United States v. Quashun Demarcus Carr
607 F. App'x 869
11th Cir.2015Background
- Quashun Carr and Darius Reaux were tried for a series of September 2011 robberies/carjackings in northern Georgia; both convicted on multiple counts (Hobbs Act robbery, armed robbery, § 924(c) firearms offenses; Reaux also convicted of carjacking).
- Key evidence: surveillance video from McDonald’s and Dairy Queen, cell-site location data, co-conspirator testimony, incriminating text messages, and a cellphone photograph from Carr showing him brandishing firearms and wearing shoes like those in the videos.
- Carr was acquitted of the McDonald’s robbery but convicted for the Dairy Queen robbery and § 924(c); sentenced to 192 months (51 months above the guidelines). The district court at sentencing considered two additional robberies (Rite Aid and Domino’s) that Carr was not charged with and found his participation by a preponderance of evidence.
- Reaux was convicted of both the Dairy Queen and McDonald’s robberies, two § 924(c) counts, conspiracy, and carjacking; sentenced to 468 months with consecutive § 924(c) terms.
- On appeal, Carr challenged admission of the cellphone photograph (Rule 403), use of uncharged conduct at sentencing, and substantive reasonableness of his variance. Reaux challenged admission/authentication of numerous text messages (Confrontation Clause), sufficiency of the evidence for the McDonald’s robbery, and consecutive § 924(c) sentences.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions and Carr’s sentence; it affirmed Reaux’s convictions and sentence but remanded to correct an error in Reaux’s restitution judgment (Carr improperly listed as jointly liable for McDonald’s losses).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Carr’s cellphone photograph (Rule 403) | Carr: photograph was unduly prejudicial and minimally probative | Gov’t/District Ct: probative of identity, firearm ownership, and similarity to robber’s apparel; admissible | Court: no abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice; properly admitted |
| Consideration of uncharged conduct at Carr’s sentencing | Carr: hearing and relying on uncharged robberies violated due process, indictment and jury rights | Gov’t/District Ct: court may consider uncharged conduct proven by preponderance for sentencing; sentence stayed under statutory max | Court: affirmed; binding Eleventh Circuit precedent allows consideration so long as not increasing beyond statutory maximum |
| Confrontation/authentication of Reaux’s text messages | Reaux: texts were testimonial hearsay entered without cross-examination or adequate foundation | Gov’t/District Ct: records custodian authenticated MetroPCS business records; many texts non‑testimonial and some were admissions or cross‑examined declarants | Court: authentication and admissibility proper; texts non‑testimonial or defendant’s own statements; Confrontation Clause not violated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Reaux’s McDonald’s conviction | Reaux: masked robbers couldn’t be identified; no prints; cell-site data didn’t place him there | Gov’t: co‑conspirator testimony, matching firearms/shots, video similarities across robberies, other corroborating evidence | Court: viewing evidence in government’s favor, a rational juror could convict; denial of Rule 29 proper |
| Consecutive § 924(c) sentences for Reaux | Reaux: § 924(c) sentences should run concurrently | Gov’t/District Ct: statutory requirement and Eleventh Circuit precedent require consecutive sentences for multiple § 924(c) convictions | Court: affirmed; consecutive sentences required by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775 (11th Cir.) (Rule 403: balance favors admissibility)
- United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.) (district courts may consider uncharged conduct at sentencing proved by preponderance)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory range must be submitted to a jury)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (review of sentencing reasonableness; deferential abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Mathis, 767 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (text messages not testimonial in typical informal contexts)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Segura, 582 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (multiple § 924(c) convictions require consecutive sentences)