Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 1 of 15
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16822
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00149-SPC-MRM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NORRIS WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 19, 2017)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 2 of 15
Norris Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for distributing heroin
and possessing heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and for attempting to possess a kilogram or more of
heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(i), and
21 U.S.C. § 846. 1 On appeal, Williams argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, abused its discretion
in permitting the government to introduce testimony at trial, erred in relying on the
jury’s determination of the amount of heroin at sentencing, and erred in applying
the career offender enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Further, he argues
that his total 360-month sentence of imprisonment was substantively unreasonable.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal. United States v. Seher,
562 F.3d 1344, 1364 (11th Cir. 2009). When the
motion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review de novo the
sufficiency of the evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
government.
Id. We will affirm the denial if we conclude that a reasonable
factfinder could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
1
21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it a crime to attempt to commit an offense defined in Title 21, including
§ 841.
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) makes it unlawful to knowingly or intentionally distribute a
controlled substance or possess a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it. Section
841(b)(1)(A)(i) increases the penalties when the offense involves one kilogram or more of
heroin.
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(i).
2
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 3 of 15
Id. Additionally, credibility questions are answered by the jury, and we will
assume that the jury resolved all such questions in a manner supporting its verdict.
United States v. Lebowitz,
676 F.3d 1000, 1013-14 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
To support a conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute
heroin, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
(1) acted with the kind of culpability required to commit the underlying offense,
that is to knowingly and willfully possess heroin with the intent to distribute; and
(2) took a substantial step toward committing the crime under circumstances
strongly corroborating criminal intent. See United States v. Bernal-Benitez,
594
F.3d 1303, 1310 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 To support a conviction for possession of a
controlled substance with intent to distribute, the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed the controlled substance
and intended to distribute it. United States v. Albury,
782 F.3d 1285, 1293 (11th
Cir. 2015).
Here, the district court did not err in denying Williams’s motion for a
judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Williams attempted to purchase a kilogram of heroin with
2
The important factor in proving attempt is the defendant’s intent to commit the underlying
crime, not whether the underlying crime was actually possible. See United States v. Bernal-
Benitez,
594 F.3d 1303, 1310 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating that the government did not have to prove
the substance in question was actually cocaine, just that the defendant was intending to obtain
cocaine).
3
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 4 of 15
the intent to distribute. 3 The government presented ample evidence through
Detective Victor Chica’s testimony and through the video and audio recordings of
Williams’s negotiations with Detective Chica that Williams intended to purchase a
whole kilogram of heroin from Detective Chica for the purpose of reselling it, and
that Williams took a substantial step toward purchasing the kilogram of heroin.
First, the evidence shows that during their negotiations, Detective Chica
agreed to sell a half kilogram of heroin to Williams at $40,000 or a full kilogram of
heroin at $75,000. Although Williams initially told Detective Chica that he could
buy a half kilogram but not a whole kilogram of heroin “right now,” once
Detective Chica offered to front or advance Williams the full kilogram for a down
payment of $50,000, Williams unequivocally agreed to that arrangement and
demonstrated that agreement on multiple occasions. For instance, during a
recorded conversation between Williams and Detective Chica, Detective Chica
stated, “Like I said . . . we got to come up with at least a down payment which will
be 50 and then go from there,” and Williams responded, “Okay, okay, okay, that’s
a number, okay, that’s a number I’m looking for.” Detective Chica also testified
that Williams wanted to purchase a kilogram of heroin and agreed to pay $50,000
as a down payment.
3
Williams does not appeal his convictions for Counts 1 through 3, which involve lower
quantities of heroin.
