United States v. Reginald Stephens , 612 F. App'x 107 ( 2015 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 13-4552
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGINALD STEPHENS,
a/k/a BIG RED
Reginald Stephens,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 10-cr-00620-05)
District Judge: Hon. Lawrence F. Stengel
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 24, 2015
Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 11, 2015)
_______________
OPINION
_______________

This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Reginald Stephens appeals his conviction and sentence in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on his participation in a
large-scale drug-trafficking enterprise known as the “Harlem Boys” that operated in the
Bartram Village Housing Development in Philadelphia. On appeal, he asserts three
grounds of alleged error. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I. Background
The pertinent factual background surrounding the Harlem Boys drug-trafficking
operation is set forth more fully in the opinion addressing the appeal of co-conspirator
Ramel Moten. See United States v. Moten, No. 13-3801, Slip. Op. at 2-5 (3d Cir.
May 11, 2015). We provide here only the facts relevant to Stephens’s appeal.
Stemming from his participation in the Harlem Boys enterprise, Stephens was
named along with nineteen other defendants in an eighty-nine count superseding
indictment. More specifically, he was charged with conspiracy to participate in a
racketeering enterprise (count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); conspiracy to
distribute 280 grams of cocaine base (crack) and marijuana (count 2), in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(D), and 846; carjacking (count 4), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119; carrying and using a firearm during a violent crime (count
5), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); possession with the intent to distribute marijuana
(count 13), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D); and possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine base (crack) (counts 19 and 20), in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
2
Before trial, the carjacking and accompanying firearm charges (counts 4 and 5)
against Stephens were dismissed because the statute of limitations as to those offenses
had run. The jury convicted Stephens on the remaining five counts and the District Court
sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, and imposed
various fines and special assessments.
II. Discussion1
Stephens raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the District Court erred in
denying a mistrial because there was a variance between charges in the indictment and
the evidence adduced at trial; (2) whether the prosecutor’s references in closing argument
to a dismissed carjacking charge resulted in reversible error; and (3) whether the District
Court erred in not granting a mistrial relating to the testimony of Tyree Wilson.2 The
answer to each of those questions is no.
A. Mistrial Due to Variance3
Stephens argues that there was a variance between the charges in the indictment
and the evidence adduced at trial, in that some of the seventy-seven overt acts in the
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Stephens also incorporates by reference two arguments made by Moten: first,
that the District Court erred in allowing the case agent to testify as to background
information for recorded conversations that were played for the jury, and, second, that the
government improperly vouched for the credibility of its witnesses. As we explain more
fully in United States v. Moten, those arguments are without merit. No. 13-3801, Slip.
Op. at 9-14.
3
We review the District Court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339, 342 (3d Cir. 2010).
3
superseding indictment were individual vendettas rather than acts in support of the RICO
enterprise. Stephens points to the following attacks as examples: the assault on James
Coleman, the assault on Alfonso Greer, and the assault on Zambo Forbes. Stephens’s
argument is nearly identical to that advanced by Moten, and, for the reasons discussed in
that opinion, we conclude that there was no variance and thus no error in denying the
motion for mistrial.4 See Moten, No. 13-3801, Slip Op. at 5-7.
B. Prosecutor’s Statements During Closing Argument5
Stephens argues that he was prejudiced when, during closing argument, the
prosecutor improperly described his role in the dismissed carjacking charge and
4
Although Moten did not point to the assault on Zambo Forbes as one of the
overt acts that was a personal vendetta, the same analysis applies to that assault. Omar
Roane, one of the co-conspirators, testified that he and two other members of the Harlem
Boys shot at Forbes while he was driving away in his car because he (Roane) mistakenly
believed Forbes had shot at him two weeks earlier. This was another example of the
Harlem Boys “stick[ing] up for each other and carry[ing] out each other’s business when
there was a need to do so” (App. at 7759), and was thus in furtherance of the Harlem
Boys’ RICO enterprise. See United States v. Irizarry, 341 F.3d 273, 302-03 (3d Cir.
2003) (murder of man who had burglarized mafia enforcer’s apartment was act in
furtherance of RICO enterprise because it served to “send a message to someone who
would demonstrate such complete disrespect of [mafia enforcer’s] stature in the
enterprise”).
5
We review the District Court’s ruling as to improper prosecutorial statements for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 2003).
Claims based on prosecutorial misconduct are subject to a harmless error analysis.
United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1265 (3d Cir.1995) (en banc). Improper
statements of a constitutional magnitude must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,
while statements of a non-constitutional magnitude need only leave us with a sure
conviction that they did not prejudice the defendant. United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d
163, 177 (3d Cir. 2003). Where it is clear that the error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt, we need not decide whether the error was constitutional or non-
constitutional. Id. at 180.
4
explained that the statute of limitations barred his prosecution for that offense. Stephens
believes he is entitled to a new trial on that basis.
