United States v. Lance Cannon
987 F.3d 924
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- DEA/ATF used a confidential informant (CI) and an undercover (UC) detective to pose a disgruntled courier and create a fake "stash house" containing 18 kg of cocaine; Cannon and Holton attended recorded meetings planning a robbery and discussed weapons, roles, and logistics.
- Cannon introduced Holton as a transporter and both agreed to a violent home-invasion style robbery; on the planned day they brought guns to the meeting and were arrested before entering the stash house; firearms and gloves were recovered from their truck.
- A federal grand jury indicted Cannon and Holton for Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy, cocaine conspiracy, a §924(c) firearms count (based on both predicates), and felon-in-possession.
- Pretrial, defendants sought discovery for a selective-prosecution claim and moved to dismiss for outrageous government conduct; the motions were denied and the court refused an entrapment instruction at trial.
- A jury convicted both defendants on all counts; they were sentenced (concurrent long terms for conspiracies and felon-in-possession, plus a consecutive §924(c) term) and appealed raising selective-prosecution/discovery, multiplicity, outrageous conduct/entrapment, juror dismissal, Court Reporter Act, and §924(c) predicate error after Davis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Cannon/Holton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selective-prosecution discovery | Deny broad discovery; defendants failed to meet Armstrong standard showing discriminatory effect/purpose | Statistics and news articles show stash-house prosecutions overwhelmingly involved minorities; request records to investigate racial targeting | Denial affirmed: defendants failed to identify similarly situated non-minority comparators or otherwise satisfy Armstrong/Jordan to obtain discovery |
| Multiplicity (double jeopardy) — two conspiracy counts | Two conspiracies charged under separate statutes; each has different elements | Single underlying agreement producing both counts makes indictment multiplicitous | Affirmed: Blockburger elements test satisfied because Hobbs Act conspiracy and drug conspiracy require different elements; not multiplicitous |
| Outrageous government conduct / entrapment instruction | Reverse-sting lawful; government did not supply guns or run the operation; defendants were predisposed and repeatedly declined chances to withdraw | Government created the fake crime, induced defendants, and thus conduct was outrageous and entrapment instruction required | Affirmed: conduct not "shocking to the universal sense of justice"; entrapment instruction properly denied because no sufficient evidence of inducement and defendants were predisposed |
| §924(c) predicate / invalid Hobbs Act predicate after Davis | Even if Hobbs Act predicate is invalid, the valid cocaine-conspiracy predicate independently supports §924(c); any instructional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Jury may have relied on the invalid Hobbs Act predicate (general verdict), so §924(c) convictions must be vacated | Affirmed: court erred to submit Hobbs predicate, but error harmless — the predicates were inextricably intertwined and record shows firearms were carried in relation to the drug conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (defendant bears demanding burden to obtain selective-proprosecution discovery)
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir.) (strict standard for discovery on selective-prosecution claim)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (multiplicity resolved by elements test)
- Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (single conspiracy principles)
- Russell v. United States, 411 U.S. 423 (outrageous-government-conduct/Fifth Amendment fairness standard)
- United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410 (11th Cir.) (discussing recognition and limits of outrageous-conduct defense)
- United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir.) (elements and burdens for entrapment defense)
- Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (Sup. Ct.) (invalidated §924(c) residual clause)
- Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir.) (Hobbs Act conspiracy does not categorically qualify as a §924(c) elements-clause crime)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error standard that government must meet)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (instructional error as non-structural and subject to harmless-error review)