[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-13660 JULY 12, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-60090-CR-DMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMAUR LEWIS,
CURTIS SOLOMON,
DEVON CHANCE,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 12, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,* District Judge.
*
Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Jamaur Lewis, Curtis Solomon, and Devon Chance appeal their convictions
and sentences after a jury convicted them on multiple counts of Hobbs Act
robbery, carrying a firearm in connection with each of the robberies, and
conspiracy to commit the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c), and
924(o) respectively, contained in a 36-count second superceding indictment.
Defendant Solomon, charged in all 36 counts, was found guilty of Counts 1
through 22 and 25 through 36, and not guilty of Counts 23 and 24. Defendant
Lewis, charged in 14 counts, was found guilty of Counts 1 and 2, 9 and 10, and 13
through 20, and not guilty of Counts 23 and 24. Defendant Chance, charged in 16
counts, was found guilty of Counts 1 and 2, and 25 through 36, and not guilty of
Counts 23 and 24. Defendant Solomon was sentenced to a total of 4,641 months
imprisonment; defendant Lewis was sentenced to a total of 1,347 months
imprisonment; and defendant Chance was sentenced as a career offender to a total
of 1,794 months imprisonment.
Defendant Lewis1 raises the following claims: (1) The district court erred by
(a) overruling a defense challenge for cause and allowing a juror (Juror Forbes),
who had been a robbery victim and could not provide assurance of her ability to be
1
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(i), all appellants have adopted the appellate briefs and
arguments of co-appellants.
2
fair, to be seated as a juror over defense objection, and (b) denying defendants’
alternative request for an additional peremptory challenge; (2) The evidence was
insufficient to support the convictions; (3) The district court erred in admitting
speculative and unreliable lay opinion testimony and cell tower maps by a deputy
U.S. Marshal regarding the interpretation of cellular telephone tower signals, in
violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 and appellants’ due process
rights; (4) The district court committed multiple trial errors, including (a)
admission of prejudicial hearsay evidence of extra-judicial admissions by co-
defendants Solomon and Chance, (b) admission of recorded jailhouse
conversations between co-defendants Lewis and Solomon which were in the
government’s possession but were not disclosed to the defense until seven days
after the start of the trial, and denial of a requested continuance, and (c) denial of
requests for a mistrial or curative instruction following an improper burden-
shifting closing argument by the government which was unfairly prejudicial and
rendered the trial process fundamentally unfair; and (5) The district court erred in
imposing consecutive sentences for each count charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c).
Defendant Solomon raises the following claims: (1) The district court erred
in denying a motion to suppress evidence found during a search of Solomon’s
3
residence pursuant to a search warrant by (a) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing
under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978),
and (b) finding the informant to have been reliable; (2) The district court erred in
denying (a) a challenge for cause to Juror Forbes, and (b) a defense request for
additional peremptory challenges given the nature of the case; (3) The district court
erred in refusing to re-seat an alternate juror when Juror Forbes had to be excused
for health reasons after the jury had been deliberating for approximately three and
one-half hours, and instead proceeded with eleven jurors; (4) The district court
erred in denying requests for a short continuance after the last minute disclosure of
cooperating witness William Arias; (5) The district court abused its discretion and
violated due process by admitting evidence of recorded telephone conversations
between defendants Solomon and Lewis while they were incarcerated, which the
government failed to disclose pre-trial; (6) The district court erred in admitting cell
phone tower mapping evidence and unreliable lay opinion testimony from a deputy
U.S. Marshal under the guise of lay opinion testimony; (7) There was not sufficient
evidence to support all counts of the robberies where witnesses failed to identify
Solomon or other co-defendants as the robbers, and appellants’ Rule 29 motions
should have been granted; (8) The enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for
multiple convictions, which resulted in a sentence of 4,641 months for Solomon,
4
(a) were unconstitutionally applied and (b) violated due process and the Eighth
Amendment.
Defendant Chance raises the following claims: (1) There was insufficient
evidence to prove his guilt of any of the offenses; (2) The district court erred by
denying his motion for severance based on the cumulative prejudicial effect of
spillover evidence; (3) The district court erred in denying his motion in limine and
objections to prejudicial documentary and testimonial evidence concerning his
prior jail custody; (4) The district court erred by admitting hearsay and opinion
evidence that the defendants were involved in or admitted involvement in
robberies; (5) The district court violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88
S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 476 (1968) by admitting a jailhouse confession and other
statements by a co-defendant; (6) The district court erred in admitting evidence of
criminal activities pre-dating the charged conspiracy; (7) The district court erred in
denying a request for a continuance to address the government’s late disclosure of
a material cooperating witness and the need to provide for travel of a defense
witness to rebut that testimony; (8) The district court erred by admitting recorded
telephone calls between Solomon and Lewis while incarcerated; (9) The district
court erred by admitting the unqualified opinion testimony as to the cellular
telecommunications process; (10) The district court erred in imposing multiple
5
consecutive imprisonment sentences for the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts; (11) The
district court violated defendant’s due process, equal protection, and cruel and
unusual punishment rights; and (12) The district court erroneously sentenced him
as a career offender when he had only one prior qualifying conviction.
We review preserved Bruton claims for abuse of discretion and evaluate any
Bruton error for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Turner,
474 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007). We have stated the proper Bruton standard
as being that “a defendant’s confrontation right is violated when the court admits a
codefendant statement that, in light of the Government’s whole case, compels a
reasonable person to infer the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Schwartz, 541
F.3d 1331, 1351 (11th Cir. 2008)(footnote omitted). A Bruton error does not
require a new trial if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which we find when
“the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial
effect of the co-defendant’s statement so insignificant, that beyond any reasonable
doubt the improper use of the statement was harmless.” Schwartz, 541 F.3d at
1353-54 (quoting United States v. Doherty, 233 F.3d 1275, 1282 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Applying these standards, we find that even if the district court committed error in
admitting the evidence, any such Bruton error would be harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt in light of the entirety of the record evidence.
6
After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and having had the
benefit of oral argument, we find the other arguments either lack merit or are
foreclosed by circuit precedent, and no abuse of discretion or reversible error has
been shown. We affirm all convictions and sentences.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
7