USA v. Hector Luis Gonzalez, Jr.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11347
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20697-JLK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR LUIS GONZALEZ, JR.,
a.k.a. Coach,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 6, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11347 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Hector Gonzalez Jr. appeals his conviction for knowingly selling a firearm
to a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). Gonzalez challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence and the supplemental jury instruction given to the jury. We affirm.
Ample evidence supports Gonzalez’s conviction. Testimony and a video
recording of the firearm transaction proved that Gonzalez “associated himself with
the [selling of a firearm to Hervert Zamora, a convicted felon,] that Gonzales
wished to bring . . . about, and that he sought by his actions to make . . . succeed.”
See United States v. Broadwell, 870 F.2d 594, 608 (11th Cir. 1989). Zamora, a
confidential informant who was assisting law enforcement, testified that he told
Gonzalez that he was a convicted felon interested in purchasing firearms for export
to Mexico and he agreed to purchase an SKS rifle from Gonzalez for $200.
Consistent with the events depicted in the video recording, Zamora testified that he
paid Gonzalez after a person named Pratts produced the rifle. The jury could
reasonably credit Zamora’s testimony. See United States v. Thompson, 473 F.3d
1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006). Although Gonzalez testified that he was busy selling
drugs and was a mere spectator to the transaction between Zamora and Pratts and
that the video recording showed him handing Pratts a cigarette or some other
object instead of cash for the firearm, the jury was free to discredit Gonzalez’s
testimony and consider it as substantive evidence of his guilt. See United States v.
Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995).
Case: 15-11347 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it responded to the jury’s
request for “further definition and clarification of ‘constructive possession.’”
District courts “have broad discretion in formulating jury instructions provided that
the charge as a whole accurately reflects the law and the facts.” United States v.
Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Arias, 984
F.2d 1139, 1143 (11th Cir. 1993)). As suggested by Gonzalez, the district court
instructed the jury to read specific pages in the written jury instructions pertaining
to constructive possession. And the district court reminded the jury to “consider all
the instructions as a whole.” See United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 809 (11th
Cir. 1983). Although Gonzalez disagreed with highlighting the issue of “aiding and
abetting again,” that part of the instruction helped the jury assess whether Gonzalez
facilitated the firearm transaction and addressed his closing argument that the case
involved “a swearing contest” and did not involve “aiding and abetting” or
“constructive possession.”
We AFFIRM Gonzalez’s conviction.
Case: 15-11347 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --