United States v. Wofford

── United States v. Wofford ── Case No.: 25-6006 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6006 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6006 AKIN ZHON WOFFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00051-R-1) Laura K. Deskin, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Jeffery M. Byers, Federal Public Defender, with her on the briefs), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. Laney Ellis, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Robert J. Troester, United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Before PHILLIPS and McHUGH, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL, District Judge. * VRATIL, District Judge. The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge, District of * Kansas, sitting by designation.  Appellate Case: 25-6006 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 Akin Wofford was convicted of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (Count One) and possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (Count Two). He appeals, arguing that the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on Count Two. Specifically, he argues that in violation of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the instruction improperly relieved the government of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed and brandished a “firearm.” Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of a bank robbery on November 7, 2022 at City National Bank in Oklahoma City. Law enforcement did not recover a firearm. At trial, to establish that defendant possessed and brandished a firearm, the government presented (1) testimony from a bank teller and a bank customer, who both testified that the robber had a firearm; and (2) surveillance video which showed that the robber held up what appeared to be a firearm. The teller testified that the robber had been sitting in the lobby when he suddenly sprinted toward the teller’s counter, pulled out a gun and jumped over the counter. The teller testified that the robber pointed the firearm directly at him, making him fear for his life. After the incident, the teller told 911 dispatch that the robber had a Glock. The teller testified that he had been around firearms since he was six or seven years old, that he had shot firearms and that he was “familiar with the way they look, the way they function.” 2  Appellate Case: 25-6006 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 3 ROA Vol. IV at 57. When asked whether he had any doubt that the robber wielded a real firearm, he replied, “I’m very familiar with them. I had no question whether it was a legitimate gun or not.” Id. The bank customer testified that she had been handling business with the teller and was at the counter when the robber flew across it, pointing a firearm at the teller. She testified that she “absolutely” believed it to be