United States v. Clinton Coleman, Jr.
710 F. App'x 414
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Coleman was convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1)(B), 963) and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), 846). He appealed convictions, denial of new-trial motion, and reasonableness of a 135‑month sentence.
- Government introduced an audiotape of Coleman discussing the shipment on the night the cocaine was seized; he identified the container’s size and location aboard the cargo ship.
- The described container was the one seized and found to contain cocaine; law enforcement testimony linked Coleman’s description to that container.
- Conversations on tape discussed compensation/back pay and the form of payment, indicating continued drug dealings; phone records showed a spike in calls among conspirators around the seizure date.
- Coleman was acquitted of related substantive counts but convicted of the conspiracies; he challenged sufficiency of evidence, trial-court denial of a new trial (weight of evidence), and the upward variance at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions | Coleman: evidence was circumstantial, speculative, reliant on a CI of dubious credibility; acquittals on substantive counts show inconsistency | Government: tape, CI testimony, phone patterns, and seizures provide a reasonable basis showing knowledge and participation | Affirmed: viewing evidence in govt's favor, record reasonably supports convictions |
| Motion for new trial (weight of evidence) | Coleman: trial court failed to weigh circumstantial evidence, assess witness credibility, and account for CI inconsistencies | Government: inconsistencies were insubstantial or reconciled; credibility determinations are for the jury/district court | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence did not preponderate heavily against verdict |
| Sentencing reasonableness (upward variance) | Coleman: 15‑month upward variance over statutory minimum was unreasonable and guideline calculation erred (claimed §3C1.1 enhancement) | Government: district court considered §3553(a) factors, explained need for deterrence and respect for law; variance—not §3C1.1—explained | Affirmed: sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; variance justified and below statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy to distribute)
- United States v. Arbane, 446 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy to import)
- United States v. Corley, 824 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.) (acquittal on substantive offense does not bar conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir.) (sufficiency review defers to reasonable inferences supporting verdict)
- United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir.) (standard for granting new trial on weight grounds)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing; district court’s consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (below‑statutory‑maximum sentence as indicator of reasonableness)