US v. Charles Haines, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00057-GMG-DJJ-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999425982].. [13-4612]

Appeal: 13-4612

Doc: 43

Filed: 08/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES PAGE HAINES, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-DJJ-3)

Submitted:

August 27, 2014

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 29, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United
States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4612

Doc: 43

Filed: 08/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Charles Page Haines was sentenced to ninety-two months
of imprisonment following his conviction by a jury of conspiracy
to distribute twenty-eight grams or less of cocaine base, three
counts of distributing cocaine base, distributing heroin, and
maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), 846, 856 (2012).
district

court

erred

in

On appeal, Haines claims that the
admitting

evidence

of

his

prior

narcotics distribution under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and improperly
enhanced

his

offense

level

under

U.S.

Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(12) (2012).

Sentencing

Guidelines

We affirm.

Evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted as proof of
“motive,

opportunity,

identity,

absence

of

intent,
mistake,

preparation,
or

lack

of

plan,
accident”

knowledge,
but

“not

. . . to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with [his]
character.”

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); see United States v. Wilson,

624 F.3d 640, 651 (4th Cir. 2010).

“To be admissible under Rule

404(b), evidence must be (1) relevant to an issue other than
character; (2) necessary; and (3) reliable.”

United States v.

Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

Potential

Rule

404(b)

evidence

should

be

excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by

2

Appeal: 13-4612

its

Doc: 43

unfair

Filed: 08/29/2014

prejudice

to

the

Pg: 3 of 5

defendant.

United

States

v.

Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2010).
Here, there was an adequate connection between Haines’
June 2012 narcotics distribution, which supported his present
convictions, and the challenged Rule 404(b) evidence — namely
Haines’ participation in several controlled buys in early 2010.
See

id.

Those

earlier

controlled

buys

involved

Haines

facilitating the sale of substantially the same varieties of
drugs to the same confidential informants in the same geographic
area as his instant offenses.
were relevant.

Thus, the 2010 controlled buys

See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 341-

42 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312
(4th Cir. 2004) (reaching same result under analogous facts).
The

evidence

of

the

2010

controlled

buys

was

also

necessary to the Government’s case.

Because Haines squarely

placed

issue,

his

knowledge

and

intent

at

evidence

of

his

repeated, analogous drug transactions was instrumental to the
Government’s case.

See United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385,

398 (4th Cir. 2012).

Finally, the prejudice to Haines resulting

from

of

the

admission

the

Rule

404(b)

substantially outweigh its probative value.

evidence

did

not

Accordingly, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
challenged evidence.

See United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d

308, 314 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review).
3

Appeal: 13-4612

Doc: 43

Filed: 08/29/2014

Next,
application
double

Haines

of

USSG

counting

in

Pg: 4 of 5

claims

that

§ 2D1.1(b)(12)
light

of

his

the

district

constituted

conviction

We review this claim for plain error.

United

States,

standard).

556

U.S.

129,

134-36

impermissible

under

§ 856.

court’s

21

U.S.C.

See Puckett v.

(2009)

(discussing

We conclude that the district court did not err —

plainly or otherwise — because the Guidelines do not proscribe
applying

§ 2D1.1(b)(12)

where

§ 856.

See

USSG

§ 2D1.1

Hampton,

628

F.3d

654,

a

defendant

cmt.

664

n.17;

(4th

is

see

Cir.

convicted

United

2010)

under

States

(“[T]here

v.

is

a

presumption that double counting is proper where not expressly
prohibited by the guidelines.”).
Finally,
clearly

erred

primary

purpose

in

Haines
finding

for

which

contends
that
he

that

narcotics

maintained

the

district

distribution
his

court
was

residence.

a

See

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
(stating

standard

of

review).

However,

“[m]anufacturing

or

distributing a controlled substance need not be the sole purpose
for which the premises was maintained, but must be one of the
defendant’s primary or principal uses for the premises.”
§ 2D1.1 cmt. n.17.

USSG

We conclude that the evidence before the

district court was clearly sufficient to support its application
of § 2D1.1(b)(12) despite the fact that Haines had lived in his

4

Appeal: 13-4612

Doc: 43

Filed: 08/29/2014

home his entire life.

Pg: 5 of 5

See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d

699, 706-07 (8th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

conclusions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5