Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: REVISED DECEMBER 20, 2002 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-30984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS BYRON DUFFAUT, also known as Byron Dufaunt, and KEVIN HUFF, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana December 3, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Byron Duffaut and Kevin Huff were both charged in a three- count indictment with conspiracy,
Summary: REVISED DECEMBER 20, 2002 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-30984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS BYRON DUFFAUT, also known as Byron Dufaunt, and KEVIN HUFF, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana December 3, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Byron Duffaut and Kevin Huff were both charged in a three- count indictment with conspiracy, p..
More
REVISED DECEMBER 20, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-30984
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
BYRON DUFFAUT, also known as Byron Dufaunt, and KEVIN HUFF,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
December 3, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:
Byron Duffaut and Kevin Huff were both charged in a three-
count indictment with conspiracy, possession with intent to
distribute over 50 grams of cocaine base, and possession with the
intent to distribute approximately 250 grams of cocaine
hydrochloride. A jury returned guilty verdicts against Duffaut and
Huff on all counts. Duffaut was sentenced to concurrent 200-month
terms of imprisonment, and Huff was sentenced to concurrent 300-
month terms of imprisonment. Both Duffaut and Huff filed timely
notices of appeal.
BACKGROUND
The charges against Duffaut and Huff stem from the following
events. Acting on a tip from a confidential informant (CI), Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents established surveillance on
a black Lincoln Continental parked in front of a Pauger Street
residence in New Orleans. The CI informed agents that a black male
named “Kevin” would be using this vehicle to transport a large
amount of cocaine. The CI further indicated that the Lincoln had
a hidden compartment in the front dashboard, and that another
individual would actually drive the vehicle while “Kevin” followed
in a green Camaro. A computer check of the Lincoln’s license plate
revealed that the vehicle was registered to Huff. Agents observed
Huff exit the Pauger Street residence and enter a green Camaro,
where he retrieved a plastic bag that appeared to be containing
something. Huff carried the bag to the Lincoln, opened the
driver’s side door, and sat in that vehicle. At some point,1
Duffaut came out of the house and was handed “something” by Huff
near the Camaro. Duffaut then got in the Lincoln and Huff got in
the Camaro, and they drove off in separate directions.
DEA agents followed the Lincoln eastbound on Interstate-10
until it exited the highway and pulled into an Exxon station.
There, Duffaut used a public telephone before Huff arrived in the
Camaro. Huff, who was now accompanied by his nephew, Jermaine
Stovall, gave Duffaut “some type of hand signal.” Both vehicles
1
DEA Agent Eric Covell testified on direct examination that
Duffaut emerged from the house after Huff got out of the Lincoln.
On redirect, however, the Government read from the DEA incident
report, which indicated that Duffaut exited the house as Huff was
getting into the Lincoln.
2
then returned to the interstate and traveled eastbound.
When the vehicles reached Slidell, Louisiana, local law
enforcement officers, working in tandem with the DEA agents, pulled
the Lincoln over for speeding. The Camaro was also stopped.
Duffaut stated that he was on his way to the casinos in
Mississippi. However, during a pat-down for weapons, it was
discovered that Duffaut had no cash or credit cards. Duffaut
consented to search the Lincoln, and a drug-sniffing canine alerted
to the passenger side of the vehicle. Once inside the Lincoln, the
canine began “scratching aggressively” at the air bag compartment.
A plastic shopping bag containing a large amount of crack cocaine
and a large amount of powder cocaine was found inside the
compartment.2 Duffaut and Huff were subsequently placed under
arrest.
While en route to a holding cell, Duffaut told DEA Agent Eric
Covell that he wanted to cooperate. Duffaut stated that he had
made three prior trips to Houston to deliver drugs, and that he was
paid $100 to $500 per trip.
Prior to trial, the Government filed a notice of its intent to
introduce evidence of prior bad acts in its case-in-chief against
Huff, pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 404(b). In particular, the
Government sought to introduce evidence of a 1991 drug conviction,
and two drug arrests that occurred in 1994 and 1999, respectively.
Huff filed a memorandum opposing the introduction of the prior bad
acts evidence. The district court ruled that the 1999 drug arrest
was admissible, but denied the Government’s request with respect to
the 1991 and 1994 offenses.
