United States v. Jerry Taylor, 515 F. App'x 183

Johnson, Dancy, and Taylor were involved in five related armed Wachovia Bank robberies in the greater Philadelphia area in summer 2009; Johnson was convicted on ten counts and sentenced to 835 months; Dancy was convicted on several counts and sentenced to 135 months; Taylor was severed and convicted on two counts and sentenced to 110 months; the district court handled trial and sentencing; the appeals were consolidated for briefing and decision; the court addressed suppression, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing guidelines, and grouping issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of evidence from the arrest	Johnson argues the cell phone was seized incident to an unlawful arrest.	Johnson contends lack of probable cause invalidates the arrest and seizure.	Probable cause supported arrest; suppression denied.
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Johnson claims insufficient direct/credibility evidence.	Johnson argues lack of victim identification and corroboration.	Evidence, including corroborated co-conspirator testimony, sufficient.
Constitutional/statutory challenges to 924(c) sentences	Johnson contends 924(c) scheme violates due process and proportionality.	Johnson relies on Deal and Walker to challenge mandatory minimums.	No error; 924(c) sentencing upheld.
Grouping of robbery counts for sentencing	Johnson says robbery counts should be grouped under § 3D1.2.	District Court properly treated counts as separate groups.	District Court did not abuse discretion; counts appropriately not grouped.
Prosecutorial misconduct and Taylor/Dancy arguments	Dancy claims closing bolstered witnesses improperly.	Any improper vouching was curable and not prejudicial.	No reversible error; closings not warranting new trial.

United States v. Watson, 423 F.2d 411 (U.S. 1976) (probable cause for felony arrest; warrantless seizure incident to arrest allowed)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause based on totality of circumstances)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest limits)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (exclusionary rule applicability to unlawful searches)
United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2002) (sufficiency of co-conspirator testimony corroboration)
United States v. Lake, 150 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 1998) (924(c) sufficiency without recovered firearm)
United States v. Beverly, 99 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 1996) (sufficiency of eyewitness firearm description)
United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial vouching standards)
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (review of sentencing for abuse of discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1993) (constraints on sentencing schemes)
United States v. Walker, 473 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 2007) (guidelines and proportionality considerations)
United States v. Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1998) (downward adjustments under § 3B1.2)
United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811 (3d Cir. 2001) (major/minor participant framework)