United States of America v. O.C. Rawls

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2170
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
O.C. Rawls,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: February 12, 2024
Filed: August 12, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON,1 and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
1Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28
U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM.
A jury found O.C. Rawls guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute the same. See 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. Rawls moved for a new trial, alleging
juror misconduct. The district court2 denied the motion and sentenced Rawls to 420
months’ imprisonment. Rawls appeals, and we affirm.
At trial, an agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration testified that he
enlisted the help of a confidential informant to participate in three controlled buys of
cocaine from Rawls. The informant pleaded guilty to a separate drug offense and
testified against Rawls. The jury found Rawls guilty of three counts of possession
with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy.
After the trial, Rawls alleged that a juror told Rawls’s family that the juror was
not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Rawls was guilty, but nevertheless
voted for conviction. Rawls moved for a new trial and requested an evidentiary
hearing on the alleged misconduct. The district court denied the motion.
At sentencing, the district court calculated the advisory guideline range. With
a total offense level of 37, and a criminal history category of VI, the guideline range
was 360 months to life imprisonment. Rawls requested a downward variance based
on his age of 50 years and the potential for a shorter sentence to keep him imprisoned
until age 65.
The court said that if the defendant were twenty-five years old, then the court
probably would not give much consideration to a downward variance for a career
2The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

offender who managed a drug operation. But the court asked for the government’s
position on the sufficiency of a shorter term that would allow for release at age 65.
The government argued that a downward variance was inappropriate because Rawls
“made a lifetime out of these choices and out of being a drug dealer,” and “there’s no
reason that he would stop at 65.” The government urged that Rawls qualified for life
in prison based on “his life’s work.” The defense replied that Rawls’s “criminality
would be over” if he were released in fifteen years. After hearing arguments from
counsel and considering Rawls’s allocution, the court sentenced Rawls to a term of
420 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Rawls argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his motion for a new trial without conducting a hearing on the alleged juror
misconduct. The Federal Rules of Evidence, however, prohibit testimony about “any
juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict,” except in specific situations not
present here. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b). The district court need not investigate allegations
of juror misconduct based on inadmissible evidence. See United States v. Moses, 15
F.3d 774, 778 (8th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Tucker, 137 F.3d 1016, 1030
(8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Rawls has not shown that he was entitled to a hearing
or a new trial.
Rawls next argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions because the government relied on the testimony of a confidential
informant who received a reduced sentence as a result of his assistance. Because
Rawls did not move for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence, we review
his claim for plain error. United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 786 (8th Cir.
2005).
A verdict may be sustained based solely on the testimony of co-conspirators
and cooperating witnesses. United States v. Coleman, 525 F.3d 665, 666 (8th Cir.
2008). “Testimony does not become legally unsubstantial because the witness stands
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

to gain by lying; the defendant is entitled to cross-examine such witnesses to expose
their motivations, and it is up to the jury to decide whether the witness is telling the
truth despite incentives to lie.” United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977, 988 (8th
Cir. 2004). Here, the confidential informant testified about his transactions with
Rawls, and Rawls cross-examined the informant about the benefits that he received
under his plea agreement. The jury was entitled to weigh this information and make
a credibility determination about the informant’s testimony. The evidence was
sufficient.
Rawls also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by
failing to explain its sentence. To obtain reversal, Rawls must show an obvious error
and a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable sentence
if the court had offered a more fulsome explanation. See United States v. Williams,
910 F.3d 1084, 1094 (8th Cir. 2022); United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668,
671 (8th Cir. 2016). Rawls has not met his burden. The court questioned the parties
on Rawls’s proposed variance and acknowledged the government’s position that
Rawls deserved life in prison based on “his life’s work” of drug trafficking. The
court also summarized Rawls’s argument that due to his age, a twenty-year sentence
was more than sufficient. The court ultimately agreed with the government that a
longer sentence was warranted. Rawls did not ask the court to elaborate, and it is
unlikely that requiring the court to say more would have changed the court’s decision.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --