US v. John Pinke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00009-IMK-JSK-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999613774]. [14-4813]

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN DAVID PINKE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00009-IMK-JSK-2)

Submitted:

June 24, 2015

Decided:

July 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deirdre Purdy, Chloe, West Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew R.
Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
John Pinke appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing
him to 275 months of imprisonment pursuant to his convictions
for assaulting with intent to commit murder, conspiring to do
the same, assaulting with a dangerous weapon with intent to do
bodily harm, and assaulting another inmate resulting in serious
bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 7(3), 113(a)(1),
(a)(3), (6), 371 (2012).

Pinke’s counsel filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel stated

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioned
whether

the

district

assault

and

court

resulting

correctly

injuries

given

admitted
their

videos

gruesome

of

the

nature,

resentenced Pinke in order to apportion the sentence among the
four

counts

of

conviction,

and

grouped

Pinke’s

offenses

to

calculate his total offense level before stacking two of the
sentences as consecutive.

Pinke filed a pro se brief arguing

that the district court plainly erred in admitting the videos
without

a

proper

foundation

and

abused

its

discretion

in

excluding testimony describing alleged statements by the victim
as hearsay.

The Government declined to file a brief.

After

careful review, we affirm.
We

review

for

decision

to

admit

injuries

despite

abuse
the

their

of

discretion

videos

of

gruesome
2

the

the

district

assault

nature.

and

United

court’s

resulting
States

v.

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 7

Forrest, 429 F.3d 73, 79 (4th Cir. 2005).

A district court may

exclude otherwise relevant evidence if “its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
We have reviewed the record, including the videos, and find
that, while gruesome, the videos were not so inflammatory that
their

potential

probative value.

for

prejudice

substantially

outweighed

their

The first video refutes the victim’s testimony

that he instigated the conflict, and tends to demonstrate that
Pinke and his codefendants intended to murder the victim, given
the

nature

and

duration

of

the

assault.

The

second

video

depicts the “serious bodily injury” element required to convict
Pinke under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6).

Consequently, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videos.
We next review, also for abuse of discretion, the district
court’s decision to correct its sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P.
Rule 35(a).
Cir.

See United States v. Stump, 914 F.2d 170, 172 (9th

1990).

resulted

from

A

district

court

arithmetical,

may

“correct

technical,

within 14 days after sentencing.

or

a

other

sentence
clear

that

error”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).

Here, the court did just that.

Six days after Pinke was

sentenced, the court recognized that it failed to delineate the
specific sentences applicable to each count of conviction.

3

We

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 4 of 7

find no authority to suggest that the district court’s decision
to do so constituted an abuse of discretion.
We likewise conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in grouping Pinke’s offenses to calculate his
total

offense

counts,

so

level

before

stacking

the

overall

range

Guidelines

that

but

no

the

sentence

specific

sentences

for

two

be

within

his

would

exceed

the

would

sentence

statutory maximum for its corresponding offense.

Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007) (providing standard of review).
Indeed, its decision to do so was entirely appropriate: “If the
sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory
maximum is less than the total punishment, then the sentence
imposed

on

one

or

more

of

the

other

counts

shall

run

consecutively, but only to the extent necessary to produce a
combined

sentence

equal

to

the

total

punishment.”

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d).
We next consider Pinke’s assertion that the district court
plainly erred by admitting the contested videos without a proper
foundation.
(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 155
2006)

(holding

that

plain-error

unopposed evidentiary admissions). *

*

review

applies

to

To meet this standard, Pinke

While Pinke did contest admission of the videos under Fed.
R. Evid. 403, he did not challenge their foundation.

4

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 5 of 7

must demonstrate that an error (1) occurred, (2) was plain, and
(3) affected his substantial rights.
507

U.S.

725,

732

(1993).

Even

United States v. Olano,

then,

we

may

exercise

our

discretion to correct such errors only if the errors “seriously
affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.”
“The

Id.

factual

determination

of

whether

evidence

is

that

which the proponent claims is ultimately reserved for the jury.”
United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2009).
The district court is merely obligated to assess whether the
proponent has offered a proper foundation from which “the jury
could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.”
Our

review

presented

of

the

sufficient

record

evidence

indicates
of

that

the

authentication.

Id.
Government
As

to

the

first video, a Government witness explained the manner in which
the prison’s closed circuit video system operates, the means by
which he obtained the video, and that he downloaded it onto the
DVD that was played for the jury.

Regarding the second video,

another

that

prison

employee

explained

he

responded

to

the

assault, witnessed a nurse videotaping the victim’s injuries,
and the video depicted injuries that were consistent with his
recollection.

In light of this, we find no error, plain or

otherwise,

the

in

district

court’s

videos.
5

decision

to

admit

these

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 6 of 7

Finally, we review the district court’s hearsay rulings for
abuse of discretion.

United States v. Gonzales-Flores, 701 F.3d

112, 117 (4th Cir. 2012).
declarant
evidence

does
“to

not

prove

statement.”

Fed.

make
the
R.

“Hearsay” is any statement that the
at

the

truth

Evid.

of

current
the

801(c).

trial,

matter
Hearsay

offered

asserted
is

in

in
the

inadmissible

except as otherwise provided by federal rule or statute.

Fed.

R. Evid. 802.
Here, we hold that even if error occurred, it was harmless,
in view of high probability “that the error did not affect the
judgment.”

See United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 212 (4th

Cir. 1980) (providing the test for harmlessness).

Pinke sought

to introduce threatening statements made before the assault by
the

victim

through

a

third

party,

and

the

district

court

eventually admitted other testimony detailing just that.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
found no meritorious issues for appeal.
the district court’s judgment.

Consequently, we affirm

This court requires that counsel

inform Pinke, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Pinke

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 Pinke.
6

We

Appeal: 14-4813

Doc: 46

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 07/02/2015

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 7 of 7

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

7