4
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 5 of 15
Second, Williams took a substantial step toward committing the underlying
offense under circumstances strongly corroborating his criminal intent. Williams
arranged a meeting with Detective Chica to exchange a full kilogram of heroin for
the $50,000 down payment, and Williams brought approximately $50,000 in a
shoebox to that meeting. Williams then gave Detective Chica the shoebox.4 This
belies the argument that Williams had not intended to buy a full kilogram of heroin
because the price agreed to for the half kilogram was $40,000. Williams also
conceded during his trial that he believed Detective Chica would give him a
kilogram of heroin at this meeting. A reasonable jury could therefore infer that
when Williams showed up to the meeting with approximately $50,000—the price
Detective Chica required to front Williams the entire kilogram of heroin—that
Williams intended to purchase the entire kilogram of heroin.
II.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. House,
684 F.3d 1173, 1197 (11th Cir. 2012). A district
court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard or makes clearly
erroneous findings of fact.
Id. However, even when the district court abused its
discretion, we will only reverse when there is a reasonable likelihood that a non-
constitutional evidentiary error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.
Id. We
4
The audio and video of this transaction was captured by the government and shown to the jury.
5
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 6 of 15
will not reverse when the non-constitutional error had no substantial influence and
there is enough evidence to support the verdict without the error.
Id. When a
defendant claims cumulative error, we consider all preserved errors on appeal, as
well as all plain errors, within the context of the entire trial to determine whether
the defendant had a fundamentally fair trial.
Id. When there is no error or there is
only one error, there is no cumulative error.
Id. at 1210. The district court can
allow the prosecution to redirect a witness as to testimony elicited on cross-
examination. United States v. Willner,
795 F.3d 1297, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged
testimony about the slang Williams used and the evidentiary shipping and handling
procedures, because the testimony was relevant to the charges against Williams
and because Williams invited the additional testimony through his cross-
examination of a witness. First, although Williams objected to Sergeant Samuel
Gonzalez’s testimony about what Williams meant when he said, “If you make
money, I make money” as speculative and calling for a conclusion, Williams did
not object that the testimony constituted an improper expert opinion or that
Sergeant Gonzalez did not qualify as an expert or had not been properly qualified
as an expert. 5
5
Because Williams failed to object before the district court as to this testimony constituting an
improper expert opinion, Williams’s argument is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
6
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 7 of 15
The district court did not err because Sergeant Gonzalez’s testimony was
relevant to Williams’s intent to distribute heroin, a controlled substance, see
Bernal-Benitez,
594 F.3d at 1310, and Williams made the statement in a recorded
video of a drug transaction, see Fed. R. Evid. 401. Additionally, as a police
officer, Sergeant Gonzalez could testify as a lay witness as to his understanding of
the slang Williams used in the video in order to help the jury understand his
testimony about the conversation that occurred during the first heroin transaction.
See Fed. R. Evid. 701; United States v. Jayyousi,
657 F.3d 1085, 1102–04 (11th
Cir. 2011).
Second, to the extent that Williams argues that Agent Mark Strang’s
testimony about the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) shipping
procedures and duties of handling evidence was admitted in error, it was error that
Williams invited. See United States v. Carpenter,
803 F.3d 1224, 1236 (11th Cir.
2015) (explaining that this court will not review an issue challenged as error on
appeal when a party induced or invited the district court into making that error).
On cross-examination, Williams invited the challenged testimony by questioning
Agent Strang extensively about the DEA’s procedures for shipping and handling
evidence. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in allowing the
Perez,
661 F.3d 568, 583 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). For an error to be plain it must
obviously conflict with current law.
Id. at 585.
7
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 8 of 15
government to question Agent Strang briefly about the shipping procedures and
duties Agent Strang testified about on cross-examination. See Willner, 795 F.3d at
1320. Additionally, Agent Strang’s testimony was related to establishing the chain
of custody for the seized evidence, which Williams argued was relevant at trial.
Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Detective
Chica’s testimony because the challenged testimony was relevant. As discussed
above, Williams was charged with attempting to obtain a kilogram of heroin in
order to sell it. Detective Chica’s testimony about the importance of high-quality
heroin to the distribution chain was relevant to the question of Williams’s intent in
obtaining the heroin to sell it because the testimony helped establish that Williams
wanted to obtain a higher quality of heroin in order to make more money when
selling the heroin. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; Bernal-Benitez,
594 F.3d at 1310.
Further, as a police officer, Detective Chica could testify as to his understanding of
the slang Williams used, including what it meant to have “money” somewhere, in
order to help the jury understand his testimony about their recorded conversations.
See Fed. R. Evid. 701; Jayyousi,
657 F.3d at 1102-04.
Finally, relevant evidence should only be excluded if unfair prejudice
substantially outweighs the evidence’s probative value. United States v. Spoerke,
568 F.3d 1236, 1251 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, none of the challenged testimony was
unfairly prejudicial, as it went to either helping the jury understand Detective
8
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 9 of 15
Chica and Sergeant Gonzalez’s testimony about their conversations with Williams
or to redirecting a witness as to questions Williams asked on cross-examination.
The recorded conversations were played for the jury and we assume that the jury
resolved any credibility questions in a manner consistent with their guilty verdict.
Lebowitz,
676 F.3d at 1014.
Thus, the district court did not err in admitting the challenged testimony.
Because the district court did not err in admitting this testimony, there was also no
cumulative error. House,
684 F.3d 1173 at 1210.
III.
When the drug quantity used at sentencing was found by the jury, we review
the jury’s findings de novo, asking 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.” United States v.
Curbelo,
726 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction can be used as relevant
conduct at sentencing to determine the offense level. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.5.
When an offense involved the arranged sale of drugs in a government sting
operation, the district court uses the quantity the defendant agreed upon, unless the
defendant can show that he “did not intend to provide or purchase, or was not
reasonably capable of providing or purchasing, the agreed-upon quantity of the
9
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 10 of 15
controlled substance.” Id. In that case, the court should exclude the amount the
defendant establishes that he did not intend to purchase or was not reasonably
capable of purchasing. Id.
The jury found Williams guilty of attempting to possess one kilogram or
more of heroin with the intent to distribute it. As discussed earlier, the government
presented the jury with sufficient evidence to determine that Williams intended to
purchase the entire kilogram of heroin and not just half a kilogram. Because the
jury determination of the quantity of heroin was supported by sufficient evidence,
the district court did not err in relying on it at sentencing. Curbelo, 726 F.3d at
1267.
IV.
We review de novo a district court’s application and interpretation of the
Sentencing Guidelines, including whether the defendant qualifies as a career
offender. United States v. Gibson,
434 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006). Factual
findings in support of a guideline enhancement are reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Creel,
783 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2015). We will conclude
that a factual finding is clearly erroneous only if we are left with a “definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
10
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 11 of 15
As an initial matter, although Williams objected to the application of the
career offender enhancement in district court, he did not object that his prior
offenses under Florida Statute § 893.13 and under § 841(a) and § 846 did not
qualify as controlled substance offenses.6 Because Williams failed to object
below, we review for plain error. Perez,
661 F.3d at 583. For an error to be plain
it must obviously conflict with current law.
Id. at 585.
The district court did not plainly err in applying the career offender
enhancement. First, the government was not required to prove Williams’s prior
convictions to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the district court to
consider them at sentencing. United States v. Smith,
775 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th
Cir. 2014). Second, Williams met the three requirements to be considered a career
offender. 7 Williams was 44 years old at the time of the offense conduct and was
6
The record does not specify the applicable statutes for the predicate state conviction and federal
conviction at issue. The parties, however, agree that the state conviction was under Florida
Statute § 893.13 and do not dispute that the charges for the federal conviction were under
21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and § 846. Williams also does not object to the accuracy of the convictions as
stated in the Presentence Investigation Report; thus, he is deemed to have admitted to those facts.
United States v. Bennett,
472 F.3d 825, 833–34 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
7
A defendant is considered a career offender if “(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old
at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of
conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3)
the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). A controlled substance offense is an
“offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,
that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled
substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a
counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.”
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). A prior felony conviction is a prior adult federal or state conviction
punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, regardless of whether the offense is
11
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 12 of 15
therefore over 18 years old at the time. The instant offense involved a conviction
for a felony controlled substance offense under §§ 841(a), 841(b), and 846.
Williams had at least two prior felony convictions involving controlled substance
offenses, including a Florida state conviction for purchasing cocaine base, in
violation of Florida Statute § 893.13, see United States v. Pridgeon,
853 F.3d 1192,
1198 (11th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. ___, No. 17-5135 (Oct. 2, 2017), and
a federal conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms
or more of cocaine and 50 kilograms or more of cocaine base, in violation of §§
841(a) and 846, see United States v. Evans,
358 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 2004).
Therefore, the district court appropriately applied the career offender enhancement.
V.
We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness by taking into account
the totality of the circumstances and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 8 Gall v.
United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court imposes a substantively
specifically designated a felony or what sentence was actually imposed. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b),
cmt. n.1.
8
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the needs to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to deter
criminal conduct, and to protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct.
18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a particular sentence, the district court must also consider the
nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, any pertinent policy statements of
the Sentencing Commission, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities.
18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)–(6).
12
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 13 of 15
unreasonable sentence when it (1) fails to consider relevant
18 U.S.C. § 3553
factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor
significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error in judgment by balancing proper
factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)
(en banc). We ordinarily expect a sentence imposed within the guideline range to
be reasonable. United States v. Alvarado,
808 F.3d 474, 496 (11th Cir. 2015).
Additionally, an indicator of reasonableness is a sentence imposed well below the
statutory maximum penalty. United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th
Cir. 2016).
Williams fails to demonstrate that his total sentence is substantively
unreasonable. See Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496 (explaining that the party challenging
the reasonableness of the sentence has the burden to show that it is unreasonable).
The 360-month total sentence met the goals encompassed within § 3553(a). In
particular, the district court expressed concern over Williams’s criminal history.
The district court noted that in contrast to Williams’s argument that he had no
criminal history for approximately 15 years before the instant offense, his criminal
history demonstrated that Williams was incarcerated in federal prison for much of
that time and committed another drug offense shortly after he was released. The
district court’s concern over Williams’s criminal history was supported by the
record, which includes multiple offenses involving intent to sell drugs. It was well
13
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 14 of 15
within the district court’s discretion to conclude that Williams’s criminal history
and his status as a career offender weighed in favor of a guideline sentence. See
United States v. Mateos,
623 F.3d 1350, 1368 (11th Cir. 2010).
Further, Williams’s sentence was at the very low end of his guideline range,
which is 360 months to life, which suggests that the sentence was reasonable.
Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496. In determining his 360-month sentence, the district
court explicitly considered Williams’s mitigating history and characteristics,
including his military service, and was well within its discretion to conclude that,
while these mitigating factors warranted a sentence at the low end of the guideline
range, they did not warrant a variance below it. The total 360-month sentence was
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to account for the purposes of the §
3553(a) factors. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in balancing the § 3553 factors, and the sentence accordingly
was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.
VI.
Williams’s multiple arguments fail. The district court did not err in denying
Williams’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams attempted to purchase
a kilogram of heroin with the intent to distribute. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting testimony about the slang Williams used and the DEA’s
14
Case: 16-16822 Date Filed: 12/19/2017 Page: 15 of 15
evidentiary shipping and handling procedures because this testimony was relevant
to the charges and clarified questions Williams asked on cross-examination.
Because the district court did not err in admitting this testimony, there was no
cumulative error. The district court did not err in relying on the jury’s
determination of the drug quantity, because the government introduced sufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams attempted to purchase
a kilogram of heroin with the intent to distribute. The district court did not plainly
err in applying the career offender enhancement because Williams’s prior
convictions both qualified as controlled substance offenses and the government did
not need to prove Williams’s prior convictions to the jury beyond a reasonable
doubt in order for the district court to consider the convictions at sentencing.
Finally, Williams’s total sentence of 360 months, at the low end of his guideline
range, was substantively reasonable because the district court took into account the
totality of the circumstances and the purposes of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in
determining Williams’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
15
