US v. Edward Crow

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00038-IMK-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999582385].. [14-4815]

Appeal: 14-4815

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4815

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDWARD C. CROW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00038-IMK-JSK-1)

Submitted:

April 30, 2015

Decided:

May 13, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Tara Tighe, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4815

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Edward

Crow

was

convicted

of

assaulting

a

federal

correctional officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b)
(2012); assaulting with a dangerous weapon with intent to do
bodily harm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3), 113(a)(3) (2012); and possessing
a prohibited weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2),
(b)(3) (2012).

The district court sentenced Crow to 240 months

of imprisonment.

On appeal, Crow argues that the district court

(1) admitted improper evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), (2) should have granted a mistrial due to
inadmissible expert testimony on the ultimate issue, and (3)
imposed an unreasonable sentence.

We affirm.

We review the admission of evidence of prior bad acts for
an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d

308, 314 (4th Cir. 2014).

“We will not find a district court to

have abused its discretion unless its decision to admit evidence
under Rule 404(b) was arbitrary and irrational.”

Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).
Rule 404(b) prohibits introducing “[e]vidence of a crime,
wrong, or other act . . . to prove a person’s character in order
to

show

that

on

a

particular

occasion

accordance with the character.”
Government

may

offer

the

person

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

otherwise

inadmissible

acted

in

But the

evidence

to

“explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts given in evidence
2

Appeal: 14-4815

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/13/2015

by the opposing party.”

Pg: 3 of 6

United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281,

329 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here,

the

Government

to

district
introduce

court
the

appropriately

challenged

opened the door to such evidence.
opened

the

door

as

to

permitted

evidence

the

because

Crow

Crow’s contention that he

testimony

from

one

witness,

another, is at odds with this Court’s precedent.

but

not

See Higgs, 353

F.3d at 329-30 (holding that Government was entitled to present
rebuttal

evidence

accused

presented

prison).

of

accused’s

testimony

disciplinary

that

he

was

infractions

avoiding

where

trouble

in

Therefore, this claim lacks merit.

We next review Crow’s contention that the district court
ought, sua sponte, to have declared a mistrial.
for plain error.
742,

754

(4th

demonstrate

Our review is

See United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d

Cir.

that

an

2011).
error

To
(1)

show

plain

occurred,

(3) affected his “substantial rights.”
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

error,

(2)

was

Crow

must

plain,

and

See United States v.

Even then, “correction of the

error” is within our discretion, to be exercised only when “the
error

seriously

affects

the

fairness,

reputation of judicial proceedings.”
478

F.3d

247,

249

(4th

Cir.

2007)

quotation marks omitted).

3

integrity

or

public

United States v. Muhammed,
(internal

alteration

and

Appeal: 14-4815

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/13/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

“In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an
opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental
state that constitutes an element of . . . a defense.”
Evid. 704(b).

Fed. R.

This rule is “aimed at ameliorating the danger

associated with mental health testimony that the expert, who is
qualified only to explain medical concepts, will be called upon
to interpret legal ones.”

United States v. Smart, 98 F.3d 1379,

1388 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal alteration and quotation marks
omitted).

Consequently, an expert may “set out her medical and

psychological

knowledge”

regarding

the

defendant’s

mental

disease or defect; however, she cannot conclude “that the mental
illness

clouded

from wrong.”

the

defendant’s

ability

to

distinguish

right

United States v. Diekhoff, 535 F.3d 611, 619 (7th

Cir. 2008).
In this case, while we agree that the expert’s opinion ran
afoul of Rule 704(b), we find no evidence that the district
court

erred,

mistrial.

plainly
The

or

district

otherwise,
court

by

failing

immediately

to

order

sustained

a

Crow’s

objection, struck the testimony from the record, and issued a
proper limiting instruction.
In closing, we review for abuse of discretion Crow’s claim
that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

See

In reviewing a

sentence for reasonableness, we first ensure that the district
4

Appeal: 14-4815

court

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/13/2015

committed

insufficient
factors
United

no

“significant

consideration

or

inadequate

States

v.

Pg: 5 of 6

of

procedural

the

18

explanation

Lynn,

592

F.3d

error,”

U.S.C.

of

the

572,

including

§ 3553(a)
sentence

575

(4th

(2012)

imposed.

Cir.

2010)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
In

its

explanation,

the

district

court

“must

make

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
552 U.S. at 50.

an

Gall,

“This individualized assessment need not be

elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored
to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful
appellate review.”
(4th

Cir.

review,

2009)

we

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(internal

conclude

that

quotation
the

marks

district

omitted).

court

Upon

committed

no

procedural error.
We must also examine the substantive reasonableness of the
sentences,

considering

the

“totality

of

the

circumstances.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The sentence imposed must be “sufficient,

but

necessary,”

not

greater

sentencing.

18

than

U.S.C.

§

to

3553(a).

satisfy
A

the

properly

purposes

of

calculated,

within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and
an

appellant

bears

the

burden

to

“rebut

the

presumption

by

demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda,

5

Appeal: 14-4815

445

Doc: 25

F.3d

Filed: 05/13/2015

375,

379

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 6 of 6

2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Crow’s
ranges.
the

fell

within

their

respective

Guidelines

The court balanced the seriousness of the offense and

need

Crow’s

sentences

to

ensure

personal

order

in

history

of

correctional
isolation,

facilities

mental

against

illness,

and

institutionalization.
That the district court later sentenced Crow in a different
case, stemming from a wholly unrelated crime, to a sentence to
run consecutive to this sentence, does not make this sentence
substantively unreasonable.

“Judges have long been understood

to have discretion to select whether the sentences they impose
will run concurrently or consecutively with respect to other
sentences that they impose, or that have been imposed in other
proceedings.”
(2012).
from

the

Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468

In any event, this assertion belongs in Crow’s appeal
latter

case.

We

thus

conclude

that

the

district

court’s sentence was reasonable.
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