ultimately served on the twelve-person jury.
Following jury selection, Lovett, who is African-American, objected,
arguing that the government’s use of five out of seven peremptory challenges to
strike five out of seven African-Americans from the jury was sufficient to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson. Lovett’s attorney made his
Batson objection during a sidebar conference. A transcript of the sidebar
conference reveals that counsel for Lovett challenged the government’s use of its
peremptory challenges on the basis of these numbers alone: defense counsel
objected, “[G]iven the fact the total number of . . . African-American jurors on the
panel were seven and they struck five of those out of their total of seven strikes, . .
15
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 16 of 35
. that would meet [Batson] unless they can provide a race-neutral reason for doing
so.”
In response, the government attacked Lovett’s objection for failure to make
a prima facie case under Batson. The government emphasized the presence of two
African-American individuals on the jury and the fact that it did not use all of its
peremptory challenges to strike all seven African-Americans on the venire. Then
the government attempted to turn Lovett’s argument around against Lovett,
arguing that under Lovett’s rationale, Lovett violated Batson since he used all of
his peremptory challenges to strike only white members of the venire.
The district court overruled Lovett’s Batson challenge, pointing out that
Lovett must show improper motive on the part of the government; without more,
the court concluded, Lovett could not meet his burden by merely pointing to the
fact that the government struck five out of seven African-Americans from the
venire. Acknowledging the government’s counter-argument, the district court also
commented on Lovett’s use of all of his strikes to excuse white individuals from
serving on the jury. 1 But in its post-trial denial of Lovett’s motion for a new trial,
the district court upheld its overruling of Lovett’s Batson challenge based
1
The district court explicitly noted, “[D]efendant used every one of his strikes to strike . .
. whites off the jury.” The court continued, “If you’ve got a race-neutral reason to strike all of
your strikes to take white people off the jury, then you don’t concede that they could have a race-
neutral reason to use five of their strikes?”
16
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 17 of 35
exclusively on Lovett’s reliance on numbers alone to meet his burden to establish a
prima facie case of discrimination under Batson.
On appeal, Lovett contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that
a prima facie case under Batson had not been established. So, Lovett argues, the
burden should have shifted to the government to produce race-neutral reasons for
striking each of the five African-American potential jurors. Lovett also claims
that, in denying his Batson challenge, the district court applied the wrong legal
standard. We find no reversible error.
D. Standard of Review and Discussion
We review for clear error a district court’s denial of a Batson challenge at
step one of the inquiry. United States v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir.
2013); Hill, 643 F.3d at 837-38. In so doing, we give “great deference” to the
district court’s finding with respect to whether a prima facie case of impermissible
discrimination has been established. United States v. Houston, 456 F.3d 1328,
1334 (11th Cir. 2006); Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d at 1039; Allen-Brown, 243 F.3d
at 1296-97. A district court’s ultimate conclusion that a strike was or was not
discriminatory is a determination of fact that we will not disturb on appeal unless it
is clearly erroneous. Allen-Brown, 243 F.3d at 1297. A factual finding is clearly
erroneous only if it is not supported by substantial evidence and we are “left with a
17
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 18 of 35
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
At the outset, we note that during the Batson side-bar, the trial judge, at one
point, appeared to suggest that Lovett bore the burden of showing that the
government had no race-neutral reason for how it used its peremptory strikes
before the government had to come forward with race-neutral reasons for its
strikes. This suggestion is plainly incorrect under our caselaw. And had the
district court based its ruling on this incorrect standard, we might be inclined to
remand.
But ultimately, the district court did not rest its overruling of Lovett’s
objection on this basis. Instead, the district court set forth the correct legal
standard when it issued its subsequent written order denying Lovett’s motion for
new trial because it found that Lovett had failed to make out a prima facie case
since his challenge was based on numbers alone. We therefore do not remand the
matter to the district court on this ground.
We are similarly troubled by the district court’s comments regarding
Lovett’s use of all his peremptory challenges to strike white members of the
venire. Whether the challenging party may have engaged in its own Batson
violation has no bearing on and is an improper consideration in evaluating whether
18
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 19 of 35
the challenged party violated Batson. Nevertheless, the district court’s comments
in this regard do not support remand on this record.
