United States v. Roberson, 664 F. App'x 743

Background

Marcus D. Roberson was convicted of (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥280g crack, (2) conspiracy to distribute ≥5kg powder cocaine, and (3) murder to prevent a person from communicating with law enforcement (18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C)); he received concurrent life sentences.
Roberson was a high-level member of Virok Webb’s drug-distribution organization in Junction City, KS; multiple co-conspirators testified as to his role supplying, converting, and directing distribution of large quantities of cocaine and crack.
On the night Crystal Fisher (a cooperating informant) was found shot dead, witnesses placed a nervous, out-of-breath Roberson near the scene, observed him dispose of clothing and an object, and later saw the murder weapon recovered from a pond near a Wal‑Mart he visited.
Several witnesses testified Roberson admitted killing Fisher and/or that Webb attributed the killing to Roberson; other witnesses recounted statements by Roberson threatening informants and admitting the killing.
Post-trial, Roberson challenged (a) the § 1512 jury instruction for failing to specify “federal” law enforcement, (b) a Brady nondisclosure claim about cooperator Antonio Cooper’s alleged involvement in a 2001 shooting, (c) sufficiency of evidence, and (d) use of prior convictions at sentencing without jury determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction under § 1512(a)(1)(C) lacked the word “federal,” allowing conviction based on prevention of communication to local officers	Roberson: omission could permit conviction without a required federal nexus	Gov: instruction incorporated Fowler’s federal‑nexus standard showing reasonable likelihood of communication to a federal officer	Affirmed — instruction, which tracked Fowler, adequately guided jury on federal nexus
Brady nondisclosure of Cooper’s alleged 2001 shooting involvement	Roberson: failure to disclose impeaching evidence about Cooper’s prior involvement in a homicide undermined trial fairness	Gov: evidence was not shown to be in government’s possession or materially impeaching given existing impeachment and facts	Affirmed — no Brady violation; possession not shown, minimal impeachment value, not material
Sufficiency of evidence for murder and drug‑conspiracy convictions	Roberson: insufficient proof he was the shooter or a major conspirator	Gov: multiple witnesses, admissions, physical evidence, and organization role support convictions	Affirmed — evidence viewed favorably to prosecution was sufficient for all convictions
Use of prior felony drug convictions to support mandatory life sentences without jury finding of finality	Roberson: due‑process/due‑diligence error; prior convictions’ finality must be found by jury	Gov: sentencing judge may find prior convictions; circuit precedent controls	Affirmed — argument foreclosed by circuit precedent; judge may find prior convictions

Key Cases Cited

Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011) (federal‑nexus standard for § 1512(a)(1)(C): government must show it was reasonably likely an informant would have communicated with a federal officer)
United States v. Little, 829 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
United States v. Almaraz, 306 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2002) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
United States v. Erickson, 561 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2009) (elements of Brady claim)
United States v. Hoyle, 751 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2014) (possession/control requirement for Brady material)
Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012) (materiality standard for nondisclosed evidence affecting confidence in outcome)
Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2009) (impeachment-value materiality analysis)
United States v. Triana, 477 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review of identity/role)
United States v. Prince, 647 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2011) (sentencing judge may find fact of prior convictions)
United States v. Velarde, 485 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 2007) (limits on admitting collateral‑matter evidence solely to impeach witness)
United States v. Faust, 795 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)