US v. Izell Grissett, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00134-JFA-2 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999563285]. [14-4573]

Appeal: 14-4573

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4573

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IZELL DELOREAN GRISSETT, JR., a/k/a Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00134-JFA-2)

Submitted:

March 27, 2015

Before KEENAN and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 13, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bruce Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Nancy Chastain Wicker, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4573

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Izell Delorean Grissett, Jr., was charged in five counts of
a seven-count indictment with:

(1) conspiracy to distribute and

distribution of 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or
more of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012) (Count
One); (2) Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012) (Count
Four); (3) using and carrying a firearm during and in relation
to a drug trafficking crime and a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012) (Count Five); (4) being a felon in possession of
a firearm and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012) (Count Six);
and (5) possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of

cocaine

and

a

quantity

of

841(a)(1) (2012) (Count Seven).
on

all

counts;

imprisonment.
Counsel

he

was

crack

cocaine,

21

U.S.C.

§

The jury found Grissett guilty

sentenced

to

life

plus

ten

years’

Grissett noted a timely appeal.
has

filed

a

brief

in

accordance

with

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no
meritorious

issues

for

appeal

but

questioning

whether

the

district court erred in denying Grissett’s motion for judgment
of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.

Grissett has

filed a pro se supplemental brief raising two additional issues:
(1) the district court erred when it issued a modified Allen
charge to the jury; and (2) the district court erred in applying
the murder cross-reference at sentencing.
2

Appeal: 14-4573

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a
motion for judgment of acquittal.

United States v. Strayhorn,

743 F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689
(2014).

In

assessing

the

sufficiency

of

the

evidence,

we

determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the
conviction

when

Government.
reasonable

viewed

Id.

in

the

light

“Substantial

finder

of

fact

most

evidence

could

favorable

is

accept

evidence
as

to

the

that

adequate

a

and

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

United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93

(4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
whether

“any

essential

rational

elements

of

trier
the

of

fact

crime

could

beyond

a

have

The test is
found

reasonable

the

doubt.”

United States v. Madrigal-Valadez, 561 F.3d 370, 374 (4th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“may

not

weigh

the

evidence

or

review

An appellate court
the

credibility

of

witnesses. . . . [t]hose functions are reserved for the jury.”
United

States

v.

Wilson,

118

F.3d

228,

234

(4th

Cir.

1997)

(internal citation omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
and find that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a
conviction as to each of the counts with which Grissett was
charged.

Testimony

established

that

Grissett

was

part

of

a

long-term cocaine and crack cocaine distribution operation in
3

Appeal: 14-4573

the

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/13/2015

Columbia,

Grissett

South

and

his

Carolina

Pg: 4 of 6

area.

co-conspirator

According

planned

and

to

witnesses,

carried

out

a

robbery of one of their suppliers in June 2010, during which
Grissett

shot

and

killed

Hector

Carrion.

Based

on

this

evidence, we find that the district court did not err in denying
Grissett’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Turning to Grissett’s pro se claims, he first argues that
the district court erred in issuing a modified Allen charge that
eliminated any mention of the words “minority” or “majority”
with regard to the jurors’ votes.

The modification was agreed

upon by both parties because the jurors had mistakenly indicated
their split in the votes in their message to the judge.

“An

Allen charge, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v.
United

States,

164

U.S.

492

(1896),

is

‘[a]n

instruction

advising deadlocked jurors to have deference to each
views,

that

they

should

listen,

with

convinced, to each other’s argument.’”
55

F.3d

933,

935

(4th

Cir.

1995)

a

other’s

disposition

be

United States v. Burgos,

(quoting

United

Seeright, 978 F.2d 842, 845 n.* (4th Cir. 1992)).

States

v.

We review the

content of an Allen charge for abuse of discretion.
States v. Burgos, 55 F.3d at 935.

to

United

An “Allen charge must not

coerce the jury, and it must be fair, neutral and balanced.”
United

States

v.

Cropp,

127

F.3d

(internal citations omitted).

354,

359

(4th

Cir.

1997)

We conclude that the district
4

Appeal: 14-4573

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

court’s charge was not coercive nor can Grissett show that he
suffered any prejudice as a result.
challenges

the

sentencing.
“[i]f

a

application

The

victim

advisory
was

of

Finally,

the

murder

Sentencing

killed

under

Grissett

cross-reference

Guidelines

provide

circumstances

that

at

that
would

constitute murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had such killing taken
place within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the
United States, apply § 2A1.1 (First Degree Murder) . . . if the
resulting offense level is greater than that determined under
this

guideline.”

2D1.1(d)(1)

U.S.

(2013).

Sentencing

The

Government

Guidelines
must

prove

Manual
the

§

facts

underlying a cross-reference by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012).

We

find that the testimony established that the killing of Hector
Carrion constituted first degree murder within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. § 1111.
did

not

Also, because the application of

increase

Grissett’s

mandatory

minimum

§ 2D1.1(d)(1)
sentence,

his

reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) is misplaced.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s order.

This

court requires that counsel inform Grissett, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
5

Appeal: 14-4573

Doc: 35

further review.

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

If Grissett requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Grissett.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

Court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6