United States v. Haile

• Decision Date: 29 June 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. 10–15965,11–10017.,s. 10–15965
• Citation: 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1244,685 F.3d 1211
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Randy Vana HAILE, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Mark Anthony Beckford, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

685 F.3d 1211

23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1244

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Randy Vana HAILE, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Mark Anthony Beckford, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 10–15965, 11–10017.

United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.

June 29, 2012.

Rodney D. Bullard, Asst. U.S. Atty., Steven D. Grimberg, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Bret R. Williams, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney's Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Donald F. Samuel, Kristen Wright Novay, Garland Samuel & Loeb, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant–Appellant in No. 10–15965.

Kendal Silas, Stephanie A. Kearns, Fed. Def. Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant–Appellant in No. 11–10017.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Randy Vana Haile and Mark Anthony Beckford were convicted of conspiracy and attempt to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine and knowing possession of several firearms in conjunction with their drug-trafficking offenses. The district court sentenced Beckford and Haile to 438 months and 468 months of imprisonment, respectively. Beckford now appeals his conviction and sentence, and Haile appeals his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

Haile and Beckford were charged by superseding indictment with: conspiracy to possess at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), and 846 (Count 1); attempt to do the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii) and (vii), and 846 (Counts 2 and 3); knowing possession of 5 enumerated firearms, including a machine gun, in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (B)(i), and (B)(ii) (Count 4); possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k) and 924(a)(1)(B) (Count 6); and possession of an unregistered machine gun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(b), and 5861(d) (Count 7). Haile was also charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a) (Count 5).

At trial, several Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents testified about the reverse-sting operation that led to the defendants' arrest. The agents testified that a confidential informant (CI) provided information that Beckford, who lived in Atlanta, was seeking a marijuana supplier. At the DEA's request, the CI told Beckford about a man named Rodriguez, an undercover agent posing as a marijuana supplier.

Thereafter, the CI and Rodriguez met with Beckford in San Antonio.¹ Rodriguez proposed a price of $300 per pound of marijuana, to which Beckford replied, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” Beckford stated that he would take 1,000 pounds, “If it's good,” and that he would like the drugs to be delivered to the Jamaica Flava restaurant in Atlanta.

Before the meeting concluded, the CI asked Rodriguez, in front of Beckford, “Did you tell him about the white stuff?” Rodriguez said to Beckford, “I give you good price too.” Beckford responded, “I'll call you,” and the two exchanged telephone numbers. Later, on the phone, Beckford agreed to give Rodriguez a $25,000 security deposit for the marijuana and to meet with one of Rodriguez's associates, undercover agent Arrugueta, in Atlanta. At some point during the phone conversations, the two discussed guns. And the CI confirmed that Beckford had easy access to guns.

When Beckford met with Arrugueta, Haile was also present. Arrugueta asked Beckford, “Did [Rodriguez] talk to you about the tools?” Beckford replied, “Yeah, yeah, yeah. He talked to me about it.” Arrugueta asked, “What kind do you have?” Beckford said, “my people ... got the AK,” which Arrugueta understood to mean any assault rifle, not just an AK–47. Arrugueta asked, “machine gun?” Beckford said, “Yep.” When Arrugueta asked what Beckford's “people” wanted for the gun, Beckford said drugs, not money. Beckford said he had “like six [guns] so far” to exchange in the deal. Arrugueta, Haile, and Beckford agreed to exchange two pounds of marijuana for each gun.

After Haile and Beckford left the meeting with Arrugueta, they spoke with Rodriguez, and the parties decided that Beckford and Haile would fly to San Antonio the next day to meet Rodriguez and discuss the marijuana deal. At the meeting, Rodriguez confirmed that he would deliver 500 pounds of marijuana, at a price of $300 per pound, to the Jamaica Flava restaurant in Atlanta.

Rodriguez again mentioned that he distributed cocaine, and Haile asked Rodriguez about the quality and quantity of cocaine Rodriguez distributed. Rodriguez offered to give Haile and Beckford a kilogram of cocaine for $23,000, and Haile replied, “Uh-hmm.”