A review of the trial transcript and the later written order denying Lovett’s
motion for new trial makes clear that the district court did not base its denial of the
Batson challenge on the fact that the defense used all of its strikes to remove white
individuals from the venire. Rather, the record demonstrates that the district court
denied Lovett’s challenge because he based it solely on numbers—that the
government used five of seven strikes to remove African-American individuals
from the jury pool—and that he declined to offer any other arguments in support of
his Batson challenge, despite the fact that the district court offered him the
opportunity to do so. On this ground alone, the district court determined that
Lovett failed to show discriminatory intent on the part of the government.
Applying “great deference,” as we must, we find the district court did not
clearly err when it concluded that Lovett failed to present evidence sufficient to
raise an inference of purposeful discrimination. See United States v. Allison, 908
F.2d 1531, 1537 (11th Cir. 1990). As we have made clear, Lovett made his Batson
challenge solely on the ground that the government used five out of seven of its
peremptory challenges to strike five of the seven African-Americans from the jury
pool. While this fact is troubling, the district court emphasized that the
government exercised two of its strikes against white potential jurors, which
19
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 20 of 35
resulted in two African-Americans serving on the final jury. And we have held
that striking a juror or a number of jurors of a particular race does not in and of
itself necessarily create an inference of racial discrimination. Lowder Realty, 236
F.3d at 636.
Our precedent requires something beyond the number of jurors struck to
establish a prima facie case. See Hill, 643 F.3d at 838-840 (noting that statistics of
jurors struck alone do not establish a prima facie case); Lowder Realty, 236 F.3d at
636-37, (“the number of persons struck takes on meaning only when coupled with
other information such as the racial composition of the venire, the race of others
struck, or the voir dire answers of those who were struck compared to the answers
of those who were not struck.”); compare Robertson, 736 F.3d at 1326-27 (finding
a prima facie case from the striking of a single African-American juror in the
context of the case, which involved a white supremacist on trial for killing a
African-American man and the venire contained only three African-American
members); Walker, 490 F.3d at 1291-92 (finding a prima facie case when the
defense used all of its strikes against white people and removed over half of the
white jurors on the venire).
In this case, though the district court specifically provided Lovett with an
opportunity to present facts tending to support an inference of discrimination,
Lovett continued to rely on only the number of jurors struck and did not raise any
20
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 21 of 35
other circumstances supporting discriminatory intent. Nor can we discern from the
record such intent. First, none of the prosecutor’s comments during voir dire
suggest a discriminatory purpose. Second, nothing in the record identifies the race
of any of the individuals composing the venire. So we cannot discern, for
example, whether the prosecution struck an African-American juror who was
similarly situated to a white juror whom the government did not strike. Put simply,
Lovett did not develop a record that allows us to draw an inference of
discrimination. And third, the underlying case—one involving extortion and
gambling crimes—is not overtly racial in nature such that it would suggest a
motive for discriminatory use of peremptory strikes. See Hill, 643 F.3d at 839.
We recognize the fact that the government used a significant number of its
peremptory challenges to strike a portion of the African-American panel members,
resulting in a disparity between the percentage of African-American jurors on the
venire (22%) and the percentage of their representation on the jury (14%). But
under our caselaw, that fact alone is not enough. We cannot say, based on the
totality of the circumstances, that the district court clearly erred in denying the
Batson challenge. See e.g., United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 989 (11th Cir.
2008) (no prima facie case of discrimination where the government used 78% of
its strikes (7 of 9) to remove African-American jurors, resulting in a jury that was
25% African-American); see also Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d at 1045-46 (no prima
21
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 22 of 35
facie case where 44 of 82 (54%) of the venire members were Hispanic, the
government used 5 of its 9 (56%) strikes against Hispanics, and 6 of the 17 (35%)
jurors and alternates selected to serve were Hispanic).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction. In doing so, the Court views all of the evidence “in the light
most favorable to the government and draw[s] all reasonable inferences and
credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Grzybowicz, 747
F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1236
(11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). In conducting this review, “[i]t is not necessary that
the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly
inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, provided a reasonable trier
of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Young, 906 F.2d 615, 618 (11th Cir. 1990). This is so because
“[a] jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.”
