US v. Janson Strayhorn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999594617-2], denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999557375-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00368-CCE-2 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999610711]. [14-4726]

Appeal: 14-4726

Doc: 50

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4726

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JANSON LAMARK STRAYHORN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00368-CCE-2)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Renorda E. Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4726

Doc: 50

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Janson

Lamark

Strayhorn

was

convicted

by

a

jury

of

interference with commerce by robbery (Count One), conspiracy to
commit robbery (Count Three), carrying and using a firearm during
and in relation to crimes of violence (Counts Two and Four), and
possession

of

a

firearm

by

a

convicted

felon

(Count

Strayhorn appealed his convictions on Counts One-Four.

Five).
United

States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 921 & n.1, 925 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014).

Because we concluded that the

evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on Counts One
and Two, id. at 922-24, “we reverse[d] . . . [those] convictions
. . . , vacate[d] the sentence[,] and remand[ed] [the] case for
resentencing in light of our disposition on [the] motion for
judgment of acquittal.”
convictions

on

Counts

Id. at 927.
Three

and

Four,

substantial evidence supported them.

We also affirmed the
id.,

concluding

that

Id. at 925-26.

On remand, Strayhorn sought a new trial on Counts Three, Four,
and Five, arguing that the evidence from Counts One and Two tainted
his trial on the surviving counts.
request, and Strayhorn appeals.

The district court denied this

We affirm.

“[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, [the mandate
rule] compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior
court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly
decided by the appellate court,” as well as issues “foregone on
2

Appeal: 14-4726

Doc: 50

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

appeal or otherwise waived, for example because they were not
raised in the district court.”

United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d

675, 679 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis and internal quotation marks
omitted).

In his original appeal, Strayhorn did not challenge his

conviction on Count Five, and we affirmed his convictions on Counts
Three and Four without authorizing the district court to reconsider
those convictions on remand.
27.

Strayhorn, 743 F.3d at 921 n.1, 926-

Strayhorn does not allege any exceptional circumstances that

might exempt his spillover-prejudice claim from the effects of the
mandate

rule.

See

Pileggi,

703

F.3d

at

681-82

(discussing

exceptions to rule). We therefore conclude that the district court
properly denied the request for a new trial.
Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment entered by the
district court.

We also deny Strayhorn’s motions for leave to

file pro se supplemental briefs. See United States v. Penniegraft,
641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011).

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

3