UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL O. WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00123-RGD-TEM-4)
Submitted: July 9, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil
H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
Timothy R. Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia;
Matthew J. Sutton, Second Year Law Student, WILLIAM AND MARY LAW
SCHOOL, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. Watkins appeals his convictions relating to the
robbery of a gas station with his accomplice, Roderick Spratley.
Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Watkins and Spratley robbed the Solo gas station in
Hampton, Virginia on the afternoon of July 25, 2008. A multi-
camera surveillance system inside the store recorded the
robbery, and the recordings were admitted into evidence at
Watkins’s trial. In addition, Spratley and three other
eyewitnesses to the crime testified against Watkins regarding
the events of that day.
Spratley, who pleaded guilty to multiple crimes relating to
the robbery, testified that the night before the robbery,
Watkins initiated a conversation with him in which Watkins
stated that he knew Spratley was “on the run” as the result of
having committed three prior robberies. J.A. 297. Watkins also
knew Spratley had a gun because Watkins had seen the gun that
night. Watkins stated that he needed some money, and he offered
to assist Spratley the next time he committed a robbery. The
following afternoon, Spratley told Watkins that he would be
willing to work with Watkins if they could get transportation.
Watkins promptly made the necessary arrangements.
2
Suzanne Peters, an acquaintance of Watkins’s, testified
that Watkins called her on July 25, 2008, and persuaded her,
without revealing their criminal intentions, to pick him and
Spratley up in Portsmouth and drive them to Watkins’s uncle’s
house in Hampton in exchange for $30. After picking the men up
that afternoon, but before leaving Portsmouth, Peters stopped
for gas at a convenience store. While she was in the store,
Watkins and Spratley decided that their target would be the Solo
gas station in Hampton.
Spratley testified concerning how they committed the
robbery. When they arrived at the Solo gas station, the men
asked Peters to park at an apartment complex near the gas
station. Spratley got out of the car to “observe the store,”
leaving his handgun, a .38 caliber revolver, in the car. J.A.
303. Taking the gun from the car, Watkins walked toward the
store, asked employees a question at the side window, and met
Spratley in front of the store. After Watkins told Spratley he
had his gun, the two men entered the store. They walked to the
back and Watkins surreptitiously handed Spratley the gun.
Because there were several customers in the store, however,
Spratley and Watkins did not commence the robbery right away.
While they waited, Watkins removed a six-pack of beer and a
bottle of wine from the store’s refrigerator, hiding them inside
his pants.
3
According to the testimony of the store manager, Ashok
Patel, in a minute or two, Watkins gave a visible hand signal to
Spratley apparently indicating that Spratley should start the
robbery. Spratley then advanced to the counter and asked to buy
a cigar, prompting cashier Debra Sechrist to open the register.
When she did so, Spratley jumped over the counter, brandished
his handgun, and said, “Give me the money.” J.A. 95 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Moving away from the register,
Sechrist proceeded toward the open end of the counter; however,
Watkins went behind the counter himself, cutting her off and
pushing her back toward Patel. Spratley removed the money from
the store’s cash register.
During the robbery, one customer, Timothy Tooley, remained
in the store. After Watkins restrained Sechrist, Spratley told
Tooley not to leave and instructed Watkins to get his cell
phone. Watkins then approached Tooley and demanded his phone.
When Tooley refused, Watkins threatened to “pull [his] piece.”
J.A. 74 (internal quotation marks omitted). After Watkins
repeated his demand several times, Spratley exited through the
gas station window and Watkins left the store quickly as well.
The two then returned to Peters’s car and drove off.
When a Hampton Police Department officer responding to the
robbery subsequently attempted to execute a traffic stop of
Peters’s vehicle, Peters led the police on a high-speed chase,
4
which ended when she lost control of her car and drove off the
road. After exiting the vehicle and attempting to flee on foot,
Watkins was apprehended. A search of his person incident to his
arrest revealed nearly $300.
Watkins was eventually charged in a superseding indictment
with one count each of obstruction of interstate commerce by
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 (West 2000),
conspiracy to possess and brandish a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(o) (West
Supp. 2010), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West
Supp. 2010).
At Watkins’s trial, the parties disagreed regarding the
admissibility of certain government exhibits derived from video
taken by the store surveillance system. Karyn Buhrman, a
forensic specialist with the Hampton Police Division Crime Scene
Unit, testified that she went to the store the day after the
robbery, viewed the video recordings from the store surveillance
system, and downloaded the recordings from six of the cameras to
a thumb drive. She then took the data back to her crime screen
unit, where she downloaded it onto the computer used for storing
photos and videos. Eventually, copies were provided to the
government and defense counsel. Buhrman testified that the
government’s video exhibits contained exactly the same video
5
that she saw when she watched the video at the scene the day
after the robbery, with the caveat that two of the exhibits
omitted material in the middle of the video that did not show
any activity. Tooley, Patel, and Spratley also testified that
the videos they viewed accurately reflected the events that
occurred on the day in question. When the government moved to
admit the videos into evidence, defense counsel objected,
contending that Buhrman’s testimony showed that the tapes were
not accurate. Finding that the tapes were accurate, the
district court overruled the objection.
Watkins testified in his own defense. He maintained that
he had no idea prior to the robbery that Spratley was going to
rob the store and denied any participation in the robbery. He
also stated that the government’s video exhibits did not
accurately reflect the events that occurred that day.
