US v. Sheik Trice
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cr-00034-GEC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999633530].. [14-4789]
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4789
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHEIK NAIEEM TRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:13-cr-00034-GEC-1)
Submitted:
June 29, 2015
Decided:
August 4, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States Attorney,
Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Sheik Naieem Trice was convicted of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and possession with intent to distribute
heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
He was sentenced to 151 months
on each count, to run concurrently.
three issues.
Trice now appeals, raising
We affirm.
I
Trice contends that the district court erred when it denied
his motion to suppress evidence seized from a residence pursuant
to a search warrant.
“In reviewing the denial of a motion to
suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
United States
v. Green, 740 F.3d 275, 277 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
207
(2014).
If
the
district
court
denied
the
motion
to
suppress, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government.
United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534
(4th Cir. 2013).
To comport with the Fourth Amendment, a magistrate issuing
a search warrant must find probable cause based on “a practical,
common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set
forth in the affidavit [supporting the warrant,] . . . there is
a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
be found in a particular place.”
2
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
213, 238 (1983).
Pg: 3 of 7
“The probable-cause standard is incapable of
precise definition or quantification into percentages because it
deals
with
probabilities
circumstances.”
and
depends
on
the
totality
of
the
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003).
“For that reason, in reviewing the sufficiency of a supporting
affidavit, we avoid applying hypertechnical scrutiny.”
Lott,
372
F.3d
marks omitted).
267,
274
(4th
Cir.
2004)
(internal
Owens v.
quotation
We accord great deference to the magistrate’s
probable cause determination.
United States v. Clyburn, 24 F.3d
613, 617 (4th Cir. 1994).
In
warrant,
the
affidavit
Detective
submitted
Kelly
Jennings
in
support
stated
of
that
the
he
search
received
information from a confidential informant (CI) that Trice was
“in possession of heroin, available for sale, and was staying at
the address to be searched, with Morgan Nicole Sander . . . [,]
the main tenant of the residence.”
Jennings stated that the CI
gave him Sander’s name and address and identified her vehicle
and
its
license
plate
number.
Jennings
corroborated
this
information by researching DMV records, showing a photograph of
Sander to the CI, and observing Sander at the residence in the
vehicle described by the CI.
Jennings also observed a male
matching the CI’s description of Trice in Sander’s vehicle.
The CI informed Jennings that Trice would be conducting a
heroin transaction at a certain location at a specific time.
3
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 4 of 7
Trice showed up as forecast and entered a vehicle that arrived
at the location.
were found.
When officers confronted Trice, no narcotics
However, Trice was arrested for attempted robbery.
Jennings then met with the CI, who had recorded a phone
conversation
with
Sander
regarding
Trice’s
arrest.
Jennings
stated in the affidavit that he listened to the phone call, in
which
Sander
stated
that
she
was
afraid
residence because “all that shit is there.”
to
return
to
her
Jennings said that
he believed this was a reference to heroin that Trice had stored
at Sander’s residence.
We conclude that the affidavit established probable cause
to believe that heroin would be located at the Sander residence.
Jennings
corroborated
specifically,
Further,
a
where
practical
the
she
CI’s
lived
and
information
and
what
common-sense
about
car
she
interpretation
Sander-drove.
of
the
recorded conversation between the CI and Sander reasonably would
lead to the conclusion that heroin would be found at the Sander
residence, where Trice, a heroin dealer, was staying.
II
Prior to trial, the Government filed a notice stating its
intention to introduce as Fed. R. Crim. P. 404(b) evidence two
of
Trice’s
possession
prior
with
drug
intent
convictions:
to
distribute
a
2003
marijuana;
conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin.
4
conviction
and
a
for
2012
Trice filed a
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 5 of 7
motion in limine to exclude the evidence.
After argument, the
court excluded the evidence of the 2003 conviction because it
was
remote
in
time
and
involved
marijuana--not
heroin.
The
court denied the motion as to the heroin conviction.
Trice claims that the district court’s ruling was erroneous
insofar
as
it
related
to
the
2012
heroin
conviction.
“A
district court’s determination of the admissibility of evidence
under [Rule] 404(b) is reviewed for . . . abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 574 (4th Cir. 2011).
Rule 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of prior
bad acts solely to prove action in conformity therewith.
Such
evidence may be admissible, however, for other purposes, such as
“‘proof
of
knowledge,
motive,
identity,
opportunity,
or
absence
intent,
of
preparation,
mistake
or
plan,
accident.’”
United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 311-12 (4th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Rule 404(b)).
For such evidence to be admissible under
the Rule, it must be “(1) relevant to an issue other than the
general character of the defendant; (2) necessary to prove an
element of the charged offense; and (3) reliable.”
Id.
“Evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 404(b) must also
satisfy” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
306, 319 (4th Cir. 2008).
of
evidence
damages
an
that
results
opponent
for
United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d
“Rule 403 only requires suppression
in
unfair
reasons
5
prejudice--prejudice
other
that
its
that
probative
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 6 of 7
value, . . . and only when that unfair prejudice substantially
outweighs
the
probative
value
of
the
evidence.”
United
States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613, 619-20 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted).
We
hold
that
the
district
court
introduction of the 2012 conviction.
properly
permitted
The evidence was relevant
to an issue other than character because it tended to show that
Trice, as a convicted drug dealer, had knowledge of the drug
trade.
The evidence was necessary to show intent and lack of
mistake.
Further, the evidence was reliable, as it consisted of
a copy of a certified judgment from a New Jersey state court.
Finally,
the
beginning
of
evidence,
a
trial
presented
where
as
there
a
was
stipulation
abundant
at
evidence
the
of
Trice’s drug dealing, was not overly prejudicial.
III
Trice contends that he was improperly found at sentencing
to be a career offender.
the
presentence
Having reviewed the record, including
investigation
report
and
the
sentencing
transcript, we are convinced that Trice had the requisite prior
felony convictions and otherwise qualified as a career offender.
See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2013).
relied
on
certified
judgments
The district court properly
from
New
Jersey
reflecting Trice’s prior felony drug convictions.
error
in
the
court’s
conclusion
6
that
Trice
state
courts
We discern no
was
a
career
Appeal: 14-4789
Doc: 54
offender.
Cir.
Filed: 08/04/2015
Pg: 7 of 7
See United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 120 (4th
2014),
cert.
denied,
135
S.
Ct.
942
(2015)
(stating
standard of review).
IV
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
the
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?