United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 1983) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). We accept reasonable inferences that tend to prove the
government’s case whether the evidence presented is direct or circumstantial.
United States v. Williams, 390 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004).
22
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 23 of 35
A. Aiding and Abetting Commercial Gambling and Conspiracy to
Obstruct State Commercial Gambling Laws
Lovett argues that the government presented insufficient evidence to support
his aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy convictions.2 In support of his argument,
Lovett focuses on two incidents relied upon by the government: (1) the 2010
roadsiding incident at the gas station and (2) the 2013 incident at the W.W. Law
2
Count 1 of the superseding indictment charged Lovett with aiding and abetting
commercial gambling in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955. This section makes it a crime to conduct
an “illegal gambling business,” which is statutorily defined as a business that (1) violates the law
of the state where the business operates; (2) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance,
manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of the business; and (3) has been or remains in
substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of
$2,000 in any single day. See 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b). A person conducts an illegal gambling
business by “performing any necessary function in the gambling operation, other than that of
mere bettor.” United States v. Miller, 22 F.3d 1075, 1077 (11th Cir. 1994).
Count 2 of the superseding indictment charged Lovett with conspiring with Roach and
one of Roach’s agents, Kenny Blount, to obstruct the enforcement of the laws of Georgia, with
the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1511. The term
“illegal gambling business” has the same definition as that set forth in § 1955(b). Section
1511(a) provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to obstruct
the enforcement of the criminal laws of a State or political
subdivision thereof, with the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling
business if—
(1) one or more of such persons does any act to effect the
object of such a conspiracy;
(2) one or more of such persons is an official or employee,
elected, appointed, or otherwise, of such State or political
subdivision; and
(3) one or more of such persons conducts, finances, manages,
supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling
business.
18 U.S.C. § 1511(a).
23
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 24 of 35
Foundation Festival. Primarily, Lovett argues that on each of these dates, by the
time Lovett or one of the SCMPD officers he dispatched to the scene arrived, the
responding officers had already determined that insufficient proof existed to pursue
gambling charges.
We disagree. But even if insufficient evidence supported the conspiracy and
aiding-and-abetting convictions as they relate to the 2010 roadsiding incident and
the 2013 W.W. Law Foundation Festival incident—to be clear, we think the record
amply supports both convictions as they concern these two incidents 3—the
government presented overwhelming other evidence at trial that independently
supports the convictions.
Most obviously, Roach and two of his agents testified to the conspiracy
between Lovett and Roach and the protection that Lovett gave Roach for his illegal
3
Though Lovett claims that Detective Coleman determined that insufficient evidence of
gambling existed during the 2010 roadsiding incident, Coleman himself denied that assertion.
Instead, Coleman explained that while he was investigating, Lovett drove to the scene and
essentially vouched for Roach. According to Coleman, Lovett’s presence “definitely” affected
how he approached the investigation. And though an FBI report stated that Coleman indicated
that there was insufficient evidence to make an arrest, Coleman denied making the statement.
Instead, Coleman testified that, in his opinion, enough evidence supported an arrest, but,
typically, he worked this type of gambling case in an undercover capacity to develop stronger
evidence. Sergeant Kennedy likewise made clear that any further investigation of the roadsiding
incident did not occur because of Lovett’s presence at the scene. As for the W.W. Law
Foundation Festival incident, Officer David Lane testified that he said the gambling matter that
day would be handled civilly only because he was told that Lovett had sent a supervisor out to
the scene, and he felt that the decision regarding how to handle the situation had been taken “out
of his hands” at that point. Lane explained, “I felt like it was above my pay grade, that there
must be somebody that was approving [the civil handling of the situation] over me.” It was
within the jury’s province to choose to believe the testimony of Coleman, Kennedy, and Lane.
These witnesses’ testimony supports the jury’s verdict as it relates to the conspiracy and aiding-
and-abetting convictions concerning the roadsiding and W.W. Law Foundation Festival
incidents.
