United States v. Kendrick Alexander
681 F. App'x 391
5th Cir.2017Background
- In 2014 Kendrick Alexander met DEA cooperator Hai Tran at a casino; recorded negotiations led to a planned purchase of 5,000 oxycodone (30 mg) tablets for $60,000; Alexander was arrested en route to complete the purchase.
- Recorded calls and meetings showed Alexander negotiating price, arranging distribution, mentioning other drugs, and bringing $60,000 in a paper bag.
- Tran was an experienced, heavily impeached cooperating witness with prior convictions and substantial sentence reductions for cooperation; he testified that Alexander first raised drugs.
- Alexander claimed entrapment: that Tran repeatedly proposed drugs and implanted the intent to buy; he admitted the attempt but argued lack of predisposition.
- Post-trial Alexander sought a new trial under Brady/Giglio, asserting the government failed to disclose (1) a 2007 state charge against Tran that may have remained pending and (2) that Tran’s wife’s charges were dismissed due to Tran’s cooperation.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level obstruction enhancement for perjury, denied acceptance-of-responsibility, and denied a downward departure for allegedly government-set below-market pricing; Alexander appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence re: entrapment | Alexander: jury irrationally rejected entrapment; Tran induced him and implanted intent | Government: recordings and conduct show predisposition; Tran at most provided opportunity | Affirmed — jury could rationally find predisposition and no inducement; verdict not shocking |
| Jury instruction mentioning prior conviction | Alexander: instruction inviting consideration of 2001 conviction violated Sherman | Government: convictions are a factor for predisposition under circuit precedent | Harmless error (if error): overwhelming evidence of predisposition made any error nonprejudicial |
| Brady/Giglio nondisclosure (state charge & dismissal of wife’s charge) | Alexander: suppressed evidence of additional benefits/bias was material and could have affected verdict | Government: evidence was cumulative and recordings strongly corroborated Tran; not materially likely to change outcome | Denied new trial — nondisclosures not material; cumulative impeachment and strong corroboration of guilt |
| Sentencing enhancements and departures | Alexander: should get acceptance reduction; no obstruction; downward departure for price-set inflation; sentencing entrapment | Government: entrapment denied; district court credited recordings and Tran, found perjury and denied departures | Affirmed — denial of acceptance proper, obstruction enhancement justified, departure decision fact-based and unreviewable; no sentencing-entrapment relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (entrapment can be established as matter of law after prolonged government inducement)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (entrapment requires government inducement and defendant lack of predisposition)
- Bradfield v. United States, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1997) (burden-shifting framework and entitlement to entrapment instruction on prima facie showing)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (limitations on proving predisposition solely from old convictions)
- Theagene v. United States, 565 F.3d 911 (5th Cir. 2009) (undercover operations and entrapment standards)
- Sipe v. United States, 388 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2004) (cumulative impeachment evidence and materiality in Brady/Giglio analysis)
- Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016) (materiality standard: any reasonable likelihood suppressed evidence could affect jury judgment)