US v. Darrell Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00116-REP-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999484998].. [14-4295]

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL LAMONT HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00116-REP-1)

Submitted:

November 25, 2014

Decided:

December 2, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Darrell Lamont Harris of interference
with

commerce

by

robbery,

in

(2012) (Hobbs Act robbery).

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

1951

On appeal, Harris contends that the

district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of
acquittal

under

Fed.

R.

presented

insufficient

Crim.

P.

evidence

29,
to

because

sustain

the
his

Government
conviction.

Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of
evidence

and

a

district

court’s

denial

judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.
430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).

of

a

motion

for

a

United States v. Alerre,

“The jury’s verdict must be

upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record
to support it, where substantial evidence is evidence that a
reasonable

finder

of

fact

could

accept

as

adequate

and

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Perry, 757 F.3d 166, 175

(4th Cir. 2014) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted).
In

evaluating

conviction,

we

whether
must

substantial

“view[]

the

evidence

evidence

and

supports
the

a

reasonable

inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to
the Government.”
To

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

obtain

a

conviction

under

the

Hobbs

Act,

the

Government must prove “(1) the underlying robbery or extortion
2

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 6

crime, and (2) an effect on interstate commerce.”

United States

v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 922 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation
marks omitted), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2689 (2014).
Act

defines

robbery

as

“the

unlawful

taking

or

The Hobbs

obtaining

of

personal property from the person . . . by means of actual or
threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, . . . to his
person

or

property

obtaining.”

.

.

.

at

the

time

18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1).

of

the

taking

or

Harris concedes that the

Government presented sufficient evidence that a robbery occurred
and that the perpetrator violated the Hobbs Act.

He argues,

however, that the Government presented insufficient evidence to
permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed the robbery.

Specifically, Harris contends that (1)

the eyewitness identifications were unreliable; (2) the evidence
of a BB gun recovered from his girlfriend’s residence did not
clearly

link

recovered

him

from

his

to

the

crime;

girlfriend’s

and

(3)

blue

residence,

latex

allegedly

gloves

matching

gloves worn by the robber, are so commonplace that they do not
support the conviction.
It

is

well

settled

that

“the

identification

of

a

criminal actor by one person is itself evidence sufficient to go
to the jury and support a guilty verdict.”
Holley,

502

eyewitnesses

F.2d

273,

selected

274

(4th

Harris

from
3

Cir.
a

United States v.

1974).

photographic

Here,

two

lineup

and

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

positively

Filed: 12/02/2014

identified

Harris

Pg: 4 of 6

during

their

in-court

testimony.

Although not contesting the admissibility of testimony regarding
the

identifications,

surrounding

the

Harris

contends

photographic

lineup

that

the

circumstances

identifications

were

so

suggestive that the eyewitness identifications were insufficient
to establish his identity as the robber.
very

substantial

likelihood

of

“In the absence of a

irreparable

misidentification,

[eyewitness identification] evidence is for the jury to weigh.”
Fowler v. Joyner, 753 F.3d 446, 454 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation

marks

likelihood

of

and

ellipsis

omitted).

misidentification,

the

In

factors

determining
a

court

the

should

consider include:
the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at
the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of
attention,
the
accuracy
of
the
witness’
prior
description of the criminal, the level of certainty
demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and
the length of time between the crime and the
confrontation.
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972).
Here, both eyewitnesses had ample opportunity to view
the robber.

Although the robber wore a mask during the robbery,

one of the eyewitnesses observed the robber before he pulled the
mask

over

his

distinguishing

face

facial

and

the

features

other

through

eyewitness
cutouts

in

observed
the

mask.

Further, both eyewitnesses provided an accurate description of
the

robber,

in

line

with

the

descriptions
4

provided

by

other

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

eyewitnesses

Filed: 12/02/2014

and

generally

Pg: 5 of 6

matching

a

description

of

Harris.

Additionally, both eyewitnesses testified that they were certain
Harris

was

the

coconspirator
Finally,
after

robber.

placed

although

the

The

Harris

Harris’s

robbery,

both

testimony

at

the

federal

of

scene

trial

eyewitnesses

Harris’s
of

the

occurred

picked

alleged
robbery.

two

Harris

years

out

of

a

lineup within two days of the robbery and confronted Harris in
state court proceedings within months of the robbery.

Thus,

under the Biggers factors, the eyewitness identification did not
produce

a

“very

substantial

likelihood

of

irreparable

misidentification.”
Any

weakness

in

the

eyewitness

identifications

were

ones for the jury to weigh when determining whether Harris was
the robber.
gun

and

The contentions Harris advances regarding the BB

the

latex

gloves

do

not

undermine

sufficiency of the Government’s evidence.

the

overall

See United States v.

Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 166 (4th Cir. 2010) (observing where some
evidence

provided

jury

with

sufficient

basis

to

conclude

defendant was perpetrator, alleged weaknesses in other evidence
tying

defendant

evidence

to

claim).

offense
Thus,

cannot

the

sustain

district

court

insufficiency
did

not

err

of
in

denying Harris’s Rule 29 motion.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

Harris’s

because
5

the

conviction.
facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-4295

Doc: 33

contentions

are

Filed: 12/02/2014

adequately

Pg: 6 of 6

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6