24
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 25 of 35
gambling operation in exchange for payment. In and of itself, this evidence was
sufficient to support the convictions.
But that is not all. Officers who worked with Lovett also testified in support
of the conspiracy, noting that Lovett showed up when they were investigating
Roach, advised them that he knew Roach, and broke up what he knew was an
undercover investigation of Roach. And an FBI agent testified to seeing Roach
give money to Lovett. In addition, the government presented surveillance videos
showing Lovett meeting Roach at his gambling operation six times during the 2013
St. Patrick’s Day festival and several times during the 2013 W.W. Law Foundation
Festival.
True, Lovett took the stand and denied having received any money from
Roach or having known about the illegal gambling operation. But the jury clearly
disbelieved him. When a defendant chooses to testify, as Lovett did, any statement
that the jury disbelieves “may be considered as substantive evidence of the
defendant’s guilt.” Williams, 390 F.3d at 1325 (quoting United States v. Brown, 53
F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995)). Here, the jury accepted the testimony of other
officers, FBI agents, Roach, and Roach’s agents. The jury was present for all
testimony and made credibility determinations in favor of the government and
against Lovett. We do not second-guess these credibility determinations. See
25
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 26 of 35
Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2011);
United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999).
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict, far more than
sufficient evidence existed from which a jury could conclude that Lovett was
guilty of aiding and abetting Roach’s gambling operation and that he obstructed
the enforcement of Georgia’s gambling laws.
B. Extortion
Next, Lovett contends that the government failed to prove that the cash
payments he received had some effect on interstate commerce. In support of his
argument, Lovett relies on the fact that each of the five counts in the superseding
indictment alleged local transactions in a single municipality in the state of
Georgia—Savannah. So, Lovett asserts, his actions could not have had an effect
on interstate commerce. We are not persuaded.
The Hobbs Act contains a jurisdictional requirement that requires an effect
on “commerce,” 4 which the Act defines as follows:
4
The Hobbs Act provides,
Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects
commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in
commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to
do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or
property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in
26
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 27 of 35
commerce within the District of Columbia, or any
Territory or Possession of the United States; all
commerce between any point in a State, Territory,
Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point
outside thereof; all commerce between points within the
same State through any place outside such State; and all
other commerce over which the United States has
jurisdiction.
See Section 1951(b)(3). We have concluded that this requirement “can be met
simply by showing that the offense had a ‘minimal’ effect on commerce.” United
States v. Verbitskaya, 406 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v.
Jackson, 748 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1984) and United States v. Summers, 598
F.2d 450, 454 (5th Cir. 1979)).
The record here easily satisfies that requirement. We have determined that
commerce is affected when “an enterprise, which either is actively engaged in
interstate commerce or customarily purchases items in interstate commerce, has its
assets depleted through extortion, thereby curtailing the victim’s potential as a
purchaser of such goods.” United States v. Ransfer, 749 F.3d 914, 936 (11th Cir.
2014) (quoting Jackson, 748 F.2d at 1537).
Here, Roach’s carnival was actively engaged in interstate commerce. As we
have noted, Roach’s carnival was a traveling carnival. The government presented
violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (emphasis added).
27
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 28 of 35
evidence that Roach’s carnival conducted business throughout south Georgia and
South Carolina. By expending money for Lovett’s extortion, Roach’s carnival had
less to spend on other goods, including, among other things, gas to allow him to
travel with his carnival through south Georgia and South Carolina. These facts
establish the necessary interstate-commerce requirement.
Indeed, we have previously found the “interstate commerce” requirement
met under § 1951(b)(3) even where the effect on commerce was minimal and the
extorted payment took place in only one state. See, e.g., Jackson, 748 F.2d at 1537
(construction business that bought materials that had traveled in interstate
commerce, was extorted $5,000, which depleted its assets and burdened it with an
additional cost of doing business). As we have noted, Roach’s carnival operated in
two states.
