United States v. Rodrick Maurice Hamilton

── United States v. Rodrick Maurice Hamilton ── Case No.: 23-12038 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 09, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 23-12038 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 1 of 29 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12038 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODRICK MAURICE HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20224-RS-2 ____________________ Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: On September 29, 2019, at around 10 a.m., two males wear- ing masks entered a Grab-A-Snack Market convenience store in Mi- ami, brandishing firearms. When one of the armed men jumped on top of the counter by the cash register, the store clerk grabbed USCA11 Case: 23-12038 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 2 of 29 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12038 a firearm from underneath the counter and opened fire. The two suspects exchanged fire with the clerk. Multiple shots were dis- charged, and one of the two suspects sustained a gunshot wound. Both suspects then fled. An investigation conducted by the City of Miami and Miami-Dade Police Departments linked the defendant Rodrick Maurice Hamilton’s car, clothes, and phone to the shoot- out. Hamilton, who told his girlfriend afterwards that he had gone to Georgia, was arrested in Miami several months later. He was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida. Following a seven-day jury trial, Hamilton was convicted of conspiracy and an attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery. The district court sentenced him to a 170-month term of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Hamilton challenges both his convictions and ensuing sen- tence on multiple grounds. Among other things, he claims that the district court erred in giving the jury a flight instruction; that the government impermissibly commented during closing argument and rebuttal about his decision not to testify; that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial and in failing to conduct a jury inquiry based on one juror’s post-verdict statement regretting his verdict; and, finally, that the district court erred by imposing a twenty-month upward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines without giving him advance notice. USCA11 Case: 23-12038 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 3 of 29 23-12038 Opinion of the Court 3 After careful review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we can discern no error and affirm the judgment of the district court. I. A. At trial, the government presented a variety of testimonial and physical evidence connecting Hamilton to the shoot-out at the Grab-A-Snack Market. Among other things, a Ford Explorer regis- tered to Hamilton crashed into a building at an intersection a “few blocks” from the store about three minutes after the suspects fled