United States v. Akil Daniels , 588 F. App'x 667 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50325
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00470-H-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AKIL SAEED DANIELS, AKA Akil Saed
Daniels, AKA Akil Saleel Daniels,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 19, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
A jury found Akil Daniels guilty of three counts of bank robbery and one
count of attempted bank robbery. Daniels appeals his convictions and his sentence.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm.
Daniels contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions. This court must decide “whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
We begin with Daniels’s bank robbery convictions, Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the
indictment. Daniels confessed to the robberies. For a confession to serve as the
basis for a conviction, the government need only provide evidence sufficient to
corroborate the confession. United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 760 F.3d 1013, 1032
(9th Cir. 2014). As to Count 1, the confession was corroborated by surveillance
photos of the robbery and an in-court identification by an eyewitness. As to Count
2, the confession was corroborated by surveillance photos and a photo-lineup
identification by an eyewitness. As to Count 4, the confession was corroborated by
surveillance photos. A rational jury could have found that this evidence was
sufficient to corroborate Daniels’s confession.
2
Next, we consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support
Daniels’s attempted bank robbery conviction, Count 5 of the indictment. This
charge required sufficient evidence of “both culpable intent and conduct
constituting a substantial step toward commission of” a bank robbery. United
States v. Still, 850 F.2d 607, 608 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The evidence showed that Daniels walked into the bank, waited in a
teller line, and, when asked why he was there, told the branch manager that he
intended to make a withdrawal, even though he did not, in fact, hold an account
with the bank. He left only after the branch manager confronted him and asked
him for his debit card or account number. A rational jury could have found that
this evidence established both culpable intent and a substantial step.
Daniels also contends that his sentence of 160 months of imprisonment was
substantively unreasonable. This court reviews the district court’s sentencing
decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086
(9th Cir. 2012). The district court, after weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), reduced Daniels’s Guidelines offense level from 32 to 28 and imposed a
sentence in the middle of the reduced range. The sentencing disparity between
Daniels and his codefendant stemmed from his much higher criminal history
3
category. The district court did not abuse its discretion, and the sentence was not
substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4