700 Fed.Appx. 947 (11th Cir. 2017), 16-17402, United States v. Harrison

Docket Nº:16-17402
Citation:700 Fed.Appx. 947
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sefton Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Francis Viamontes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Timothy Cone, Richard C. Klugh, PA, Washington, DC, Daryl Elliott Wil...
Judge Panel:Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 06, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 947

700 Fed.Appx. 947 (11th Cir. 2017)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Sefton Carl HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17402

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

July 6, 2017

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60114-WPD-1

John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Francis Viamontes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Timothy Cone, Richard C. Klugh, PA, Washington, DC, Daryl Elliott Wilcox, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sefton Carl Harrison appeals his convictions for possessing with intent to distribute

Page 948

and for importing a detectable amount of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § § 841, 960(b)(3). Harrison argues that there was no " evidence of [his] ‘active efforts’ to avoid knowing that his suitcase contained cocaine" to support a jury instruction on deliberate ignorance. We affirm.

Harrison acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Stone, 9 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 1993). In Stone, we held that an error in giving an instruction on deliberate ignorance is harmless if the instruction " clearly stated the proper legal standards for the jury to apply, ... by its terms the instruction did not apply if there was insufficient evidence to prove deliberate ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt," and there was sufficient evidence of actual knowledge. Id. at 941; see United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 858 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court instructed the jury that " you may find that [Harrison] knew about the possession of a controlled substance if you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that [Harrison], one, actually...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP