United States v. Shataz Hampton

USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15064
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00037-LAG-TQL-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHATAZ HAMPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(October 21, 2020)
Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Appellant Shataz Hampton (“Hampton”) appeals his convictions for armed
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On
appeal, Hampton argues for the first time that the evidence presented at trial was
not sufficient to support his convictions, and that his convictions should be
reversed to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. After reviewing the record,
and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of convictions.
I.
We ordinarily review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence, with all facts
and inferences drawn in favor of the government; however, when a defendant fails
to move for a judgment of acquittal, as Hampton did in this case, we will reverse a
conviction only if necessary to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United
States v. Fries, 725 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2013). “This standard requires [us]
to find that the evidence on a key element of the offense is so tenuous that a
conviction would be shocking.” United States v. Tagg, 572 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.
2002)).
Additionally, credibility questions are the exclusive province of the jury, and
we assume that the jury answered them all in a manner that supports the jury’s
verdict. See United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009);
2
USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 3 of 6
United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005). We will not
review the jury’s credibility determination unless such testimony is incredible as a
matter of law. United States v. Feliciano, 761 F.3d 1202, 1206 (11th Cir. 2014).
Testimony is incredible when it is unbelievable on its face, such as where the
witness could not have possibly observed certain events or the events are contrary
to the laws of nature. Id. The fact that a witness has lied in the past and thought
the present testimony would benefit her does not make the testimony incredible.
Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1291.
II.
To be guilty of armed bank robbery, a defendant must knowingly take
money that belongs to a bank from a person by means of force, violence, or
intimidation and must place someone’s life in jeopardy by using a dangerous
weapon while stealing money. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). The government may
prove that a defendant used a firearm during a crime of violence by showing that
the defendant used or carried a firearm to carry out a robbery by means of
violence. See id. § 924(c)(1)(A).
Hampton contends that his convictions should be reversed because his
codefendant Kamilya Whitlock (“Whitlock”) was the only person who identified
him as a participant in the Renasant Bank robbery and her testimony was
incredible. Hampton asserts that because Whitlock had already been convicted for
3
USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 4 of 6
bank robbery, she was testifying in the hope she would receive a sentence
reduction, and this meant her testimony was not credible. Hampton also claims
that her testimony was not credible because she had previously told the police that
she had not seen Hampton with a firearm, but at Hampton’s trial, she testified to
the contrary. Thus, Hampton claims that his convictions should be reversed
because the only evidence to support the convictions was Whitlock’s incredible
testimony, which is not sufficient for a conviction.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the government
presented sufficient evidence, in addition to Whitlock’s testimony, to support
Hampton’s convictions. The Renasant Bank employees testified that there were
two robbers, a man and a woman, and the robber who brandished the shotgun was
a man. The bank employees also testified, consistent with Whitlock’s testimony,
that the robber who jumped over the counter was a woman. The government
presented the evidence of a federal agent who testified that Hampton purchased a
shotgun a week before the robbery; that the shotgun was found in a vacant lot in
Hillsborough County, Florida, about a year after the robbery; and the lot where the
gun was found is approximately five miles from the residence of Hampton’s family
members and friends, whom he visited regularly. This testimony is consistent with
Whitlock’s testimony that after the robbery, she and Hampton drove to Tampa (in
4
USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 5 of 6
Hillsborough County, Florida) and stayed with Hampton’s family and friends for
several days.
Additionally, on cross-examination, Hampton’s counsel confronted
Whitlock with her prior statements to the FBI. A few weeks after the robbery,
during her interview with FBI agents, Whitlock admitted that she knew Hampton
but had never seen him with a gun. On cross-examination, she stated that she
misled the FBI agents because she believed that if she told them that Hampton had
a shotgun, the agents would know that she and Hampton had robbed the Renasant
Bank.
Importantly, before Whitlock’s testimony and at the close of the evidence,
the district court instructed the jury that Whitlock was testifying in the hope of
receiving a lesser sentence than she would normally receive. The district court
cautioned the jury that a witness who hopes to gain more favorable treatment with
the government may have a reason to make a false statement; thus, the jury should
consider such testimony with more caution.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there was no manifest
miscarriage of justice. See Fries, 725 F.3d at 1291. We do not review Whitlock’s
credibility because her testimony was not unbelievable on its face or contrary to
the laws of nature, and other evidence presented by the government corroborated
her testimony. See Feliciano, 761 F.3d at 1206. The fact that Whitlock had
5
USCA11 Case: 19-15064 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 Page: 6 of 6
previously lied to the FBI and was testifying in the hope of receiving a lesser
sentence does not make her testimony incredible. See Thompson, 422 F.3d at
1291. The jury’s verdict indicates that it chose to believe Whitlock’s testimony,
even with the district court’s cautionary instruction. Thus, the evidence of
Hampton’s identity at the bank is not so tenuous that a conviction would be
shocking or a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Tagg, 572 F.3d at 1323;
Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1285.
Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we affirm Hampton’s
convictions.
AFFIRMED.
6