Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-14112
MARCH 1, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMMY DAVID FONTANEZ-MERCADO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 1, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Sammy David Fontanez-Mercado appeals his conviction for
not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction, and the district court did not err by
failing to give such an instruction.
II.
Fontanez-Mercado next argues that there was insufficient evidence to
convict him of the charged conduct because although he used foul language, he
never threatened anyone, and he told the flight attendant not to touch him.
Fontanez-Mercado asserts that multiple airline employees testified that they are
trained to defuse a situation, not use force, and the flight attendant who pushed him
acknowledged that he could have backed away from Fontanez-Mercado.
We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal
trials, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). We assume that the
jury made all credibility choices in the way that supports the verdict. United States
v. Thompson, 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006).
It is illegal for passengers on an airplane to interfere with the duties of the
flight crew. 49 U.S.C. 46504. Section 46504 provides in part:
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the
United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member
or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of
the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the
member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires
to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not
5
trial strategy that he was defending himself against the flight attendants attack. In
light of the corrective instruction given by the court, the minimal probative value
of the bracelet, and the lack of significant prejudice to Fontanez-Mercado, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant the
further remedy of declaring a mistrial. Accordingly, we affirm FontanezMercados conviction.
AFFIRMED.