United States v. Shannon Smith
878 F.3d 498
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Shannon Smith extorted Boardman via interstate calls demanding $525,000 in cash or gold and threatened Boardman’s family; Boardman alerted law enforcement.
- Police staged a controlled drop; Smith arrived with his 14‑year‑old son, shined a spotlight at the drop site, and was arrested.
- Officers found a loaded Glock on Smith’s person and two rifles in his truck; Smith later confessed to the extortion but said his son was unaware and he had not intended to retrieve the bag at that time.
- Indictment: guilty plea to 18 U.S.C. § 875(b) (interstate extortion); went to trial on 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence).
- The district court used the Fifth Circuit pattern § 924(c) instruction but added the government’s sentence: “It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to possess the firearm in furtherance of the [COV].” Smith objected; jury convicted on § 924(c).
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: it criticized the extra sentence as confusing and unnecessary but held it did not misstate the law; it reaffirmed that § 924(c) requires a knowing possession plus an evidentiary nexus showing the firearm actually furthered the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s added sentence to the pattern § 924(c) instruction (stating intent to possess in furtherance need not be proven) was legally correct | N/A (government requested addition) | Smith: addition converted § 924(c) into a strict‑liability offense; defendant must have specific intent that the firearm further the crime | Court: addition was unnecessary and potentially confusing but did not misstate the law; should not be used in this circuit going forward |
| Whether the extortion was complete before Smith arrived (so a firearm could not be “in furtherance”) | Smith: all elements were complete when threats were communicated, so arriving later cannot make firearms further the offense | Government: § 924(c) liability can attach to continuing or related conduct (e.g., escape or receipt); crime may continue until receipt or completion of the scheme | Court: extortion can continue until receipt; liability may attach beyond the moment the last element was transmitted (robbery analogues cited) |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show firearms “in furtherance” of the COV | Smith: no specific intent and facts show merely coincidental possession (habitual carry; hunting story) | Government: circumstantial evidence (loaded gun on person, proximity, timing, cover story, rifles in truck) supported an evidentiary nexus | Court: sufficiency challenge fails; record contains adequate circumstantial evidence to let a reasonable jury find the firearms actually furthered the extortion |
| Whether unpreserved sufficiency challenge warrants reversal (plain‑error review) | Smith: moved for acquittal after government case but failed to renew at close of all evidence | Government: failure to renew subjects claim to plain‑error standard; record does not show a miscarriage of justice | Court: applied plain‑error standard and found no manifest miscarriage of justice; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2000) (defines possession "in furtherance" and lists multi‑factor test to assess actual furtherance)
- United States v. Pate, 932 F.2d 736 (8th Cir. 1991) (§ 924(c) liability can attach during escape or related phases beyond the initial offense)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved appellate claims)
- United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 2014) (reiterates the Ceballos‑Torres possession‑in‑furtherance standard)