US v. Marvin Garrett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00030-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999599312].. [14-4137]

Appeal: 14-4137

Doc: 70

Filed: 06/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN GARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00030-1)

Submitted:

May 27, 2015

Decided:

June 10, 2015

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Carr, JOHN A. CARR, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United
States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4137

Doc: 70

Filed: 06/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marvin
sentence

Garrett

for

appeals

distributing

his

cocaine

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012).

conviction
base,

in

and

262-month

violation

of

21

Garrett argues that the district

court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on the
Government’s

failure

to

disclose

the

drug

history

of

a

confidential informant (“C.I.”) who testified against him and by
imposing a sentence that was substantively unreasonable.

We

affirm.
The Government has a responsibility to disclose material
evidence

favorable

to

impeachment evidence.
153-55

(1972).

the

accused,

including

potential

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150,

“Undisclosed

evidence

is

material

when

its

cumulative effect is such that there is a reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result
of the proceeding would have been different.”

United States v.

Sterling, 724 F.3d 482, 511 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks

omitted),

appeal,

the

violation,

cert.

denied,

defendant
and

“we

has

134

the

review

S.

Ct.

burden

[the

2696

of

(2014).

proving

district

On

a

Giglio

court’s]

legal

conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 701-02 (4th Cir. 2011).
The
failed

district
to

court

disclose

the

found

that

C.I.’s
2

the

drug

Government

history

and

improperly
that

this

Appeal: 14-4137

Doc: 70

Filed: 06/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

information was favorable to Garrett.

The court also concluded,

however, that this evidence was not material because the C.I.
was effectively impeached when she admitted her drug history and
mental

conditions

at

trial

against Garrett was strong.
a

recording

of

a

telephone

and

because

the

other

evidence

The Government’s evidence included
conversation

in

which

the

C.I.

ordered cocaine base from a man whom a detective identified as
Garrett, testimony from multiple officers that they saw Garrett
meet the C.I. at the agreed place of delivery, testimony from a
detective

that

he

saw

Garrett

give

the

C.I.

something

in

exchange for money, and evidence that the object provided by the
C.I. proved to be cocaine base.

In light of the overwhelming

evidence against Garrett, we conclude that the district court
did

not

err

in

finding

no

reasonable

probability

that

prior

disclosure of the C.I.’s drug history would have affected the
outcome of the case.

See Sterling, 724 F.3d at 511.

Garrett also challenges the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence.
calculated
this

“Any sentence that is within or below a properly

Guidelines

“presumption

range

can

is

presumptively

only

be

rebutted

by

reasonable,”
showing

that

and
the

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014); see Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding appellate
3

Appeal: 14-4137

Doc: 70

Filed: 06/10/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Having reviewed the record and Garrett’s arguments, we conclude
that Garrett has failed to rebut this presumption.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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

4