Additionally, Roach testified that he always called Lovett before he arrived
in Savannah to operate his carnival and gambling trailer. Cell-phone records
confirm this testimony. On this record, a reasonable jury could have inferred that
Roach placed at least some of these phone calls when he was traveling outside
Georgia. The placement of out-of-town phone calls in furtherance of the
extortionate activity creates a further connection to interstate commerce. See e.g.,
United States v. Kaplan, 171 F.3d 1351, 1355 (11th Cir. 1999).
28
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 29 of 35
Because the government satisfied the interstate-commerce element, we deny
Lovett’s challenge on this ground.
C. Making False Statements
The government presented evidence that, during an FBI interview conducted
on May 1, 2014, Lovett made two false statements. During the interview, Lovett
stated that he neither knew of Roach’s illegal gambling operation nor received any
money from Roach since becoming the chief of SCMPD in 2010. These
statements formed the basis of charges against Lovett upon which he was
ultimately convicted. On appeal, Lovett contends that the government failed to
establish venue—a threshold constitutional element in every criminal
prosecution—because it did not show that Lovett made the alleged false statements
within the Southern District of Georgia, where he was tried and convicted.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides a defendant with the
right to a trial in the district in which the crime was committed. United States v.
DiJames, 731 F.2d 758, 761 (11th Cir. 1984). Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure preserves this right by providing that “[e]xcept as otherwise
permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall be had in a district in
which the offense was committed.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. When reviewing an
improper-venue claim, this court must determine “whether, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the government and making all reasonable inferences
29
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 30 of 35
and credibility choices in favor of the jury verdict . . . the Government proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the offense took place within the trial district.”
United States v. Burroughs, 830 F.2d 1574, 1580 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations and
internal quotations marks omitted); United States v. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d
1202, 1217 (11th Cir. 2010) (government must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the crime occurred within the district of the trial).
Applying this standard, we easily conclude that the government produced
enough evidence to establish that Lovett’s false statements to the FBI were made in
the Southern District of Georgia, where he was tried and convicted. Each FBI
agent who testified stated that the interviews of Lovett were conducted at his
residence. And Special Agent Rogalski specified that the May 1, 2014, interview
took place at “Mr. Lovett’s residence, which is on Talahi Island in Savannah.” FBI
Agent Hayes also identified Lovett’s residence as being on Talahi Island.
Because it is clear that all of the FBI interviews of Lovett took place in the
Southern District of Georgia, venue was proper. See De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d
at 1217 (“[W]hen circumstantial evidence as a whole reasonably supports the
inference that the crime was committed in the trial district, the government's
burden is satisfied.”); United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2006)
(government’s burden to establish venue may be met through direct or
circumstantial evidence and judicial notice may be used; search was conducted at
30
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 31 of 35
residence located in Cussetta, Georgia and court took judicial notice that city was
located in the Middle District of Georgia.)
IV. Sentencing Enhancement
Finally, Lovett contends that the district court erred in imposing a six-point
specific offense characteristic pursuant to U.S.S.G § 2C1.1(b)(2) when it
concluded that Lovett received at least $30,000 in payments from the gambling
operation. When considering Sentencing Guidelines issues, we review “purely
legal questions de novo, a district court’s factual findings for clear error, and, in
most cases, a district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts with due
deference.” United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Due deference is tantamount to
clear-error review. Id. (citing United States v. White, 335 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th
Cir. 2003). “For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court must be left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rothenberg, 610
F.3d at 624 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Lovett suggests the district court improperly determined the amount of loss
in this case. We review a district court’s determination of loss for clear error
because it constitutes a factual finding. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d
1178, 1197 (11th Cir. 2011). “The Guidelines do not require a precise
determination of loss,” so “[a] sentencing court need only make a reasonable
31
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 32 of 35
estimate of the loss, given the available information.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Still, “a sentencing judge may not speculate about the
existence of a fact that would result in a higher sentence, and the government must
support its loss calculation with reliable and specific evidence.” Id. (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Here, the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2) to apply the six-
level sentencing enhancement. Generally speaking, Section 2C1.1 deals with the
sentencing of defendants, including public officials, who extort money from others.
