US v. Edward Hall
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. EDWARD HALL, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cr-00406-AW-1)
August 12, 2009
September 18, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hughie D. Hunt, II, KEMET & HUNT, PLLC, College Park, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Hollis Raphael Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Following his arrest by Metro Transit police on a
warrant issued by the United States Park Police, Edward Hall was transferred into Park Police custody. Park Police Officer Gary
Hatch was charged with verifying Hall's identity, and to that end, Hatch asked Hall various questions regarding his identity, which Hall refused to answer. violating 36 C.F.R. Ultimately, Hall was charged with (2008) for intentionally
interfering with Hatch's duties.
Hall proceeded to trial before
a magistrate judge and was found guilty and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. The district court affirmed the
conviction and sentence, and Hall timely noted an appeal. On appeal, Hall argues that his actions did not rise to the level of "intentionally interfering" with Hatch's duties. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a
conviction, this court views the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government." United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705
(4th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted)). This court
"can reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution's failure is clear." United States v. Moye,
454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). Rather, a verdict will be sustained if "any rational trier of 2
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Lomax, 293 F.3d at 705 (quoting United
States v. Meyers, 280 F.3d 407, 415 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted)). determine whether the "Thus, the appellate function is not to reviewing court is convinced of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, but, viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government, whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863 (quoting United
States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67 (1984) (internal quotations omitted)). According to 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(1), it is unlawful to "threaten, resist, intimidat[e], or intentionally
interfer[e] with a government employee or agent engaged in an official duty." 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(1). A defendant interferes
with a government agent if the defendant opposes, intervenes, hinders or prevents the agent from carrying out his or her
official duties. (9th Cir. 2004). Here,
United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929, 932
with Hatch in the performance of his duties. that it was his responsibility arrested persons 3 to so take as
Hatch testified routine booking their
because Hall insisted that there were no open warrants for his arrest. Additionally, Hall had no Fifth Amendment right to
refuse to answer Hatch's questions as they were asked for the purpose of obtaining or verifying routine booking information. See United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 608 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). argues that his use of profanity in Finally, Hall to Hatch's
questions was protected by the First Amendment, and therefore, the district court erred in basing his conviction on his profane responses. use of The district court did not convict Hall based on his but merely determined that the profanity
confirmed Hall's intent to interfere. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?