United States v. Gatson ( 2021 )

Case: 20-40503 Document: 00515935872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 13, 2021
No. 20-40503
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Desmond Deray Gatson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CR-38-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Desmond Deray Gatson appeals his jury conviction for possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). Gatson contends that the district court abused its discretion by
admitting his September 15, 2017 and July 9, 2018 Facebook posts of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40503 Document: 00515935872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-40503
unrelated firearms under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). He argues that
these posts were not relevant to show his intent and knowledge and that any
probative value was significantly outweighed by the danger of undue
prejudice.
A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Kinchen, 729 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2013). We
analyze Rule 404(b) admissions under the two-prong test outlined in United
States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). “First, it must
be determined that the extrinsic offense evidence is relevant to an issue other
than the defendant’s character.” Id. “Second, the evidence must possess
probative value that is not substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice
and must meet the other requirements of [Federal Rule of Evidence] 403.”
Id.Here, a firearm was discovered under the driver’s seat of a vehicle
driven by Gatson. Gatson’s defense theory was that his mother, who owned
both the firearm and the vehicle, accidently left the firearm in the vehicle and
he had no knowledge of it when he later borrowed the vehicle. Thus, by
pleading not guilty, Gatson put his intent and knowledge at issue. See United
States v. Arnold, 467 F.3d 880, 885 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Gatson’s
Facebook posts showed his willingness and opportunity to possess firearms
and not his character, the first prong of the Beechum test is satisfied. See
Beechum, 582 F.2d at 910-11. Insofar as Gatson contends that there is no
proof that he committed an “illegal extrinsic act,” his arguments are
unpersuasive. An extrinsic offense is not required to be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, but, instead, “the task for the trial judge is to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendant in
fact committed the extrinsic offense.” Id. at 913. Gatson’s own words in the
captions of the Facebook posts were sufficient evidence for the jury to infer
his intent and deduce that he had committed the extrinsic acts.
2
Case: 20-40503 Document: 00515935872 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-40503
Having considered the relevant factors, Kinchen, 729 F.3d at 473, as
well as the overall prejudicial effect of the extrinsic evidence, United States v.
Juarez, 866 F.3d 622, 627 (5th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the potential
prejudice of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value.
The evidence was probative of Gatson’s intent and knowledge, and the risk
of prejudice was sufficiently mitigated by the district court’s preliminary
instructions regarding the essential elements of the offense and the
instructions it gave at the close of the case regarding the limited purposes for
which the other acts evidence could be considered. See United States v.
Garcia, 567 F.3d 721, 728-29 (5th Cir. 2009). While Gatson argues that the
Facebook posts unfairly prejudiced the jury, they were not of a “heinous
nature” that would “incite the jury to irrational decision by [their] force on
human emotion” and were not “greater in magnitude” than the charged
offense. Juarez, 866 F.3d at 629-30 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). There was also “little opportunity of creating unfair prejudice”
under Rule 404(b), as the challenged posts “did not occupy a significant
portion of the trial.” United States v. Adair, 436 F.3d 520, 527 (5th Cir.
2006).
Finally, even if we were to conclude that the district court abused its
discretion by admitting the Facebook posts, the error was harmless. See
United States v. Hawley, 516 F.3d 264, 268-69 (5th Cir. 2008). The evidence
at trial established that Gatson was the primary driver of the vehicle. In
particular, Gatson had incurred two traffic violations in 2019 before the
February 8, 2019 offense, many of the recovered items linked Gatson to the
vehicle, and other Facebook posts not challenged on appeal showed Gatson
with the vehicle. Additionally, his wallet and phone were recovered from the
same place as the loaded ammunition magazine, and Gatson made a
spontaneous statement to the arresting officer about the gun case in the
vehicle, which suggested knowledge of the firearm being in the vehicle. In
3
Case: 20-40503 Document: 00515935872 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-40503
light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there is no reasonable possibility
that the Facebook posts contributed to the jury’s verdict. See id. at 268.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
4