United States v. Ronald Robert Evans, Sr.

[UNPUBLISHED]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 07-10622 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 2, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 05-00159-CR-J-32HTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD ROBERT EVANS, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10821
D.C. Docket No. 05-00159-CR-J-32MMH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEQUITA DUMBAR EVANS,
a.k.a. Quilla
a.k.a. Quita
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(May 2, 2008)
Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG*, Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Robert Evans, Sr. (“Ronald”), appeals his sentence and conviction
for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise of crack cocaine distribution,
trafficking in contraband cigarettes, discharging pollutants, unlawfully procuring
transportation of farm laborers, structuring currency transactions, and witness
tampering. Ronald’s co-defendant, Jequita Dumbar Evans, appeals her conviction
for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and structuring currency transactions.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we conclude that all of the appellants’ arguments in
support of their appeals of their convictions are meritless. First, the appellants fail
to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of the motion to sever the charges
resulted in “compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no
*Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade,
sitting by designation.
2
protection.” United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (11th Cir. 1993). Second,
Ronald asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it declined to
instruct the jury to identify which five persons Ronald organized or supervised
while engaging in the continuing criminal enterprise. This argument is foreclosed
by United States v. Moorman, 944 F.2d 801, 803 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)
(holding that district court is not required to instruct a jury to unanimously agree
on the identity of the five persons the defendant supervised). Finally, we find no
error in any of the district court’s evidentiary decisions or jury instructions. As
such, the appellants’ additional arguments relating to their convictions are
meritless.
Ronald also appeals his sentence. He claims that the district court erred when it
considered the 100:1 crack-to-powder ratio in the sentencing guidelines as
mandatory. In light of intervening Supreme Court precedent, we hold that the
district court erred when it applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion by
refusing to consider the crack-powder disparity in sentencing Ronald. We
therefore vacate Ronald’s sentence and remand for the limited purpose of
resentencing in light of United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 558,
169 L. Ed. 2d 481 (2007).
AFFIRMED IN PART; Appellant Ronald Evans’ sentence is VACATED
AND REMANDED.
3