US v. David Shanton, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00142-CCB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [998769141]. [09-4617]

Appeal: 09-4617

Document: 41

Date Filed: 01/20/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00142-CCB-1)

Submitted:

January 17, 2012

Decided:

January 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, LaKeytria W. Felder,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, George J.
Hazel, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-4617

Document: 41

Date Filed: 01/20/2012

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., was
convicted
firearm

of

two

counts

offenses.

On

of

armed

appeal,

bank

robbery

Shanton

argues

and
that

related
(1)

the

district court erred admitting testimony of a DNA expert without
requiring the testimony of those persons involved in conducting
that DNA testing, and (2) the court erred by ordering that he
serve a consecutive ten year sentence for the first of his two
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) convictions.

Finding no error, we

affirm.
At trial, Jennifer Luttman, a forensic examiner for
the FBI, and an expert in the area of forensic DNA analysis,
testified

that,

in

her

opinion,

the

results

of

DNA

testing

performed by her staff on a piece of gum found at one of the
crime scenes showed the presence of DNA belonging to Shanton.
Shanton
generated

argues
by

that

because

members

of

her

Luttman
staff,

was
and

relying
that

upon

the

data

data

was

testimonial, it was incumbent upon the Government to present as
witnesses

those

Melendez-Diaz

v.

persons

who

conducted

Massachusetts,

129

the

S.

Ct.

tests,
2527

citing

(2009)

and

Crawford v. Washington, 451 U.S. 35 (2004).
In

United

States

v.

Summers,

__

F.3d

__,

2011

WL

6276085, *7-8 (4th Cir. 2011), this court concerned itself with
a

nearly

identical

situation.

We
2

held

that

the

raw

data

Appeal: 09-4617

Document: 41

generated

by

the

Date Filed: 01/20/2012

analysts

was

not

Page: 3 of 4

testimonial

and

that

the

forensic examiner was properly permitted to give his opinion as
to

the

meaning

of

the

data.

We

conclude,

therefore,

that

Summers controls the outcome of this issue, that Shanton’s right
to confrontation was not violated and that the district court
did not err permitting the FBI forensic examiner to give her
expert opinion.
Shanton also argues that the district court erred by
ordering that he serve a consecutive ten year sentence for the
first

of

another

two

18

conviction

sentence.

U.S.C.

§ 924(c)

provided

for

convictions,
a

greater

claiming

mandatory

that

minimum

This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s

holding in Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (2010).
Court

held

“that

consecutive
spared

a

sentence

from

that

defendant
for

a

sentence

is

subject

§

924(c)

by

virtue

to

a

conviction,
of

mandatory,
and

receiving

mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction.”
S. Ct. at 23.
refers

to

The

is

a

not

higher

Id., 131

The Court held that the statute’s “except” clause

conduct

proscribed

by

§ 924(c):

firearm in connection with a predicate crime.

possession

of

a

Id., 131 S. Ct.

at 26.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 09-4617

Document: 41

Date Filed: 01/20/2012

Page: 4 of 4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4