United States v. Henry Hill , 524 F. App'x 554 ( 2013 )

Case: 13-10043 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 13-10043
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00044-RH-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRY HILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
__________________________
(July 31, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Hill appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal,
Hill contends that the Government neither presented sufficient evidence that he
Case: 13-10043 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 2 of 3
was engaged in a drug trafficking crime nor sufficient evidence that his firearm
possession furthered the crime.
Hill was charged in Count One for possessing crack cocaine with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 841(b)(1)(C), and in Count Two
for possessing a semiautomatic pistol in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime
charged in Count One, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was
convicted on both Counts, but on this appeal he challenges only his firearms
conviction under Count Two. We affirm. 1
Hill contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a conclusion that
he was engaged in a drug transaction at the time in question and that the evidence
was insufficient to support a conclusion that there was some nexus between the
firearm and the drug transaction.
First, the Government presented sufficient evidence that Hill was engaged in
a drug trafficking crime at the time in question on May 25, 2012. Andrew
Woodard’s testimony supports the finding that Hill was meeting him to sell him
drugs. To be sure, Woodard’s testimony was at times inconsistent. But
Woodard’s credibility was a question for the jury. See United States v. Thompson,
1
The parties contend that we review de novo whether sufficient evidence exists to
support Hill’s firearms conviction. However, Hill failed to move at any time for a judgment of
acquittal. Thus, we review the sufficiency of the evidence for manifest injustice, which requires
a finding that “the evidence on a key element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would
be shocking.” United States v. Tapia, 761 F.2d 1488, 1491–92 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting United
States v. Landers, 484 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1973)).
2
Case: 13-10043 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 3 of 3
473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The jury gets to make any credibility
choices, and we will assume that they made them all in the way that supports the
verdict.”). Here, a jury could reasonably conclude—based on Woodard’s
testimony—that Hill was engaged in a drug transaction at the time in question.
Second, the Government presented sufficient evidence that Hill’s firearm
furthered the drug trafficking crime. When the officers surrounded Hill’s Jeep they
saw him lean towards the center console—close to the place where they eventually
found a loaded Smith & Wesson .40-caliber pistol wedged between the driver’s
seat and the console. (See Dkt. 58 at 19–21, 40–41.) The officers found 3.3 grams
of crack cocaine in three small bags within one large bag in the console’s cup
holder and more than $3,000 in cash (including many small bills) in the Jeep. (Id.
at 24–27.) The Government also presented the expert testimony of an agent from
the Drug Enforcement Administration. (See id. at 60–69.) The agent testified that
drug dealers tend to have guns to protect their drugs and cash. (Id. at 62.) A jury
could reasonably conclude that Hill possessed his gun to further his drug
trafficking crime by allowing him to protect his crack cocaine and his cash. No
manifest injustice has been shown.
AFFIRMED.
3