US v. Maurice Colbert

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00268-CCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999597643]. [14-4112]

Appeal: 14-4112

Doc: 46

Filed: 06/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE COLBERT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00268-CCB-1)

Submitted:

May 29, 2015

Decided:

June 8, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Murtha, MURTHA, PSORAS & LANASA LLC, Lutherville,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4112

Doc: 46

Filed: 06/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Maurice Colbert of armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), (f), 2 (2012), forced
accompaniment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(e), 2 (2012),
and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence,
in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

924(c),

2

(2012).

On

appeal,

Colbert challenges his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that the
district court erred when it instructed the jury, both initially
and in response to a jury question, that eyewitness testimony
and

photographic

conviction

evidence

under

§

924(c)

“credible and reliable.”

“is
if

sufficient”
the

jury

to

finds

sustain
the

a

evidence

We affirm.

“We review the district court’s jury instructions in their
entirety and as part of the whole trial, and focus on whether
the district court adequately instructed the jury regarding the
elements of the offense and the defendant’s defenses.”

United

States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 469 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted).

Colbert acknowledges that his failure to object to

any part of the instructions on the § 924(c) charge subjects
this issue to plain error review.
627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010).
Colbert must show:

United States v. Robinson,
To establish plain error,

(1) there was an error, (2) that was plain,

and (3) that affected his substantial rights.
Olano,

507

U.S.

725,

732,

735-36
2

(1993).

United States v.
Further,

we

will

Appeal: 14-4112

Doc: 46

exercise
plain

our

error

fairness,

Filed: 06/08/2015

discretion
only

where

integrity

proceedings.”

and

Pg: 3 of 3

reverse

the

or

a

error

public

conviction
“seriously

reputation

based

on

affects
of

a

the

judicial

Id. at 732, 736 (brackets and internal quotation

marks omitted).
“The purpose of jury instructions is to instruct the jury
clearly regarding the law to be applied in the case.”
States

v.

reviewed

Lewis,
these

53

F.3d

29,

instructions

34

in

(4th

the

Cir.

context

1995).
of

United
We

the

have

overall

charge, and conclude that they fairly and accurately set forth
the controlling law.

United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 207

(4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th
Cir. 1998) (“Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove that a
person used a firearm.”).

Colbert has not demonstrated that the

challenged instruction usurped the jury’s role in weighing the
evidence against the burden of proof.
Accordingly, we affirm Colbert’s conviction.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

material

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3