Case: 11-14552 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 11-14552
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20215-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN MELTON KIVETT,
a.k.a. Steven Kivett,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________________________
(August 29, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 11-14552 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
This appeal involves a maritime offense. The defendant was on supervised
release at the time of the offense.
Defendant, Steven Melton Kivett, appeals his conviction and 39-month
sentence, imposed within the guideline range, after being found guilty by a jury for
one count of failure to heave to, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2237(a)(1).
Briefly stated, Kivett presents these issues:
(1) Whether the evidence, including Kivett’s own testimony and Border
Protection’s use of flashing blue lights, sirens, two red flares, and
disabling shots were sufficient to support Kivett’s conviction
although no oral order to heave to was delivered from the marked
patrol boat;
(2) Whether the district court properly admitted Kivett’s judgment and
commitment order (J&C) from a prior alien-smuggling conviction
under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to show motive;
(3) Whether the district court erred in permitting the introduction of the
J&C from Kivett’s prior alien-smuggling conviction without
requiring a witness to introduce the document; and
2
Case: 11-14552 Date Filed: 08/29/2012 Page: 3 of 3
(4) Whether Kivett’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
exceeded an amount necessary to fulfill the statutory goals of
sentencing.
The evidence at trial of the marked patrol boat’s use of flashing blue lights,
spotlights, siren flares, and disabling shots are sufficient to support the jury’s
guilty verdict. Especially given the limiting instructions, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by admitting Kivett’s prior J&C because it went to his motive
and served as an integral and natural account of the circumstances surrounding the
charged offense. Again given the limiting instructions on use, there are no
meritorious Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause issues because Kivett’s
proposed cross-examination of his J&C were not relevant to resolution of the
ultimate issues of the case. For background, see United States v. Lyons, 403 F.3d
1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 2005). Finally, Kivett has not shown that his guideline-
range sentence was unreasonable, given his demonstrated and dangerous disregard
for the law.
We affirm Kivett’s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3