US v. Richaco Fernandis Holloway

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00540-PJM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999638986].. [14-4908]

Appeal: 14-4908

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4908

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHACO FERNANDIS HOLLOWAY, a/k/a Richaco F. Holloway,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00540-PJM-1)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

August 12, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Adam K. Ake, Assistant United States Attorney,
Gustav W. Eyler, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4908

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Richaco
entered

Fernandis

after

possession

of

(2012).

a

jury

a

firearm,

Holloway

denying

his

substantial
firearm.

Holloway
found

motion
evidence

him

in

argues
for

appeals

criminal

of

being

guilty

violation

that

the

of

18

judgment

a

felon

U.S.C.

§ 922(g)

the

district

court

erred

acquittal

because

there

was

proving

that

he

knowingly

in

in
not

possessed

the

He also challenges the district court’s admission of

testimony that a witness viewed a firearm that he believed to be
real in the same space where the firearm at issue was found.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Holloway argues that the government was unable to prove
that

the

studio

firearm

was

the

found

same

at

the

firearm

American

that

Music

appeared

in

Group
a

(“AMG”)

music

video

depicting Holloway, a convicted felon, holding and handling a
firearm.

He claims that the government did not prove that his

possession of the item in the music video was knowing, because
the brief duration of the video was insufficient for him to
determine whether the gun was real or a prop for the video.
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo.
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).
Here,

when

the

motion

was

based

on

a

claim

of

insufficient

evidence, the verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is
substantial evidence to support the verdict, taking the view
2

Appeal: 14-4908

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

most favorable to the government.

Glasser v. United States, 315

U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
In this case, we conclude that the jury was entitled to
find that Holloway knowingly possessed the firearm as alleged in
the indictment. 1

The government introduced video evidence of

Holloway handling the firearm at issue, which evidence alone was
sufficient to allow a jury to find actual possession, “however
briefly it occurred.”
300 (2d Cir. 2002).
of

the

firearm

United States v. Gaines, 295 F.3d 293,
The jury compared the video to the photos

recovered

during

the

search,

and

reasonably

determined that Holloway knowingly had possessed the firearm.
Next,

Holloway

argues

that

the

district

court

erred

in

admitting Gary Green’s testimony that he “assume[d]” a gun he
saw at the AMG studio was “a real gun.”
argues

that

this

statement

constituted

1

(J.A. 131).
lay

opinion

Holloway
testimony

To the extent that Holloway argued that it was not
Congress’s intent to criminalize his conduct of possessing a
firearm as a prop in a music video, the issue raised involves a
defective indictment and not sufficient evidence.
A challenge
to the indictment is now untimely and waived. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 12(b)(3)(B); Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 243-45
(1973); United States v. Williams, 544 F.2d 1215, 1217-18 (4th
Cir. 1976).
Even if we were to consider Holloway’s statutory
argument, it is foreclosed by our decision addressing a similar
challenge.
See United States v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215, 218-20
(4th Cir. 2005) (Section 922(g)(1) “simply does not allow for
the exception that [the defendant] requests” and “so long as
the[ ] three elements” of the statute are met, “the government
has conclusively established culpability,” irrespective of “why
the defendant possessed a firearm or how long that possession
lasted.” Id.
3

Appeal: 14-4908

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

that did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence
701.

A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for

abuse of discretion, which occurs when the

court’s “decision is

guided by erroneous legal principles or rests upon a clearly
erroneous factual finding.” 2

United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d

286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony that is based on a
witness’s

own

perception,

is

helpful

to

the

jury

in

understanding facts at issue, and is “not based on scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge . . . .”
Evid. 701.

Fed. R.

Generally, a lay opinion “must be based on personal

knowledge,” whereas an expert witness may testify based on “some
specialized

knowledge

or

skill

or

education

that

is

possession of the jurors” as well as personal knowledge.
States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 155-56 (4th Cir. 2006).

not

in

United
“Rule

701 forbids the admission of expert testimony dressed in lay
witness

clothing,

but

it

drawing by lay witnesses.”

does

not

interdict

all

inference

Id. at 156 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

2

The government argues that Holloway did not make a
sufficient objection to Green’s testimony.
However, because
there is no abuse of discretion, even assuming Holloway’s
objection was sufficient, we need not conduct plain error
review.

4

Appeal: 14-4908

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

Holloway argues that Green’s testimony was not “rationally
based on [his] perception,” as required for the admission of lay
opinion testimony under Rule 701.

Holloway also asserts that

the testimony was inconclusive, and thus unhelpful to the jury.
We disagree with Holloway’s arguments.
did

not

because
visits

abuse
Green

to

its

testified

the

determining

discretion

AMG

whether

to

studio,
the

in

his
his

The district court

admitting
personal

found

at

testimony

observations

observations

firearm

Green’s

were

the

AMG

during

relevant
studio

to
was

real, and his testimony did not require specialized or technical
knowledge or training.

Further, this testimony was not the only

evidence admitted to prove that the firearm was real.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5