2
The parties stipulated at trial that the drugs retrieved from the Lincoln were, in fact,
cocaine base, totaling 491.4 net grams, and cocaine hydrochloride, totaling 249.5 net grams.
3
In other pretrial motions, Huff moved to suppress introduction
of the seized drugs, arguing that the officers lacked probable
cause to stop the vehicles because the alleged traffic violation
was fabricated. He also asserted that the officers were required
to obtain his, rather than Duffaut’s, consent to search the Lincoln
since the officers knew he owned the vehicle, and because he was
present during the stop. The district court denied the motion.
At trial, the Government called former New Orleans police
officer Clinton Hajek for the purpose of introducing Huff’s prior
1999 arrest. Hajek testified that, on May 18, 1999, he and his
partner stopped a Pontiac because they saw its passenger drinking
from an open container. The passenger, identified as Huff, fled
and Hajek gave chase. Huff was apprehended and brought back to the
Pontiac, which was registered in Huff’s name, and drugs were found
in the car as well as in Huff’s underwear.
Hajek testified that $5,702 in cash was found under the
passenger seat of the car, and that a digital scale was discovered
in the trunk. A subsequent search of Huff’s residence turned up a
handgun, vehicle registration documents, a Greyhound bus ticket
from Houston to New Orleans in Stovall’s name, and numerous
telephone records in Huff’s name which documented calls between
Houston, Slidell, and New Orleans. Hajek acknowledged that the
1999 incident was pending trial.
The Government introduced the physical evidence, as described
by Hajek, that was retrieved in connection with the 1999 arrest,
including: 1) the drugs seized from the car and from Huff’s
underwear; 2) the digital scale found in the trunk; 3) the property
receipt for the cash; 4) the handgun found at Huff’s residence;
and, (5) the vehicle registration, travel, and phone documents.
The district court permitted the Government to publish this
4
evidence to the jury, and Huff did not renew his 404(b) objection
during Hajek’s testimony or at the time the physical evidence was
offered by the Government. Although the district court did not
give a limiting instruction to the jury when the 404(b) evidence
was introduced, such an instruction was later included in the jury
charge at the conclusion of the trial.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor made the following
statements:
What you all have to decide today is whether
or not these two guys are guilty,
individually; whether or not they worked
together; whether or not they were in
possession of the drugs; and whether or not
it’s right what they did.
If their behavior or what they did is okay,
then they should go free. If having three
quarters of a kilogram of crack and powder
cocaine is okay, they should go home right
now, because they deserve it; if that behavior
is acceptable.
But, I don’t think it is. The law says it
isn’t.
Duffaut objected to the prosecutor’s statement regarding his
personal belief, which the district court sustained. Shortly
thereafter, the prosecutor argued:
And, that’s what this is. From New Orleans to
St. Tammany. It doesn’t just affect one
street and one corner at 2341 Pauger Street.
This goes a long way.
As you heard the expert, Chris Ortiz, talk
about the amount, thousands and thousands of
hits. That’s not just one guy doing his own
business in the back of his house, wanting to
be left alone. That’s on the street, that’s
one person, two people, three people, four
people, family after family, person after
person.
5
Duffaut and Huff moved for a mistrial, arguing that the
prosecutor’s comments were “clearly designed to inflame[].” The
district court denied the motion and admonished the jury:
Ladies and gentlemen, you’re here to determine
whether there’s been a violation of law. It
has nothing to do with any lawyer’s argument
as to what he thinks or she thinks is right or
wrong.
So, at this point, . . . I think Counsel is
almost finished, but that’s your job . . . to
apply the law, as I explain it to you, to the
facts that you have heard here today and
testified to by the witnesses and the evidence
that will be brought to you in the jury room.
So, you’re to determine whether a crime has
occurred and whether the government has proven
it.
So, as I told you before, what the lawyers say
is not evidence. It’s their presentation of
what the evidence is, but their personal
opinion as to whether something was proven or
whether it’s right or wrong is not significant
to you.
Later, when recounting the sequence of events, the prosecutor
indicated that the DEA agents saw Huff and Duffaut talking outside
the house on Pauger while Huff was holding the plastic bag.
Mr. Huff has the bag. Ms. Jusselin says that
[Duffaut] is an unwitting and unknowing
“mule.”
Kevin Huff is standing there in front of him
with the bag.