One of the overt acts in count 1 involved Stephens and several co-conspirators
committing an armed carjacking on August 10, 2006. Counts 4 and 5 originally charged
all of those defendants with the substantive offense and accompanying firearm charge,
but only Merrell Hobbs was prosecuted for those charges because the statute of
limitations had run as to the other defendants, including Stephens.6 At trial, the
government presented, without objection, substantial evidence of Stephens’s involvement
in the carjacking to prove the overt act charged in count 1.
During closing argument, the prosecutor referenced Stephens’s involvement in the
carjacking and attempted to explain why he was not charged with the substantive offense
by saying, “[t]here is something in the law called the statute of limitations and that means
that somebody has to be charged within five years of actually committing the crime.”
(App. at 8171-72.) Stephens’s counsel objected to that statement, arguing that it
suggested to the jury that a legal technicality was the only reason Stephens was not also
charged with the substantive offense. The District Court, although noting that it was “a
legitimate explanation of an apparent inconsistency” (App. at 8174), offered to provide a
curative instruction, which Stephens’s counsel declined. The prosecutor then resumed
his argument before the jury and mentioned that they need not consider why Stephens
6
In the initial indictment, only Hobbs was charged with the carjacking. By the
time the government filed the superseding indictment adding the other co-conspirators,
the statute of limitations for that offense had run and thus the charge was only timely as
to Hobbs.
5
was not charged with the substantive count, but that they could still consider the
testimony regarding his involvement in the carjacking as proof of the overt act in the
RICO conspiracy charge.
Although the prosecutor’s decision to refer to the dismissed charges is
questionable, his comments were harmless and thus do not warrant a new trial. Cf.
United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163, 177 (3d Cir. 2003) (“We make a harmless error
analysis when deciding whether a new trial is warranted because of improper remarks
made by the prosecutor during closing arguments.”). During a ten-week trial, the
government presented volumes of testimony from co-conspirators and victims, detailing
the Harlem Boys’ illegal and violent activities in support of their ongoing large-scale
drug trafficking enterprise. Among that proof was overwhelming evidence of Stephens’s
role in the enterprise. Based on that evidence, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that the prosecutor’s reference to the statute of limitations as the reason for why Stephens
was not prosecuted for the carjacking offense had no impact on the verdict. See United
States v. Wood, 486 F.3d 781, 789 (3d Cir. 2007) (“In short, we are certain beyond any
possible doubt that the prosecutor’s comment could not have affected the verdict and thus
if there was an error in the district court, whether by the prosecutor or the court, it was
harmless.”).
6
C. Mistrial Due To Prejudicial Witness Testimony7
Finally, Stephens argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion for a
mistrial based on the testimony of Tyree Wilson that co-defendant Warren Stokes may
have murdered Wilson’s brother, Naeem.
One of the overt acts in the RICO conspiracy charged Stokes with shooting Tyree
Wilson on November 9, 2009. At trial, Tyree Wilson identified Stokes as the shooter and
speculated that Stokes’s motive may have been related to Naeem’s murder in August
2009. Wilson testified that he thought Stokes mistakenly believed he was going to harm
Stokes in retaliation for killing Naeem, and therefore Stokes decided to preemptively kill
him. Wilson noted, however, that he did not know who murdered Naeem and that he
never attempted to harm Stokes. Stephens did not object at the time of that testimony,
but later moved for a mistrial, arguing that, although he was not personally implicated in
either Wilson’s shooting or Naeem’s murder, the testimony unfairly prejudiced him by
suggesting to the jury that a member of the Harlem Boys was “not just capable of general
acts of violence, but indeed of murder as well.” (Opening Br. at 19.) The District Court
did not grant the mistrial but gave curative instructions to the jury to disregard Wilson’s
testimony speculating on Stokes’s motive, and the Court clarified that Naeem’s murder
was not part of the case.
On appeal, Stephens reasserts his argument that a mistrial was warranted. That
challenge fails, however, because Wilson’s statement as to Stokes’s potential motivation
7
As we have noted, we review a District Court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial
for an abuse of discretion. Liburd, 607 F.3d at 342.
7
for shooting him, which was followed by a curative instruction, did not unfairly prejudice
Stephens. Cf. United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312, 339 (3d Cir. 2010) (“The type of
counsel misconduct that warrants granting a new trial is not generally a single isolated
inappropriate comment, but rather repeated conduct that permeates the trial. … Further,
the District Court directly addressed the inappropriate nature of the [prosecutor’s]
comment in its instructions to the jury. … [T]hus even if there were some risk of
prejudice it was cured because juries are presumed to follow their instructions.” (internal
quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted)). Moreover, the jury ultimately
acquitted Stokes of attempting to murder Wilson, thus suggesting that the jury was not
unduly influenced by the testimony about Naeem’s murder. Given the volume of
evidence detailing the Harlem Boys’ violent crimes, an isolated reference to Naeem’s
murder did not undermine the jury’s verdict.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the rulings of the District Court.
8