Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1 of 5
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 30, 2015)
Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10417
Page: 2 of 5
Although the jury also convicted Williams-Hill for theft of mail matter by a postal
service employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1709, she does not challenge that conviction on
appeal. We accordingly address only her drug conspiracy conviction.
2
Case: 14-10417
Page: 3 of 5
Our finding that the evidence was intrinsic makes meritless Williams-Hills claim that
the Government failed to timely disclose the prior acts. The Governments duty to provide
pretrial notice of prior acts applied only to Rule 404(b) extrinsic evidence. See Fed. R. Evid.
402(b)(2).
3
Case: 14-10417
Page: 4 of 5
deliver the cocaine. The danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh
the highly probative value of this evidence. As such, we conclude the district court
did not err in admitting the evidence of Williams-Hills participation in the 2011
marijuana trafficking scheme. 4
We likewise hold the district court did not err in denying Williams-Hills
motion for acquittal because sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable juror to
conclude she knew or was deliberately ignorant that the package contained
cocaine. See United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2011) (A
jurys verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence
would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. (quotation omitted)); United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th
Cir. 2000) ([T]he knowledge element of a violation of a criminal statute can be
proved by demonstrating either actual knowledge or deliberate ignorance.).
Garys testimony, Williams-Hills presence in the Salvation Army parking lot with
Beneby, the falsified delivery receipts, and the text messages discovered in
Benebys phone were sufficient for a jury to infer the requisite mens rea. See
4
Case: 14-10417
Page: 5 of 5