After the trial, Watkins was convicted on all counts. He
was sentenced to 170 months’ imprisonment on the Hobbs Act
count, 170 months on the conspiracy count, to be served
concurrently, and 84 months on the § 924(c) count, to be served
consecutively to the other two terms.
II.
On appeal, Watkins first challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his three convictions, contending that proof
6
of each charged offense required showing that he acted in
concert with Spratley regarding the robbery but arguing that the
government failed to offer sufficient evidence on that point.
We disagree.
We must affirm the jury’s verdict against a sufficiency
challenge “if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the Government, to support [it].” United
States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence is
“evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We conclude that the
evidence of Watkins’s participation was sufficient with regard
to each of the charged offenses.
A.
To prove a Hobbs Act violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the
government must establish two elements: (1) commission of the
underlying robbery or extortion crime; and (2) an effect on
interstate commerce. See United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d
350, 353 (4th Cir. 2003). “A defendant is guilty of aiding and
abetting if he has knowingly associated himself with and
participated in the criminal venture.” Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873
(internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2(a) (West
7
2000) (“Whoever commits an offense against the United States or
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its
commission, is punishable as a principal.”). To prove that
association, the government need only establish that the
defendant was “cognizant of the principal’s criminal intent and
the lawlessness of his activity.” Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873.
“[P]articipation in every stage of an illegal venture is not
required, only participation at some stage accompanied by
knowledge of the result and intent to bring about that result.”
United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 1983)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Watkins’s sufficiency challenge concerns only the first
Hobbs Act element, and we conclude that the evidence at trial
was sufficient to establish this element. Spratley testified
that Watkins brought Spratley’s gun into the store and gave it
to him. * The evidence also tended to show that Watkins took
action to prevent those in the store from calling the police.
The store video shows that when Spratley jumped over the
counter, Sechrist began to move away from the register as if she
*
The government’s video exhibits neither confirm nor
contradict this testimony. Exhibits 2a and 8 show a few seconds
where the two men are next to each other in the back of the
store and Watkins could be passing Spratley his gun, but the men
are partially obscured from view at the critical time in both
videos.
8
were attempting to get out from behind the counter. Watkins
quickly came around the counter, however, and pushed her back
toward Patel. Tooley further testified that Watkins, acting on
Spratley’s instruction, repeatedly demanded that Tooley give
Watkins his cell phone. The government also presented testimony
from a former cellmate of Watkins’s who claimed that Watkins
admitted to planning to rob the store with Spratley and then
executing their plan.
B.
The evidence was also sufficient to prove a violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(o). To prove such a violation, the government
must show that the defendant conspired to commit a § 924(c)
offense. “It is not necessary to prove a formal agreement to
establish a conspiracy in violation of federal law; a tacit or
mutual understanding among or between the parties will suffice.”
United States v. DePew, 932 F.2d 324, 326 (4th Cir. 1991). The
government may establish a violation of § 924(c) by showing that
a defendant “during and in relation to any crime of violence or
drug trafficking crime . . . use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm,” 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A), or that the defendant possessed a
firearm “in furtherance of any such crime.” Id.
Spratley testified that the night before the robbery,
Watkins had offered to assist in Spratley’s next robbery and
that Watkins arranged transportation for the men for a robbery
9
the next day. Spratley testified that Watkins knew Spratley had
a gun because Watkins saw the gun the night before the robbery
and that while the two never explicitly agreed that Spratley
would use the gun to rob the store, that point was implicit in
their discussions because Spratley was “not going to rob it with
[his] fingers.” J.A. 305. Indeed, Watkins’s action in bringing
Spratley his gun in the store constituted an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
C.
Finally, the evidence was sufficient to prove the
substantive § 924(c) violation. Spratley’s testimony that
Watkins carried Spratley’s gun into the store and gave it to
Spratley to use in the robbery was certainly sufficient in that
regard.
III.
Watkins also argues that the district court erred in
admitting the videos of the crime scene over his objection that
the tapes were altered and unreliable. In support of his claim,
Watkins relies on Buhrman’s testimony that the tapes had been
edited and the fact that there was a discrepancy in the time
stamps between the store video and the time stamps in the video
taken from the police cars that pursued Peters. We review a
district court’s decision concerning admissibility of evidence
10
for an abuse of discretion, which we will not find unless the
decision was “arbitrary and irrational.” United States v.
Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude that the
district court was well within its discretion here.
The time stamps’ discrepancy in no way undercuts the
district court’s determination that the tapes accurately
depicted the events on the day of the crime. That the time
stamp on the store surveillance video was slightly different
from that on the police car video at most shows that the time
stamp on the store video was not correct. (Patel noted in his
testimony that there was “always a difference between the
computer clock [that time stamped the store video] and [the
store’s] regular clock.” J.A. 134.) But, the exact time of the
events in question here was not a material issue in this case.
Moreover, Buhrman testified that she downloaded the videos
personally from the store’s camera system the day after the
robbery. And, several witnesses testified that the store
videotapes accurately depicted the events that occurred on the
day of the robbery. As Watkins presented the district court
with no reason to doubt the reliability of the footage contained
in the government’s exhibits, the court was well within its
discretion in admitting them.
11
IV.
In sum, because we find no error, we affirm Watkins’s
convictions.
AFFIRMED
12