United States of America v. Jamar Jarvis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued February 22, 2023
Decided March 10, 2023
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMAR JARVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 19-CR-00420-1
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury found Jamar Jarvis guilty of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119,
and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm in relation to that offense, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On appeal, Jarvis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
underlying both counts of conviction, raising arguments he failed to make in the district
court. Because the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, and the
evidence was more than sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, we affirm.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-1146 Page 2
Just past midnight one evening in October 2018, Carrie Iser returned home and
parked her black Lexus in her garage. Soon after she exited the vehicle, Jarvis and four
other men cornered her. Jarvis pointed a gun in Iser’s face as an associate took her keys
and menacingly asked her: “How does it feel to know you’re going to die tonight?”
Fearing for her life, Iser pushed past Jarvis and fled, screaming for help. Jarvis and his
confederates then drove off in Iser’s car. About fifteen minutes later, the men stopped
near a gas station and retrieved a can of fuel. Surveillance video captured Jarvis
walking to the gas station wearing a red and blue jacket and carrying a tan backpack. It
didn’t take law enforcement long to locate the vehicle driving south on Lake Shore
Drive; when officers pulled behind the stolen Lexus and activated their lights and
sirens, the carjackers fled at high speed before abandoning the car and fleeing on foot.
Police officers found Jarvis hiding under a different car not far from where they had
abandoned Iser’s Lexus. They also found the tan backpack containing a loaded
handgun with a live round in the chamber. Less than 24 hours after the carjacking, Iser
was shown a photo array and identified Jarvis as the man who pointed the gun at her
head during the carjacking.
At Jarvis’s trial, Iser—a veteran detective with the Chicago Police Department—
testified that Jarvis held the gun less than a foot from her face and that she decided to
flee because she believed that the gun was real and that her life was in danger. Other
evidence at trial included: surveillance footage of Jarvis among the group of carjackers
in the alley next to Iser’s garage and showing Jarvis carrying a tan backpack near the
gas station; Jarvis’s DNA on a cigarette butt found inside Iser’s car; and testimony that
officers found the tan backpack containing a loaded gun in the same area where officers
had apprehended Jarvis. The government also played a recording of a jail call between
Jarvis and his father. In the call, Jarvis’s father asked his son, “did you have it?” and
Jarvis responded “yes.” Jarvis’s father testified that he interpreted this exchange to
mean that Jarvis had a gun. The jury found Jarvis guilty of carjacking and of using,
carrying, and brandishing a firearm in relation to the carjacking. The district court
sentenced Jarvis to three years for the carjacking offense, followed by a mandatory
consecutive sentence of seven years for the gun conviction.
On appeal, Jarvis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both
counts of conviction. On the carjacking conviction, Jarvis contends that the evidence at
trial was insufficient to show that he had the requisite intent to cause death or serious
bodily harm to the victim, as required by the statute. On the firearm conviction, Jarvis
argues that there was insufficient evidence that the gun he brandished during the
carjacking was real.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1146 Page 3
In a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a jury’s guilty verdict, “we review
the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the government and draw
all reasonable inferences in its favor.” United States v. Anderson, 988 F.3d 420, 424 (7th
Cir. 2021). We will not overturn a conviction unless “no rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
George, 900 F.3d 405, 409 (7th Cir. 2018). The burden is even steeper when a defendant
raises arguments for the first time on appeal and therefore must establish plain error.
See Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096–97 (2021).
Whether Jarvis preserved his arguments is irrelevant here because, even if he had
raised these issues below, his sufficiency challenge would fail. On the carjacking charge,
the jury heard unrebutted testimony from Iser that Jarvis pointed a gun at her head as
four associates surrounded her, one of whom told Iser she was going to die. That
evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude that Jarvis intended to cause
death or serious bodily injury, as required by § 2119. See United States v. Carter, 695 F.3d
690, 696 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Jones, 188 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 1999).
There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Jarvis brandished
a real gun while carjacking Iser in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A). The jury was entitled to
credit Iser’s testimony that Jarvis pointed the gun in her face and that the gun was real.
“A jury’s credibility finding will be set aside if the testimony is ‘impossible under the
laws of nature.’” United States v. Miller, 900 F.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting United
States v. Hunter, 145 F.3d 946, 949 (7th Cir. 1998)). Iser testified to nothing impossible. To
the contrary, her testimony was corroborated by the bulk of the other evidence at trial.
The jury watched surveillance video showing Jarvis at the scene of the crime and
carrying the tan backpack from which police recovered a loaded gun. It was reasonable
for the jury to conclude that Jarvis brandished that loaded gun to hijack Iser’s vehicle.
And the jury could credit Jarvis’s father’s testimony that Jarvis admitted that he had the
gun on the jail call. Jarvis argues that Iser’s description of the gun pointed in her face
differed from the gun recovered from the backpack, but resolving any inconsistencies in
Iser’s testimony was exclusively for the jury. See Carter, 695 F.3d at 699.
The evidence at trial overwhelmingly supported the jury’s guilty verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm Jarvis’s conviction.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --