-
08-4882-cr (L); 08-4887-cr (CON); 08-4888-cr (CON); 08-4889-cr (CON) United States of America v. Brown, et al UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 23 rd day of April, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 Circuit Judges, 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Appellee, 15 08-4882-cr (L); 16 -v.- 08-4887-cr (CON); 17 08-4888-cr (CON); 18 08-4889-cr (CON) 19 DAMIAN BROWN, also known as BOSSY, 20 FRANZ GOLDING, SHAWN PETERKIN, also 21 known as SHAWN JAMES, DWAYNE PALMER, 22 Defendants-Appellants. 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 24 25 APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: Allan P. Haber, New York, NY 26 (for Damian Brown); Arza 27 Feldman, Feldman and Feldman, 28 Uniondale, NY (for Franz 1 1 Golding); Bruce R. Bryan, Esq., 2 Syracuse, NY (for Shawn 3 Peterkin); David A. Ruhnke 4 (Andrew G. Patel, law office of 5 Andrew G. Patel, New York, NY on 6 the brief), Ruhnke & Barrett, 7 Montclair, NJ (for Dwayne 8 Palmer). 9 10 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Jessica A. Masella (Michael Q. 11 English, Michael D. Maimin 12 Assistant United States 13 Attorneys on the brief) 14 Assistant United States 15 Attorney, on behalf of Preet 16 Bharara, United States Attorney 17 for the Southern District of New 18 York, New York, NY. 19 20 Appeals from judgments of the United States District 21 Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.). 22 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 23 AND DECREED that the judgments of the district court be 24 AFFIRMED. 25 Damian Brown, Franz Golding, Shawn Peterkin, and Dwayne 26 Palmer appeal from judgments of conviction entered on 27 October 2, 2008 in the United States District Court for the 28 Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) following a two- 29 week jury trial. Each of the four co-defendants was 30 convicted of charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess 31 with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana 32 (Count One), see
21 U.S.C. § 846, of using a firearm to 33 commit murder in relation to Count One’s marijuana 2 1 conspiracy (Count Two), see
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) & 2, and 2 of using and carrying firearms during and in relation to 3 Count One’s marijuana conspiracy (Count Three), see 18
4 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) & 2; each was additionally 5 convicted individually of being either a felon (Peterkin) or 6 an alien (Brown, Golding, Palmer) in possession of a firearm 7 (Counts Four through Seven), see
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 8 922(g)(5)(A), & 2. The appellants raise a number of 9 challenges to their convictions and sentences. 10 Appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence 11 to establish that the murder charged in Count Two was 12 committed in relation to the marijuana conspiracy charged in 13 Count One. “A court may overturn a conviction on this basis 14 only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most 15 favorable to the Government and drawing all reasonable 16 inferences in its favor, it finds that no rational trier of 17 fact could have concluded that the Government met its burden 18 of proof.” United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 19
544 F.3d 149, 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 20 omitted). There was clearly sufficient evidence for the 21 jury to have inferred that Peterkin was robbed of 25 pounds 22 of marijuana and $47,000 in cash by the victim. The jury 23 could have inferred that the purpose of the murder was to 24 settle the dispute caused by the theft of drugs and drug 3 1 proceeds. “Because narcotics conspiracies are illicit 2 ventures, disputes are frequently settled by force or the 3 threat of force. Consequently, advancing the aim of a 4 narcotics conspiracy can involve performing ancillary 5 functions such as enforcing discipline and chastising 6 rivals.” United States v. Santos,
541 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 7 2008) (alterations, internal quotation marks, and internal 8 citations omitted). Ample evidence supported the jury’s 9 verdict. 10 Brown argues that the district court erred by admitting 11 evidence of what he characterizes as unrelated drug 12 ownership. “We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of the 13 district court’s broad discretion, reversing only when the 14 court has acted arbitrarily or irrationally.” United States 15 v. Nektalov,
461 F.3d 309, 318 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal 16 quotation marks omitted). Evidence that Brown owned 17 marijuana and scales used for weighing marijuana during the 18 period he was alleged to have participated in a marijuana 19 distribution conspiracy rendered more probable the fact of 20 his membership in that conspiracy. See Fed R. Evid. 401. 21 Brown was permitted to argue that the drugs were for his 22 personal use or were to be sold in an unrelated scheme; such 23 arguments go to weight, not admissibility. The district 24 court did not err by admitting this evidence. 4 1 Peterkin challenges the admission of a gun found in the 2 bathroom of his motel room during a post-arrest protective 3 sweep. See generally Maryland v. Buie,
494 U.S. 325, 334 4 (1990). The officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion to 5 perform a protective sweep of the bathroom: several 6 suspected killers were staying in the motel and not all had 7 been accounted for; Peterkin was arrested immediately 8 outside his motel room; and the light in the bathroom was 9 on. Cf. United States v. Mickens,
926 F.2d 1323, 1328 (2d 10 Cir. 1991). Since the police were permitted to enter the 11 bathroom and since the gun was found to have been in plain 12 sight upon entry, it was properly seized and admitted. See 13 Minnesota v. Dickerson,
508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993). 14 Palmer challenges the admission into evidence of his 15 co-defendants’ statements on the theory that they implicitly 16 referenced him. “The crux of [the Confrontation Clause] is 17 that the government cannot introduce at trial statements 18 containing accusations against the defendant unless the 19 accuser takes the stand against the defendant and is 20 available for cross examination.” United States v. Jass, 21
569 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 22 omitted). “[T]he Confrontation Clause is not violated by 23 the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession 24 with a proper limiting instruction when . . . the confession 5 1 is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but 2 any reference to his or her existence.” Richardson v. 3 Marsh,
481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987). “[W]hat Bruton[ v. United 4 States,
391 U.S. 123, 135-37 (1968),] and its progeny demand 5 is a redaction and substitution adequate to remove the 6 ‘overwhelming probability’ that a jury will not follow a 7 limiting instruction that precludes its consideration of a 8 redacted confession against a defendant other than the 9 declarant.” Jass,
569 F.3d at 60. 10 To determine if a redacted confession may be admitted, 11 “we examine first whether [the] redacted confession 12 indicated to the jury that the original statement contained 13 actual names and, second, whether the redacted confession, 14 even if the very first item introduced at trial[,] would 15 immediately inculpate [the non-declarant defendant] in the 16 charged crime.” Jass,
569 F.3d at 61(internal citations 17 and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he appropriate analysis 18 to be used when applying the Bruton rule requires that we 19 view the redacted confession in isolation from the other 20 evidence introduced at trial.” United States v. Williams, 21
936 F.2d 698, 700 (2d Cir. 1991). As Palmer argues, the 22 revised statements of Brown, Golding, and Peterkin are 23 stilted by removal of so many appellations and the 24 substitution of generic references (“the guy,” the “other 6 1 person,” etc.). But the revisions did not indicate names 2 were omitted; moreover, the redacted statements--considering 3 each statement alone, apart from all other trial evidence 4 including the other statements, as we must--did not 5 immediately inculpate Palmer. Therefore, the statements 6 were not admitted in error with these redactions. 7 Finding no merit in any of the appellants’ remaining 8 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgments of the district 9 court. 10 11 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 14 7
Document Info
Docket Number: 08-4882-cr (L), 08-4887-cr (CON), 08-4888-cr (CON), 08-4889-cr (CON)
Citation Numbers: 374 F. App'x 208
Judges: Amalya, Calabresi, Dennis, Guido, Jacobs, Kearse
Filed Date: 4/23/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/1/2023