US v. Mohammed Marga

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00166-RDB-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998548118].. [10-4000]

US v. Mohammed Marga

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4000

Document: 50

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOHAMMED MARGA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00166-RDB-2)

Submitted:

February 17, 2011

Decided:

March 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Rachel M. Yasser, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4000

Document: 50

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Mohammed Marga was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to

distribute, heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010). The

district court sentenced Marga to concurrent seventy-eight-month terms of imprisonment. Marga timely appealed, challenging a For

supplemental jury instruction given by the district court. the reasons that follow, we affirm. Marga's co-conspirator, Edward Aboagye, pled

guilty

pursuant to a plea agreement and subsequently agreed to testify against Marga. The Government introduced Aboagye's plea

agreement into evidence without objection.

This plea agreement

contained stipulations of fact concerning the events that led to Aboagye's and Marga's arrests. After the jury began deliberations, it sent the court a note asking how Aboagye's plea agreement applied to Marga's case and whether the stipulations in Aboagye's plea agreement applied to Marga. The court answered:

[W]ith respect to the statement of facts in the plea agreement, the plea agreement having been introduced into evidence, that is just as to Mr. Aboagye's agreement of facts with the government. It is not in any way binding upon the defendant, Mr. Marga. It is what Mr. Aboagye says occurred and you can compare that with whatever you recall his testimony to be as 2

Case: 10-4000

Document: 50

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 3

well. It is what he agrees are the facts of the matter with the government. It is not binding upon Mr. Marga and it is not a stipulation as to Mr. Marga . . . . This is strictly just the agreement that Aboagye reached with the government and what he agreed with the government were the facts as far as he was concerned and just as you judge his credibility in terms of his testimony, you judge this for whatever you desire it's [sic] worth. But these facts here in this plea agreement letter are not binding upon Mr. Marga and are not agreed to by Mr. Marga. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in giving this instruction. Because Marga did not object to this instruction in the district court, it is reviewed for plain error. United To

States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010).

establish plain error, Marga must show that an error occurred, the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial

rights.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). The necessity, extent, and character of supplemental

jury

instructions

are

matters

within

the

discretion

of

the

district court. Cir. 1990). instructions, jury's

United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 547 (4th

When evaluating the adequacy of supplemental jury we consider fairly "whether and the court addressed the

inquiry

accurately

without

creating

prejudice." Cir. 1998).

United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 977 (4th

Marga

highlights

the

court's

statement

that

the

stipulations were "facts as far as [Aboagye] was concerned and 3

Case: 10-4000

Document: 50

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 4

just as you judge his credibility in terms of his testimony, you judge this for whatever it you desire invited it's the [sic] jury worth," to draw and an

contends

that

erroneously

inference from the stipulations that Marga was guilty. "[l]anguage isolation." in jury instructions may not be

However, in

viewed

United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 677 (4th Cir.

1996); Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1294 (4th Cir. 1995). At the close of evidence at the trial, the court

instructed the jury about Aboagye's guilty plea, admonishing the jurors not to draw conclusions or inferences about Marga's guilt from the fact that his co-defendant pled guilty. Additionally,

the court cautioned the jury that Aboagye's agreement to testify in exchange for favorable treatment from the Government might impact his credibility, because such agreements give witnesses a motive to testify falsely. During deliberations, when the jury asked the court how Aboagye's plea agreement and the stipulations contained

therein applied to Marga's case, the court explained that the stipulations were Aboagye's version of the events and emphasized three times that they were not binding upon or agreed to by Marga. In explaining this to the jury, the court said that the

stipulation was merely Aboagye's version of the facts and "just as you judge [Aboagye's] credibility in terms of his testimony, 4

Case: 10-4000

Document: 50

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 5

you judge this [stipulation of facts] for whatever you desire it's [sic] worth." We conclude that the district court's

initial and supplemental instructions, read as a whole, properly informed the jury that the plea agreement and stipulations were relevant to the jury's determination of Aboagye's credibility; the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral

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

5