No. 22-1033 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor Devon Edwards

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: October 21, 2022 Filed: April 25, 2023 ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Victor Devon Edwards of rioting, 18 U.S.C. § 2101(a), and aiding and abetting arson, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 844(i), for his participation in civil unrest in downtown Minneapolis. The district court 1 sentenced Edwards to

1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, presided over the trial. The case was thereafter reassigned to the concurrent sentences of 60 months of imprisonment for rioting and 100 months of imprisonment for aiding and abetting arson, followed by two years of supervised release. Edwards appeals, challenging the admission of certain surveillance video and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We affirm.

I. Background

On the night of August 26, 2020, rumors spread that police officers had killed a homicide suspect in downtown Minneapolis. In reality, the suspect took his own life. Before the police could release video showing that officers had not killed the suspect, crowds gathered in downtown Minneapolis. Despite efforts to calm the crowd and correct the rumor, the crowd became more agitated and destructive. Looting ensued and multiple buildings were set on fire in the course of the riot, including the headquarters for Target Corporation and a bar known as Brit’s Pub.

In the aftermath of these events, authorities obtained evidence that Edwards participated in the riot. Edwards appeared several times on surveillance recordings, most importantly showing Edwards unlawfully entering the Target headquarters building. While in the Target mailroom a companion of Edwards, Shador Jackson, started a fire. Video from the Target mailroom also shows another “shadowy figure,” near the fire, pouring an accelerant onto the fire. Exterior surveillance video then shows Edwards and Jackson leaving Target and entering Brit’s Pub, where a second fire began minutes after Edwards’s entrance. At issue is the admission of surveillance video capturing Edwards entering Brit’s Pub and the subsequent fire.

Authorities also obtained data from Edwards’s cell phone and social media that provided other information about his activity in downtown Minneapolis that night. This included videos of Edwards outside of damaged retail stores and

Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, now Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, who imposed Edwards’s sentence.

-2- displaying a large amount of cash. Text messages from Edwards’s phone indicated he intended to engage in looting.

Authorities arrested and charged Edwards with rioting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2101(a) and aiding and abetting arson of the Target building in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 844(i).2 The district court sentenced Edwards to 100 months of imprisonment.

II. Analysis

Edwards appeals, challenging the admission of surveillance video showing the Brit’s Pub fire and arguing his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We consider each argument in turn.

A. Evidentiary Challeng