United States v. Booker ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60076 Document: 00516936110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60076
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 18, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Devadrick Markevin Booker,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:20-CR-134-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Devadrick Markevin Booker was convicted by a jury on one count of
forcibly assaulting a federal officer engaged in the performance of his official
duties, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), and one count of discharging
a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60076 Document: 00516936110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 23-60076
On appeal, Booker challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence and
argues that the Government failed to show that he was not acting in self-
defense. Booker preserved the issue, so we apply de novo review. See United
States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007). When reviewing a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge under de novo review, we give
substantial deference to the jury verdict. United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812,
818 (5th Cir. 2013). “We do not consider whether the jury correctly
determined innocence or guilt, but whether the jury made a rational
decision.” United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002).
Although Booker stated that he believed it was the same person or persons
from an earlier shooting returning to the scene, the jury has the authority to
weigh conflicting evidence and evaluate the credibility of testimony. United
States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir. 2012).
The Government sufficiently refutes a claim of self-defense to a § 111
charge if it shows that “the defendant knew of the victim’s status or that the
defendant’s actions were not reasonably justified.” United States v. Moore,
958 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992). Under these factual circumstances, we
agree with the Government that a rational jury could have found that
Booker’s decision to shoot at the vehicle was not reasonably justified. See
Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d at 765; Moore, 958 F.2d at 649.
AFFIRMED.
2