US v. Shaun Orlando Grier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00243-AW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999676309].. [14-4054]

Appeal: 14-4054

Doc: 75

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUN ORLANDO GRIER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00243-AW-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

October 13, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marnitta L. King, KING LAW P.A., Largo Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom,
Deborah
A.
Johnston,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4054

Doc: 75

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shaun Orlando Grier appeals his convictions on charges of
possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (“PCP”) and
cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a person
previously convicted of a felony offense.

The district court

sentenced Grier to an aggregate of 350 months’ imprisonment.

On

appeal, he challenges a number of evidentiary rulings by the
district court, and he asserts that the district court abused
its discretion by limiting the time for his closing argument to
the jury.
Grier

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
first

contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

denying his motion to suppress the contents of a package he
placed in the mail intended to be sent to an address in San
Francisco, California, and his motion to suppress evidence of
the

drugs

residence

and
and

firearms
vehicles.

recovered
When

during

considering

the
the

search

of

validity

his
of

a

search pursuant to a warrant, the district court must determine
whether the magistrate judge issuing the search warrant had a
“substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).
We conclude that the district court did not err in determining
that the search warrants were valid.

Accordingly, the district

court did not err in denying the motions to suppress evidence
2

Appeal: 14-4054

Doc: 75

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

recovered pursuant to the warrants.

See United States v. Jones,

667 F.3d 477, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing standard).
Next, Grier contends that the district court abused its
discretion

with

specifically,

respect

by

to

limiting

a

number

Grier’s

of

evidentiary

rulings,

cross-examination

of

the

postal inspector as to the legality of the seizure of a package
that he intended to mail to California, allowing the Government
to introduce evidence of his prior conviction for possession
with intent to distribute PCP, overruling his objection to the
Government’s use of leading questions during its questioning of
Grier’s mother who was called as a Government witness, allowing
the

Government

to

introduce

hearsay

evidence

of

his

bank

balances, excluding the testimony and report of the Government’s
forensic chemist, and denying Grier’s request to call his own
expert

to

testify

expert’s report.

as

to

the

contents

of

the

Government’s

We have reviewed the arguments presented by

the parties and find no abuse of discretion by the district
court’s rulings.
(4th

Cir.

evidentiary

See United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153

2011)

(reviewing

ruling

that

is

court

arbitrary

will
and

only

overturn

irrational);

an

United

States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (district
court has discretion to admit or exclude evidence).
Lastly, Grier contends that the district court abused its
discretion and prejudiced his defense by cutting short counsel’s
3

Appeal: 14-4054

Doc: 75

Filed: 10/13/2015

closing argument.
45

minutes

each

Pg: 4 of 4

The court agreed to the parties’ request for
for

closing

arguments.

Prior

to

closing

arguments, the court reminded the parties of the time limit.
During

the

Government

closing
attorney

arguments,
and

the

Grier’s

court

attorney

advised
when

both

the

had

ten

they

minutes remaining and also when five minutes remained.

At the

end of the 45 minutes, Grier’s counsel requested an additional
five minutes.

The court acquiesced, and then allowed Grier’s

counsel to continue her summation for ten minutes.

At that

time, Grier’s summation was 55 minutes, and the court informed
counsel that her time was up.

We find no abuse of discretion by

the district court in imposing and enforcing this time limit.
See United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 1998)
(providing standard); United States v. Moye, 951 F.2d 59, 63
(5th Cir. 1992) (same); see also United States v. Collins, 372
F.3d 629, 634 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding defendant’s challenge
to 45-minute limitation on closing argument “unpersuasive”).
Having found no error and no abuse of discretion by the
district court, we affirm Grier’s convictions.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4