United States v. Randy Vana Haile, Jr.
685 F.3d 1211
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Haile and Beckford were charged with conspiracy and attempts to distribute marijuana and cocaine, plus firearms offenses tied to drug trafficking.
- A reverse-sting operation with a confidential informant and undercover agents led to their arrest in Atlanta and San Antonio.
- DEA agents staged a drug delivery; Beckford and Haile discussed guns and drugs, including exchanging guns for drugs.
- Guns and money were found in Beckford and Haile’s vehicle at the time of arrest; substantial drug quantities and firearms were seized.
- Beckford and Haile challenged the indictment and various trial rulings; Beckford challenged the sentence as well.
- District court denied motions for judgment of acquittal on Count 4 and instructed the jury on most issues, but some definitions were debated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency under § 924(c) | Haile and Beckford: indictment fused two § 924(c) triggers (during/related; in furtherance). | Haile and Beckford: conflation violated Sixth/Fifth Amendments and could broaden charges. | Indictment sufficiently notified defendants; removal of surplusage aligned with § 924(c)(1)(A) triggers. |
| Jury instruction on machine-gun knowledge | O’Brien requires knowledge that the firearm is a machine gun as an element. | Ciszkowski governs; knowledge of weapon characteristics not required here. | Knowledge of weapon characteristics not required; Ciszkowski remains controlling; instruction not erroneous. |
| Entrapment defense viability | Evidence showed predisposition to engage in drug and weapon transactions. | Evidence showed government inducement creating entrapment. | Evidence supported predisposition; entrapment defense rejected for Beckford. |
| Knowledge of obliterated serial number (§ 922(k)) | Beckford knew the serial number was obliterated; sufficient to sustain § 922(k) conviction. | Knowledge of obliteration not proven; only constructive possession shown. | Knowledge of obliteration is an element; conviction reversed for Count 6. |
| Sentencing manipulation and overall reasonableness | Government conduct justified the sentence within the guidelines. | Government manipulation warranted downward adjustment; within-guideline sentence is unreasonable. | No sentencing factor manipulation; within-range sentence affirmed; not cruel or unusual. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poirier v. United States, 321 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2003) (indictment sufficiency; de novo review)
- United States v. Fern, 155 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (indictment language sufficiency; reference to statute adequate)
- Belt v. United States, 868 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir. 1989) (indictment informs charge; reference to statute suffices)
- Ward v. United States, 486 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007) (indictment amendment not improper if surplusage removed)
- Ciszkowski v. United States, 492 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2007) (no required proof of particularized weapon knowledge for § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii))
- O’Brien v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010) (machine gun element versus sentencing enhancement; knowledge not required here)
- Sullivan v. United States, 455 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2006) (knowledge of obliteration element considerations)
- Haywood v. United States, 363 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2004) (obliterated serial-number knowledge as an element)
- Fennell v. United States, 53 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (obliterated serial number knowledge interpretations)
- Williams v. United States, 456 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2006) (sentencing factor manipulation considerations)
- Sanchez v. United States, 138 F.3d 1410 (11th Cir. 1998) (outrageous government conduct doctrine discussing remedy limitations)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment proportionality considerations)