US v. Darnell Barne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for default judgment [998730769-2] Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00074-RGD-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998798224]. [11-4490]

Appeal: 11-4490

Document: 53

Date Filed: 02/28/2012

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARNELL BARNES, a/k/a Imani,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00074-RGD-DEM-1)

Submitted:

February 16, 2012

Decided:

February 28, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Laura
Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4490

Document: 53

Date Filed: 02/28/2012

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Darnell Barnes of conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and two counts
of

possession

heroin,

in

district

with

intent

violation

of

court

sentenced

to

21

distribute

U.S.C.

Barnes

to

and

distribution

§ 841(a)(1)
188

months’

(2006).

of
The

imprisonment.

Barnes’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), testing the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting Barnes’ convictions, questioning whether the
Government’s comment during closing argument regarding Barnes’
co-defendant’s failure to testify deprived Barnes of his right
to a fair trial, and challenging the reasonableness of Barnes’
sentence.

Counsel

states,

meritorious

grounds

for

briefs,

expanding

upon

however,

appeal.
the

that

Barnes

arguments

he

filed

raised

by

has

found

three

pro

counsel.

no
se
We

affirm.
Barnes’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
attacks

the

credibility

of

the

witnesses.

However,

in

evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, we will not review “the
credibility of witnesses, but assume that the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government.”
United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir.), cert denied,
131 S. Ct. 617 (2010).

Moreover, taking the evidence in the
2

Appeal: 11-4490

Document: 53

Date Filed: 02/28/2012

Page: 3 of 5

light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Abu
Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing standard), we
conclude substantial evidence supports the verdict.
States

v.

Yearwood,

518

F.3d

220,

225-26

See United

(4th

Cir.

2008)

(conspiracy); United States v. Brower, 336 F.3d 274, 276 (4th
Cir. 2003) (distribution).
Next, Barnes argues the Government’s statement during
closing

argument

about

his

co-defendant’s

deprived him of his right to a fair trial.

failure

to

testify

After reviewing the

transcript and examining the prosecutor’s comment in context, we
conclude without difficulty that the comment does not warrant
reversal

because

it

was

a

factual

clarification

of

the

prosecutor’s prior misstatement regarding Barnes’ co-defendant.
See United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535, 542 (4th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, even if improper, we conclude that the comment did not
affect

Barnes’

substantial

461

499,

Hasting,

U.S.

rights.

See

507-10

(1983)

questions

the

United

(providing

States

v.

standard);

Jones, 471 F.3d at 542 n.2.
Last,
sentence.
than

the

Barnes

reasonableness

of

his

Because Barnes did not request a sentence different
one

plain error.

ultimately

imposed,

we

review

his

sentence

for

See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79

(4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337,
342-43

(4th

Cir.

2009)

(discussing
3

plain

error

standard).

Appeal: 11-4490

Document: 53

Date Filed: 02/28/2012

Page: 4 of 5

First, we examine the sentence for significant procedural error,
including such errors “as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the
[18

U.S.C.]

based

on

§ 3553(a)

clearly

[(2006)]

erroneous

facts,

explain the chosen sentence.”
38, 51 (2007).

factors,
or

selecting
failing

a

to

sentence

adequately

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

If there are no procedural errors, we then

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.”

United States

v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here,

the

district

court

procedural steps in sentencing Barnes.

followed

the

necessary

Moreover, Barnes has not

rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded his withinGuidelines sentence on appeal.

See United States v. Montes-

Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).

Hence, we conclude

the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

Barnes’ motion for default judgment.

judgment

and

deny

This court requires that

counsel inform Barnes, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Barnes requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
4

Appeal: 11-4490

Document: 53

Date Filed: 02/28/2012

Page: 5 of 5

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Barnes.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5