As pertinent here, the November 2014 version of Section 2C1.1(b)(2) used by the
district court when sentencing Lovett states,
If the value of the payment, the benefit received or to be
received in return for the payment, the value of anything
obtained or to be obtained by a public official or others
acting with a public official, or the loss to the
government from the offense, whichever is greatest,
exceeded $5,000, increase by the number of levels from
the table in § 2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and
Fraud) corresponding to that amount.
U.S.S.G. 2C1.1 (November 2014). Section 2B1.1(b)(1), in turn, provides that if
the loss is more than $30,000, but less than $70,000, the court should increase the
level by 6. The commentary to Section 2B1.1 indicates that “[t]he court need only
make a reasonable estimate of the loss. The sentencing judge is in a unique
position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss based upon that evidence. For
32
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 33 of 35
this reason, the court’s loss determination is entitled to appropriate deference.”
2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) and (f)).
Here, the district court concluded that the government produced evidence
that Lovett received at least $30,000 in payments from Roach, but less than
$70,000. The district court reached its determination based on the trial testimony
and PSR, which established that the gambling operation took place from 2000
through 2013. 5
Relying on the testimony of Roach, Holtz, and Healy, the district court
recognized that Roach paid Lovett out of monies he swindled during roadsiding
incidents; New Year’s Eve, St. Patrick’s Day, and Martin Luther King, Jr.,
celebrations; and the W.W. Law Foundation Festival. Roach, Holtz, and Healy
also testified about the frequency with which Roach brought the gambling trailer
into town. They likewise stated the amount of money that Roach paid Lovett
during each of the events.
In relying on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err when it
concluded that Lovett received between $30,000 and $70,000 over the applicable
fourteen-year period. The PSR conservatively attributed to Lovett the extortion of
$32,900 from Roach. The testimony of Roach, Holtz, and Healy supported the
5
A district court’s factual findings may be based upon evidence presented at trial or
undisputed statements in the pre-sentencing report. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355,
1356 (11th Cir. 1989).
33
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 34 of 35
conclusion that Lovett was paid approximately $22,400 in relation to the St.
Patrick’s Day festivities over a fourteen-year period ($100 per agent per day,
multiplied by four agents = $400 per day; $400 per day multiplied by 4 days =
$1,600; $1,600 over 14 years = $22,400). It further supported the PSR’s
calculation of $10,500 in payments for gambling activities on New Year’s Eve and
Martin Luther King, Jr., Day ($100 per agent per day, multiplied by two to three
agents per day = $250 per day; $250 per day multiplied by three days = $750; $750
over 14 years = $10,500). So, counting only the St. Patrick’s Day, New Year’s,
and Martin Luther King, Jr., events, the district court reasonably could have
concluded that Lovett received $32,900 from Roach during the relevant period.6
Of course, this figure does not include the W.W. Law Foundation Festival or days
when Roach’s gambling trailer was roadsiding.
Lovett complains that Roach, Holtz, and Healy all had criminal records and
two received a benefit from cooperating with the FBI. But determining the
credibility of witnesses falls within the province of the factfinder, and we will not
ordinarily review a factfinder’s determination of credibility. Jurado, 643 F.3d at
1320. The district court was in the best position to determine credibility and
6
Though the PSR conservatively calculated that Lovett had extorted $32,900 from
Roach, it nonetheless noted that this estimate did not include additional days that Roach paid
Lovett for protection during the W.W. Law Foundation Festival. Taking these events into
consideration, the PSR concluded that Lovett likely extorted over $70,000 from Roach. Id.
34
Case: 15-10707 Date Filed: 11/23/2016 Page: 35 of 35
apparently found these witnesses’ testimony regarding payments to Lovett to be
credible. We find no clear error in the district court’s determination.
V. Conclusion
We affirm Lovett’s convictions, finding that the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient for the jury to find him guilty of the counts charged. We also affirm
the denial of Lovett’s Batson challenge because we conclude that the district court
did not clearly err in its determination. Finally, we affirm the district court’s
application of a six-level enhancement when it sentenced Lovett to a term of ninety
months in prison.
AFFIRMED.
35