Case: 16-10271 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10271
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20665-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY JAMES BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 27, 2016)
Case: 16-10271 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, George Baker appeals his convictions for attempted
carjacking, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1), and for brandishing a firearm in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On
appeal, Baker argues that insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions.
No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction,
construing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government” and
“resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.” United States v.
Farley, 607 F.3d 1294, 1333 (11th Cir. 2010). “We will not reverse unless no
reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “[W]e
assume that the jury made all credibility choices in support of the verdict.” United
States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009).
To obtain a conviction for carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, “the
government must prove that the defendant (1) with intent to cause death or serious
bodily harm (2) took a motor vehicle (3) that had been transported, shipped or
received in interstate or foreign commerce (4) from the person or presence of
2
Case: 16-10271 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 3 of 5
another (5) by force and violence or intimidation.” United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d
1065, 1096 (11th Cir. 2001). “The intent requirement of § 2119 is satisfied when
the Government proves that at the moment the defendant demanded or took control
over the driver’s automobile the defendant possessed the intent to seriously harm
or kill the driver if necessary to steal the car.” Holloway v. United States, 119 S.
Ct. 966, 972 (1999).
Because Baker was charged with attempted carjacking, the government need
only show that Baker “had the specific intent to engage in criminal conduct and
that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense.” See United
States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1369 (11th Cir. 1994).
On appeal, Baker argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove either that
he intended to steal the victim’s car or that he intended to harm seriously or to kill
the victim. If his attempted carjacking conviction is unsupported by sufficient
evidence, Baker contends his conviction for brandishing a gun during that offense
must also be vacated.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Baker was guilty of both offenses. Evidence introduced at
trial shows -- and Baker does not dispute -- that, on the night of the alleged
carjacking, Baker entered the backseat of a van in which two men were sitting,
3
Case: 16-10271 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 4 of 5
pointed a gun at the men, and said “give me everything you got.” After taking the
victims’ cellphones and money, Baker led the victims (still at gunpoint) inside a
house. One of the victims testified that Baker threatened verbally to kill them if
they failed to cooperate. Once inside, Baker ordered the victims to get on their
knees as Baker searched for more cash.
After leading the victims back out of the house, Baker locked one of the
victims inside the van. Baker then asked the second victim about the silver Infiniti
sedan that was parked inside the house’s fenced-in yard. While pointing the gun at
the victim, Baker demanded the keys to the Infiniti. The victim testified that he
gave Baker the car keys. Baker then walked the victim to the gate leading to the
area where the car was parked. Baker continued to point his gun at the back of the
victim’s head and threatened to shoot the victim if he did not do as he was told.
Baker also hit the victim with the gun to prevent the victim from turning around.
Baker then opened the gate. Shortly after the gate was opened, the victim managed
to tackle and to subdue Baker. Baker was arrested on the scene.
In the light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could have found that -- when
Baker demanded the car keys and led the victim toward the gate -- Baker intended
to steal the victim’s car and intended, if necessary, to use violence against the
victim if he resisted. Because sufficient evidence supports a finding that Baker had
4
Case: 16-10271 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 5 of 5
the requisite intent to commit a carjacking offense, and because Baker took a
“substantial step” toward that offense, we will not reverse the jury’s verdict.
AFFIRMED.
5