United States v. Acy ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10620 Document: 00516857123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10620
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ August 14, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Anthony Lennell Acy,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-70-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Anthony Lennell Acy appeals his conviction of one count of sex
trafficking of a child (count one) and one count of sex trafficking by force,
fraud, or coercion (count two), as well as the resulting concurrent terms of
365 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred by
admitting evidence of his relationship with Adult Victim One (AV1) from
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10620 Document: 00516857123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2023
No. 22-10620
January 2020 until his arrest on March 18, 2020, and evidence relating to his
March 18, 2020, arrest as intrinsic evidence. He argues that such evidence
is extrinsic evidence, and thus only admissible to prove “motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
mistake, or lack of accident” under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). In light
of Acy’s arguments on appeal, he necessarily complains of trial testimony by
multiple witnesses and multiple exhibits presented at trial.
Where the issue is preserved, we review “a trial court’s decision to
admit evidence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Lugo-Lopez, 833
F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Any abuse of discretion is subject to a harmless error analysis. United States
v. Hawley, 516 F.3d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2008). Acy preserved at trial his
objection to certain testimony and exhibits. We need not “parse the record
statement by statement because [Acy’s] argument fails under the abuse of
discretion standard.” United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 295 (5th Cir.
2021).
A majority of the evidence to which Acy objects is evidence of the
offense charged in count two of the superseding indictment. It is not
evidence concerning any other crime, wrong, or act. See Gurrola, 898 F.3d
at 536-37; United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Such
evidence includes, inter alia, AV1’s testimony about how she met Acy and
the beginning of their relationship, Acy’s demand that she pay him his money
back in commercial sex, her inability to leave, the violence and threats she
experienced from Acy, how Acy would find commercial sex customers for
AV1 and keep all of the proceeds, AV1’s first attempt to leave, her belief that
Acy carried a firearm, the events leading up to and including the Austin trip,
her request that her mother arrange her rescue from Austin, and her
testimony that she was scared for her life. Likewise, it includes law
enforcement testimony regarding the recovery operation of AV1 in Austin on
2
Case: 22-10620 Document: 00516857123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2023
No. 22-10620
March 18, 2020, many of the items found in Acy’s vehicle upon his March
18, 2020, arrest, and messages and data found on Acy’s phone. Because this
evidence was evidence of the crime charged, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting it. See Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 536-37; Lugo-Lopez,
833 F.3d at 460.
To the extent the remaining law enforcement testimony regarding
Acy’s arrest on March 18, 2020, or messages and data found on Acy’s phone,
could be considered “[e]vidence of crimes, wrongs, [or] other bad acts,”
such evidence was intrinsic to the charged offense. Gurrola, 898 F.3d at 536.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this
evidence as intrinsic. See id. at 536-37; Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d at 460.
To the extent that the full extraction of Acy’s phone does contain
evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts extrinsic to the charged offense and
the district court abused its discretion in admitting the full extraction into
evidence, “the error is harmless given other substantial evidence of [Acy’s]
guilt” as to count two of the superseding indictment. Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d
at 461.
Acy did not adequately brief, and has thus waived, his argument that
AV1’s testimony about his firearm was “speculative hearsay.” See United
States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3