United States v. Kenton Harrell, 629 F. App'x 603

On Feb. 21, 2013, armed robbers boxed in a USPS contractor’s van, assaulted the driver, and stole mail; conspirators later transferred the mail to other vehicles.
Kenton Harrell was charged with conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act).
Codefendant Charles Ray Blake testified Harrell was recruited, attended planning meetings, helped recruit others, went to the robbery scene and to the offloading location, and expected a share of proceeds.
Harrell made admissions to postal investigators: he agreed to help find someone to stop the van for 20% of proceeds, attended meetings, watched the robbery and transfer, tried to follow the vehicles, and said he was “ripped off.”
Cell‑phone records placed Harrell near the robbery site. A jury convicted Harrell; a codefendant was acquitted. Harrell appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence and denial of a mitigating‑role adjustment.

Issue	Harrell’s Argument	Government’s/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Harrell agreed to join the conspiracy	Harrell contends the evidence did not prove he agreed to participate	Testimony from accomplice Blake, Harrell’s admissions, and cell records sufficiently show agreement and participation	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Need for overt act by Harrell	Harrell argues no overt act by him was shown	Conspiracy requires any conspirator commit an overt act; individual overt act by Harrell not required	Rejected — overt act by any conspirator sufficed; convictions may rest on agreement plus an overt act by another
Mitigating‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2	Harrell: his role was minimal or minor and warrants a 2–4 level reduction	Court: Harrell was not peripheral—he recruited, attended meetings, sought to secure an officer, and expected proceeds	Affirmed — district court’s factual finding that Harrell was not a minor/minimal participant was not clearly erroneous
Effect of lack of monetary profit on mitigating role	Harrell suggests not receiving proceeds shows minor role	Government: lack of profit does not establish peripheral participation	Rejected — absence of monetary gain does not require a mitigating‑role reduction

United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 1995) (elements of conspiracy proof and requirement of an overt act)
United States v. Chaney, 964 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1992) (agreement and participation may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Maltos, 985 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1992) (presence and association may support an inference of conspiracy when viewed with other evidence)
United States v. Silva, 748 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1984) (conviction may be based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony if not incredible)
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for minor/minimal participant and need for peripheral role)
United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements of a Hobbs Act violation)