Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US v Shavers, Lewis and White

US v Shavers, Lewis and White

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Bradley Bridge Dveera Segal on Aug 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





User Name:
Date and Time:
Aug 27, 2012 15:35 EST
Job Number:
1. United States v. Shavers, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108
|About LexisNexis|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions|Copyright ©2012LexisNexis.
As of: August 27, 2012 3:35 PM EDT
United States
v. Shavers
United States
Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitAugust 27, 2012, FiledNo. 10-2790 No. 10-2931 No. 10-2971
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108(Crim. Nos. 08-01616-001, 08-0161-002, 08-0161-003) District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis
OF AMERICA v. GLORI-OUS SHAVERS, a/k/a G, a/k/a G-Bucks, a/k/aJulious Colzie, a/k/a Glorious Grand GloriousShavers, Appellant
OFAMERICA v. JERMEL LEWIS, a/k/a STAR,a/k/a PR-STAR, a/k/a P Jermel Lewis, Appel-lant
, Appellant
Decision text below is the first avail-able text from the court; it has not been editori-
ally reviewed by LexisNexis. Publisher’s edi
-torial review, including Headnotes, Case
Summary, Shepard’s
analysis or any amend-ments will be added in accordance with Lexis-Nexis editorial guidelines.
Core Terms
robbery, identification, interstate commerce,district court, sentence, official proceedings,perpetrators, commerce, the Hobbs Act, prison,speakeasy, reliability, nexus, conversation, postoffice, show-up, telephone call, prejudicial,privacy, supervised release, witness tampering,quotation marks, firearms, misidentification,eyewitness, mistrial, array, impermissibly,customers, telephone
On Appeal from the
United States
DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaJoynerArgued March 19, 2012_________________Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and CHA-GARES, CircuitJudges.(Filed: August 27, 2012)2Keith M. Donoghue, Esq. (Argued) Robert Ep-stein, Esq.Kai N. Scott, Esq.Federal Community Defender Office for theEastern District of Pennsylvania 601 WalnutStreetThe Curtis Center, Suite 540 West Philadel-phia, PA 19106Attorneys for Appellant Glorious ShaversPaul J. Hetznecker, Esq. (Argued)Suite 9111420 Walnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19102Attorney for Appellant Jermel LewisCarina Laguzzi, Esq.
Page 2 of 292012
Laguzzi & Associates1500 John F. Kennedy BoulevardSuite 200Philadelphia, PA 19102Attorney for Appellant
Andrew White
Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. (Argued)Arlene D. Fisk, Esq.Office of 
United States
Attorney615 Chestnut StreetSuite 1250Philadelphia, PA 19106Attorneys for Appellee3__________________OPINION__________________CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
U.S. App. LEXIS 18108, *1
Philadelphia. The house owner, Jeanette Ketch-more (
), had for several years runan unlicensed bar, or
out of herbasement. At trial, she described her activity asa party at which family, friends, and acquain-
tances would socialize and occasionally play
cards. The speakeasy was not open to the gen-eral public. Jeanette purchased alcohol at a re-tail store in Philadelphia and sold it withouta license to her guests for $3-$4 per drink. Thebrands of alcohol sold included some that are4manufactured outside of Pennsylvania such as
Hennessy cognac, Gordon’s
gin, Sea-
gram’s gin, and Taylor’s port wine.
When the appellants entered Jeanette’s house
on November 8, 2005 at 5:30 a.m., six to sevenpeople were in the first floor dining room play-ing cards. The parties dispute whether alco-hol sales had ceased for the night. The three ap-pellants entered the residence displayingfirearms and wearing dark-colored hoodedsweatshirts with the hoods drawn tightly aroundtheir faces. The appellants forced the patronsinto the basement and ordered them to lie downon the floor. One of the appellants went to
the second floor and forced Jeanette’s son,
Rickey Ketchmore (
), to come down-This is a consolidated appeal by three codefen-dants, Glorious Shavers,
Andrew White
, andJermel Lewis (collectively referred to as the
), who were convicted
of rob-bery affecting interstate commerce, conspiracyto commit robbery affecting interstate com-merce, witness tampering, and using and carry-ing firearms during and in relation to a crime of 
violence. We will vacate Shavers’s andWhite’s witness tampering convictions and
Shavers’s eight
-year term of supervised re-
lease. We will uphold the three appellants’ con
-victions on all other counts and will affirm
Lewis’s sentence. Finally, we will remand for 
the District Court to resentence Shavers and
White in accordance with this opinion.I.This case arose out of a robbery on November8, 2005 at a single-family house in Northstairs to join the patrons. The appellants then
went through everyone’s pockets and stole two
cell phones, a wallet, and approximately$121 in cash. No money was stolen directly
from Jeanette, however. The appellants also
rummaged through the basement and first floorof the house. Jeanette testified that the appel-lants went through her refrigerator and kept ask-ing where the
(PCP), and
(heroin or PCP) was.1 Joint Ap-pendix (
) 1168-69, 1217. They alsoasked Jeanette where
the money
was. Id. at1167.When the police arrived, the three
appel-lants ran out of the house and down thestreet. White was seen tossing a silver gun ashe ran. White and Shavers were arrested in the1 Before trial, the Government moved forleave to file a superseding indictment adding

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->