United States v. Antonio Tillmon
954 F.3d 628
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- FBI sting "Operation Rockfish" posed as a drug trafficking organization using lookalike narcotics and recruited law-enforcement officers to "badge through" stops and escort shipments from North Carolina to Maryland.
- Antonio Tillmon, a Windsor police officer, attended a preparatory meeting and participated as a rear-guard/escort on three transports (Aug 2014, Oct 2014, Mar 2015); he received payments ($2,000, $2,000, $2,500) and carried/loaned firearms.
- The staged packages (ten color-coded “kilos”) were visible as loaded into a hidden compartment; on the March 2015 trip an undercover agent said the team was moving “a million dollars’ worth of heroin” within earshot of Tillmon.
- Tillmon was indicted on drug conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846), conspiracy to use firearms and a §924(c) firearms count, three attempted possession-with-intent counts (one sustained for March 2015), and three federal-programs-bribery counts under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B).
- At trial the government introduced audio/video of meetings and transports; the jury convicted on the drug and firearms counts but also on the §666 counts. The district court granted acquittal on two attempted-possession counts; sentenced Tillmon to 180 months (120 concurrent on drug counts; 60 consecutive on §924(c)).
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed the drug and firearms convictions, upheld the 1+ kilogram heroin quantity finding, affirmed admission of a March 2015 video, but vacated the three §666 convictions for insufficient proof of the $5,000 "thing of value."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tillmon) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted possession (Mar 2015) | Lisa’s remark about “H” was ambiguous; Tillmon didn’t touch packages or know contents so lacked mens rea and substantial step | Packages were kilo-styled, in plain view while loaded; Tillmon escorted convoy, carried/loaned guns, and accepted payment — sufficient intent and substantial step | Affirmed: sufficient evidence to convict for attempted possession (Mar 2015) |
| Sufficiency for drug conspiracy | No agreement/knowledge; preparatory meeting didn’t mention trafficking; he was only present or taking photos | Circumstantial proof (meeting, repeated transports, training, visible packaged “kilos,” payment) shows knowing, voluntary participation | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of conspiracy |
| Drug-quantity element (≥1 kg heroin) for enhanced penalties | Jury lacked proof that Tillmon knew or was responsible for ≥1 kg heroin | Packages were kilo-sized, ten were staged, and a jury could reasonably attribute ≥1 kg heroin to Tillmon’s offenses | Affirmed: 1+ kg heroin finding sustained for sentencing |
| Admission of March 2015 video (Rule 403) | Video was unfairly prejudicial and cumulative; suggested violent intent (Tee’s statements) | Highly probative to rebut Tillmon’s defense (shows payment, firearm possession, rapport with Tee); prejudice minimal; jurors knew Tee was undercover | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in admitting the video |
| §666(a)(1)(B) bribery — valuation element ($5,000 thing of value) | Payments per transport were below $5,000; government failed to prove Tillmon’s services had $5,000+ value | Argues value can be shown by amount paid to team (aggregation), market value of drugs, or town public-safety budget | Reversed/vacated §666 convictions: aggregation, market-value, and public-safety theories failed — government did not prove Tillmon’s services had $5,000+ value |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir.) (conspiracy proof by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131 (4th Cir.) (elements of attempt)
- United States v. McLamb, 985 F.2d 1284 (4th Cir.) (presence during criminal activity probative of knowledge)
- United States v. Ali, 735 F.3d 176 (4th Cir.) (§ 841 mens rea does not require specific knowledge of drug type)
- United States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir.) (drug-quantity elements are for the jury post-Apprendi)
- United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549 (4th Cir.) (threshold quantities as elements of aggravated drug offenses)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.) (Rule 403 unfair-prejudice standard)
- United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir.) (Rule 403 favors inclusion)
- United States v. Robinson, 663 F.3d 265 (7th Cir.) (bribe amount may serve as proxy for value)
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (market-value valuation in bribery contexts)
- United States v. Hardin, 874 F.3d 672 (10th Cir.) (amount of bribe as valuation method)
- United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir.) (appraising services by market willingness to pay)
- United States v. Owens, 697 F.3d 657 (7th Cir.) (need to link market-value evidence to the defendant’s services)