US v. Patrick Sweeney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cr-00271-JKB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999368065].. [12-4689]

Appeal: 12-4689

Doc: 64

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK FITZGERALD SWEENEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(8:10-cr-00271-JKB-1)

Submitted:

July 16, 2013

Decided:

June 3, 2014

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Brennan, Jr., William A. Mitchell, Jr., BRENNAN
MCKENNA MANZI SHAY LEVAN CHARTERED, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Deborah
A. Johnston, Arun Rao, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4689

Doc: 64

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Patrick Fitzgerald Sweeney appeals his convictions for
possession

with

violation

of

heroin

March

on

intent

21

U.S.C.
23,

to

distribute

§ 841(a)(1)

2009,

resulting

heroin

(Count

in

death

in

distribution

(2012);

1),

of

(Count

2),

in

violation of § 841(a)(1); use of a cell phone to facilitate the
March 23 distribution of heroin (Count 3), in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012); and use of a cell phone to facilitate
the distribution of heroin from on or about February 16, 2009,
to March 10, 2009 (Count 5), and in December 2008 (Count 7), in
violation

of

§ 843(b).

On

appeal,

Sweeney

asserts

that

the

district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to
sever and by refusing to strike a portion of the Government’s
rebuttal argument. *
Sweeney

We affirm.
argues

that

the

district

court

erred

by

denying his motion to sever Counts 1-3 from the remaining counts
because the counts were not related.

Two or more offenses may

be charged in the same indictment when the offenses “are of the
*

We granted Sweeney’s motion to hold this appeal in
abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Burrage v.
United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), and, after Burrage issued,
we gave Sweeney the opportunity to assert a claim based on that
decision.
By failing to pursue a claim under Burrage after
receiving notice of his right to do so, Sweeney has waived any
such claim.
See United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298
(4th Cir. 2014) (“A party who identifies an issue, and then
explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue.”).

2

Appeal: 12-4689

Doc: 64

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

same or similar character, or are based on the same act or
transaction,

or

are

connected

common scheme or plan.”

with

or

constitute

parts

Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a).

of

a

Joinder of

multiple charges involving the same statute “is an unremarkable
example of offenses of the same or similar character.”
States

v.

(internal

Hawkins,
quotation

589

F.3d

marks

694,

702-03

omitted).

In

(4th

United

Cir.

determining

2009)
whether

charges are based on the same transaction or are part of a
common plan, “[w]e have interpreted the . . . rule flexibly,
requiring that the joined offenses have a logical relationship
to one another.”

United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385

(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
de

novo

offenses

review,
was

we

proper

conclude
under

that,

Rule

here,

8(a).

the

See

After our

joinder

United

of

States

the
v.

Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of
review), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 899 (2013).
Sweeney

next

together

prejudiced

district

court’s

asserts

him.

refusal

that

“To
to

having

the

successfully

sever

under

counts

tried

challenge

[Fed.

R.

Crim.

the
P.]

14(a), [Sweeney] faces the daunting task of demonstrating that
there was a serious risk that a joint trial would . . . prevent
the

jury

innocence.”
2011)

from

making

a

reliable

judgment

about

guilt

or

United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755, 770 (4th Cir.

(internal

quotation

marks
3

omitted).

After

a

thorough

Appeal: 12-4689

Doc: 64

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
sever because the evidence on each count was overwhelming and
easily segregated and the joint trial did not hinder Sweeney’s
ability to testify.

See United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358,

367 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013); see also Blair, 661 F.3d at 770 (holding
that defendant failed to demonstrate clear prejudice required
for severance); United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 238 (6th
Cir. 2006) (“[J]uries are presumed capable of sorting evidence
and

separately

considering

each

count.”)

(internal

quotation

marks omitted); United States v. Goldman, 750 F.2d 1221, 1225
(4th Cir. 1984) (discussing evidence needed to establish clear
prejudice to right to testify).
Finally, Sweeney argues that the district court erred
by

refusing

to

strike

an

allegedly

Government’s rebuttal argument.

improper

portion

of

the

Reversal based upon improper

conduct by the prosecutor is merited when “the remarks were, in
fact,

improper[]

and

.

.

.

so

prejudiced

the

defendant’s

substantial rights that the defendant was denied a fair trial.”
United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 209 (4th Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Wilson,
624 F.3d 640, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussing factors courts
consider in determining whether prejudice exists).
4

Assuming,

Appeal: 12-4689

Doc: 64

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

without deciding, that the prosecutor’s comment was improper,
Sweeney cannot establish prejudice.

We therefore conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
strike the contested material.

See United States v. Green, 599

F.3d 360, 379 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5