Rodriguez then asked what kind of “nail gun,” which he and Beckford had spoken about earlier, Beckford had. Beckford replied, “It's a machine gun, AK.” Then Rodriguez asked, “you want white?” Haile responded that Rodriguez “could throw two or three” kilograms onto the marijuana load. Haile told Rodriguez, “if it's good, I'd get it, like couple days probably.” Rodriguez agreed. At the conclusion of the meeting, Haile and Beckford gave Rodriguez the $25,000 deposit.

A few days later, Rodriguez spoke with Beckford by phone. Rodriguez said, “I got all [the] food you need for the store,” and, “I also bring ... three sugar bag for, for your friend.” Beckford replied, “Yeah, ‘cause I got somebody waiting.” On the morning of the scheduled drug delivery, Rodriguez called Beckford and asked if he had the “power tool.” Beckford repeatedly stated, “I'm working on it right now.”

That same day, Rodriguez and other DEA agents staged a U–Haul trailer containing hundreds of pounds of marijuana and several kilograms of cocaine at a hotel in Atlanta. Rodriguez met with Beckford and Haile in the hotel parking lot and permitted Haile to inspect the drugs. Rodriguez then asked Haile and Beckford how much money they could pay at that time. Beckford stated that he and Haile had access to $70,000 and could probably come up with more. Rodriguez said, “and the tool?” Haile asked in response, “Oh, you want the tools now?” Rodriguez said that he did, so the three continued to negotiate Haile and Beckford's payment of guns and money. Rodriguez asked, “you bring five gun?” And Beckford replied, “Yeah.” Then, Beckford and Haile left to obtain the rest of the payment.

Agents stationed at Jamaica Flava then observed several men loading large, heavy bags into the back of a truck registered to Beckford. Beckford and Haile drove the truck back to the hotel, but left the parking lot when they realized Rodriguez was not present. They drove to a nearby restaurant where DEA agents arrested them.

Agents found a Glock .45 caliber pistol on Haile. In Beckford's truck, agents found: (1) $70,000 in a plastic bag in the back seat; (2) a loaded .40 caliber handgun in a holster in the center console; (3) a bag containing loose cash, Jamaica Flava business cards, and loose marijuana in the back seat; (4) two Norinco 7.62 caliber SKS rifles, one with an obliterated serial number, in the vehicle's flatbed; and (5) a 9–millimeter, an M–11 machine gun (not registered to either defendant), a bulletproof vest, and ammunition for a .40 caliber, a 7.62 caliber, and a 9–millimeter, all inside a gym bag in the flatbed.

At the conclusion of the trial, counsel for the defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. Defense counsel specifically argued that Count 4, which charged possession of a machine gun, failed to properly allege an offense because the indictment charged the defendants with knowing possession of firearms “during and in relation to and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.” (emphasis added). The district court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, finding that the “during and in relation to” language was mere surplusage. The court struck that language from the indictment and later excluded “during and in relation to” from its jury instructions on Count 4.

Also in the motion for judgment of acquittal, defense counsel argued that the government's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the defendants knew they possessed a machine gun. The court denied the motion, but included on the verdict forms a question asking the jury about the defendants' knowledge of the gun's characteristics.

At the charge conference, Beckford's counsel requested that the court charge the jury on “outrageous government conduct” based on the defense's theory that the government ratcheted up the defendants' charges through the sting operation. The court denied the request. Beckford's counsel also asked the district court to instruct the jury on the definition of “machine gun,” and the court agreed to do so. The court, however, did not instruct the jury on the definition, even though it had agreed the instruction was proper. The jury found both defendants guilty on all counts.

At sentencing, Beckford requested a reduction based on alleged sentencing factor manipulation, arguing that the government improperly increased the amount of drugs involved in the transaction. The district court denied his request. The court emphasized that Beckford and Haile were “the ones that had this machine gun,” the possession of which required a 30–year mandatory minimum sentence on Count 4.

The court ultimately sentenced Beckford to 438 months' imprisonment, which was at the low end of his guidelines range. This included a mandatory 360–month sentence on Count 4; a 78–month sentence on each of Counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, to be served concurrently with one another; and a 60–month sentence on Count 6, possession of a firearm with an obliterated...