Duffaut again objected, arguing that the prosecutor’s
statements were unsupported by the trial testimony. The district
court overruled the objection, stating that “the jury can
remember.” The prosecutor continued:
6
He’s standing there with the bag. Kevin Huff
is not hiding it. He didn’t do it outside of
Mr. Duffaut’s presence. He didn’t come there
with the car. He’s standing out front, Kevin
Huff has got the bag in his hand, standing
there. Byron Duffaut is standing right next
to him.
During deliberations, the jury sent out the following note:
Is there any actual testimony by any of the
witnesses that place both defendants outside
the cars with the bag at the same time?
The district court instructed the jury to rely upon its
recollection of the testimony as presented at trial. The jury
subsequently returned guilty verdicts against Duffaut and Huff on
all counts.
Duffaut was sentenced to concurrent 200-month terms of
imprisonment. Prior to trial, the Government filed a Bill of
Information to establish that Huff pleaded guilty to possession of
crack cocaine in 1991. Huff filed written objections. At
sentencing, Huff’s 1991 prior felony drug conviction was proved up
by the Government for purposes of increasing Huff’s minimum
sentence to 20 years of imprisonment, pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A).
Huff argued that the prior guilty plea conviction had been expunged
and could therefore not be used to enhance his sentence. The
objection was overruled, and Huff was sentenced to concurrent 300-
month terms of imprisonment. Duffaut and Huff both filed timely
notices of appeal. On appeal, Huff argues that the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress, that the district court
committed plain error in admitting Huff’s prior drug arrests, and
7
that the district court improperly enhanced Huff’s sentence. Both
Duffaut and Huff also appeal claiming that the prosecutor’s remarks
during closing arguments rendered their trial fundamentally unfair.
DISCUSSION
Did the district court err in denying Huff’s motion to suppress?
Huff argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. He contends that the search of the Lincoln was
illegal since the officers failed to obtain his consent, even
though they knew Huff owned the vehicle and that he was “being
detained nearby.” Alternatively, he asserts that both he and
Duffaut were illegally detained and that Duffaut’s consent to the
search was coerced because the officer retained Duffaut’s license
and registration when asking for his permission to search the
Lincoln.
In reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to
suppress, this court reviews questions of law de novo, “but
questions of fact are accepted unless the district court’s findings
were clearly erroneous, or influenced by an incorrect view of the
law.” United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 1996).
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, unless this view is inconsistent with the
district court’s findings or is clearly erroneous based on the
evidence as a whole.
Id. A factual finding is not clearly
erroneous if it is “plausible in the light of the record as a
8
whole.” United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir.
1995).
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures extends to vehicle stops and temporary detainment of
a vehicle’s occupants. United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 434
(5th Cir. 1993). Once a dog has alerted to the presence of
narcotics, agents have sufficient probable cause to conduct a
search of the vehicle. United States v. Seals,
987 F.2d 1102,
1106-07 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Dovali-Avila,
895 F.2d
206, 207 (5th Cir. 1990).
Huff came under investigation when the CI advised the DEA
agents that Huff would be transporting a large amount of cocaine to
Slidell in a black Lincoln Continental. The CI further indicated
that another individual would actually drive the Lincoln while Huff
followed in his Camaro. This information, coupled with the
corroborating observations made by the agents, supported the stops
of the vehicles and the detention of Huff and Duffaut pending the
officers’ investigation. See United States v. Holloway, 962 F.2d
451, 459 & n.23 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding that a tip from a
confidential informant which is sufficiently corroborated may
furnish the requisite reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory
stop).
Shortly after Duffaut was pulled over, officers conducted a
free-air search of the Lincoln by walking around it with a drug-
9
sniffing dog. Duffaut’s consent was not needed to perform this
free-air search. United States v. Hernandez, 976 F.2d 929, 930
(5th Cir. 1992) (holding that a canine sniff of the exterior of a
vehicle does not constitute a search within the Fourth Amendment).
Once the canine alerted to the passenger-side door, the officers
had probable cause to search the car.
Dovali-Avila, 895 F.2d at
207 (finding that a canine alert is sufficient to create probable
cause to conduct a warrantless vehicle search). Accordingly,
neither Duffaut’s nor Huff’s consent to search the Lincoln was
required in this case. Huff, therefore, has failed to demonstrate
that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
Did the district court err in admitting Huff’s prior drug arrest?
Huff argues that the district court abused its discretion in
admitting evidence of his prior 1999 drug arrest. In particular,
he contends that the admission of the physical evidence was
cumulative and unduly prejudicial. Huff asserts that, absent the
admission of the prior arrest evidence, there was insufficient
evidence to support his convictions on the instant charges.
Although both Huff and the Government state that the
applicable standard of review is for abuse of discretion, it is
not. Though Huff filed a pretrial objection to the Government’s
notice of intent to use the 1999 arrest, he failed to renew his
objection at trial to the admission of both the testimonial and
physical Rule 404(b) evidence. Therefore, the district court’s
10
admission of this evidence is subject to plain-error review.
United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1551 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding
that where appellant failed to renew an objection made by motion in
limine before the disputed evidence was introduced at trial, review
is for plain error); FED. R. EVID. 103(d). To demonstrate plain
error, an appellant must show clear or obvious error that affects
his substantial rights; if he does, this court has discretion to
correct a forfeited error that seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, but is not
required to do so. United States v. Calverley,
37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Rule 404(b) precludes the admission of evidence “of other
crimes, wrong doings, or acts . . . to prove the character of a
person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may,
however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
absence of mistake or accident. ...” This court has established a
two-part test to determine the admissibility of Rule 404(b)
evidence. United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.
1978) (en banc). The extrinsic-offense evidence must (1) be
relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character, and (2)
must possess probative value which is not outweighed by undue
prejudice. United States v. Bentley-Smith,
2 F.3d 1368, 1377 &
n.11 (5th Cir. 1993).
11
Similarity of the extrinsic offense to the offense charged is
the standard by which relevancy is measured under Rule 404(b).
United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1173 (5th Cir. 1986). If
offered to show intent, relevancy of the extrinsic offense is
determined by comparing it to the state of mind of the defendant in
perpetrating the respective offenses.
Id. “The reasoning is that
because the defendant had unlawful intent in the extrinsic offense,
it is less likely that he had lawful intent in the present
offense.”
Id.
By pleading not guilty, Huff placed his intent at issue.
United States v. Chavez,
119 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, Huff’s 1999 drug arrest was relevant under Rule 404(b)
because it was highly probative of Huff’s knowledge and intent to
commit the charged offenses. Id.; United States v. Gadison,
8 F.3d
186, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a prior conviction for
possession of cocaine was admissible because it was probative of
the defendant’s intent in charged offense of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine). However, rather than introducing evidence
sufficient to merely establish the prior drug arrest, Huff points
out that the Government elicited detailed testimony from the
arresting officer, including facts unrelated to the charged
offenses. In addition, the Government introduced and published to
the jury the physical evidence collected for the prior arrest,
including the seized drugs, the digital scale found in the trunk,
12
and the handgun discovered at Huff’s residence. Huff argues that
the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs its probative
value. The district court, however, issued a limiting instruction
to the jury regarding this evidence stating:
You have heard evidence of acts which may be similar
to those charged in the Indictment, but which were
committed on other occasions. You must not consider any
of this evidence in deciding if the Defendant committed
the acts charged in the Indictment. However, you may
consider this evidence for other very limited purposes.
If you find beyond a reasonable doubt, from other
evidence in this case, that the Defendant did commit the
acts charged in the Indictment, then you may consider
evidence of the similar acts allegedly committed on other
occasions to determine:
Number one, whether the Defendant had the state of
mind or intent necessary to commit the crimes charged in
the indictment . . . .
R. 4, 290-91.3 As the district court issued a limiting instruction
as to the evidence, we find that the court did not commit plain
error in admitting the evidence. See United States v. Willis, 6
F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating that “[t]he danger of unfair
prejudice to [the defendant] was minimized by the district court’s
careful instructions to the jury, which made it clear that the
prior convictions could not be considered unless and until the jury
first found that [the defendant] had participated in the charged
acts, and, even then, could be considered only for the purpose of
determining whether [the defendant] had the state of mind or intent
3
The district court also instructed that the evidence could be considered to determine
motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the Defendant acted according to a plan, or
whether the Defendant committed the acts accused of by accident or mistake.
13
necessary to commit the crime . . . .”); see also United States v.
Leahy, 82 F.3d 624, 637 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that though some
danger of prejudice is always present, “exclusion of extrinsic
evidence based on its prejudicial effect should occur only
sparingly”).
Did the district court improperly enhance Huff’s sentence?
Huff next argues that the district court erred by enhancing
his sentence based on his 1991 guilty plea conviction. Because the
1991 conviction had no impact on Huff’s sentence, the issue is
irrelevant.
Huff’s presentence report (PSR) did not include the 1991
conviction in its criminal history point calculation for purposes
of determining Huff’s guideline sentencing range of 262-327 months.
As noted by the Government, the 1991 conviction was merely used to
increase Huff’s minimum statutory sentence to 20 years, pursuant to
§ 841(b)(1)(A). Because the 1991 conviction did not factor into
the PSR’s guideline calculation, and as Huff’s sentencing range
fell above the 20-year statutory minimum, we reject his argument
and affirm the district court’s decision.
Did the prosecutor’s closing remarks prejudice Duffaut’s and Huff’s
substantive rights?
As his sole issue on appeal, Duffaut argues that the
prosecutor’s remarks at closing were improper because the
prosecutor: 1) interjected his personal opinion by stating he did
14
not believe that having three quarters of a kilogram of crack and
powder cocaine was “okay,” 2) attempted to inflame the jury by
appealing to their community conscience, and 3) mischaracterized
the evidence by stating that Duffaut and Huff were standing next to
each other while Huff held “the bag.” Duffaut contends that he was
denied a fair trial as a result of these remarks. Huff raises the
same issue in his brief, adopting by reference Duffaut’s argument
in its entirety pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 28(I).
Applying a two-step analysis to charges of prosecutorial
misconduct, this court decides: 1) whether the prosecutor’s
comments were improper, and 2) if the comments were improper,
whether they prejudiced the defendant’s substantive rights. United
States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 574 (5th Cir. 1999). Regarding
the second prong, this court considers 1) the magnitude of the
statement’s prejudice, 2) the effect of any cautionary instructions
given, and 3) the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s
guilt.
Id.
Here, the prosecutor’s comments were arguably designed to call
on the jurors to act as the conscience of the community. On the
whole, the prosecutor’s comments regarding drug distribution
affecting “family after family” and “person after person” were
relatively benign, and, a prosecutor may “‘appeal to the jury to
act as the conscience of the community[,]’” so long as the comments
are not “‘calculated to inflame[.]’” United States v. Brown, 887
15
F.2d 537, 542 (5th Cir. 1989)(citation omitted). As for whether
the prosecutor’s statement concerning his personal belief was
improper, any prejudice was remedied by the district court issuing
a contemporaneous curative instruction. The essence of this
instruction was also repeated to the jury at the conclusion of the
trial.
As for Duffaut and Huff’s argument that the prosecutor
mischaracterized the evidence, the appellants rely in part on the
fact that the jury issued questions to the district court regarding
whether there was any actual testimony by any of the witnesses that
placed both of the defendants outside the cars with the bag at the
same time. However, the jury’s inquiry whether there was any
evidence that placed Duffaut and Huff together with the bag does
not indicate that they were swayed by the prosecutor’s
characterization of the evidence, and, even if the jury believed
the prosecutor’s statement that Duffaut and Huff were together with
the bag, this fact would not have appreciably tipped the balance of
the evidence. Contrary to Duffaut’s argument, the jury could have
inferred Duffaut’s knowledge of the drugs based on his post-arrest
confession concerning his three prior drug deliveries to Houston.
Also, the jury was presented with evidence that Huff transferred a
plastic bag into the car that was then driven by Duffaut and, when
pulled over, police officers recovered a plastic bag from the car
Duffaut was driving containing narcotics. Whether Huff was holding
the bag while talking to Duffaut would not have significantly
16
altered the evidence underlying the convictions. For these reasons,
the appellants’ prosecutorial misconduct argument is unavailing and
we affirm the jury’s conviction.
CONCLUSION
Having carefully reviewed the record of this case and the
parties’ respective briefing and for the reasons set forth above,
we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Huff’s
motion to suppress, in admitting evidence of Huff’s prior drug
arrest, or in enhancing Huff’s sentence. We also conclude that the
prosecutor’s closing remarks did not prejudice Huff and Duffaut’s
substantive rights. We therefore AFFIRM Huff and Duffaut’s
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
G:\OPIN\01-30984.opn.hrd.wpd 17
