United States v. Franz P. Cannet, 708 F. App'x 555

Franz P. Cannet served as a bodyguard for an undercover agent during three drug transactions and was charged with drug and firearms offenses, including conspiracy to distribute 5 kg+ of cocaine and firearm offenses.
At trial Cannet asserted an entrapment defense; the jury rejected it and convicted him on multiple counts.
Key trial facts supporting predisposition: Cannet agreed to act as bodyguard after being told drugs were involved, quoted a price, accepted reduced payment after renegotiation, and made statements indicating willingness to assist and contacts who could buy drugs.
After conviction the district court sentenced Cannet to 180 months’ imprisonment (below the statutory maximum).
Cannet appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence given entrapment, (2) denial of mistrial after alleged improper testimony, (3) an improper supplemental jury instruction, and (4) an Apprendi challenge to sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence given entrapment	Cannet: government failed to prove predisposition after he made an initial showing of inducement	Government: evidence shows ready agreement, opportunities to back out ignored, and post‑events statements demonstrating predisposition	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove predisposition and support convictions
Motion for mistrial based on undercover agent's testimony about shoplifting	Cannet: testimony was gratuitous, unnecessary, prejudicial	Government: any error was harmless because independent evidence of guilt existed	Affirmed — denial proper; testimony did not prejudice substantial rights
Supplemental jury instruction on entrapment	Cannet: instruction improperly guided jury, suggesting earlier entrapment would negate later counts	Government: instruction correctly told jury to consider entrapment as to each count independently	Affirmed — instruction accurate and not substantially misleading
Apprendi challenge to sentencing	Cannet: court relied on judicial factfinding to calculate Guidelines range, implicating Apprendi	Government: Apprendi only applies if sentence exceeds statutory maximum; Cannet was sentenced below that maximum	Affirmed — no Apprendi violation (sentence below statutory maximum)

United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining entrapment burden allocation and law of predisposition)
United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (predisposition shown by ready commission and failure to back out)
United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (harmless‑error principle where independent evidence supports guilt)
United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2006) (Apprendi implicated only when sentence exceeds statutory maximum)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (holding that any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)