US v. Matthew Weston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00073-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999704754]. [15-4028]

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW LUKE WESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00073-D-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

EJ Hurst II, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G.
Walker,
United
States
Attorney,
Jennifer
P.
May-Parker,
Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Matthew Luke Weston appeals from his convictions after a
jury trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and
possession of a stolen firearm, both counts involving a 9 mm
Beretta

pistol.

He

also

challenges

his

175-month

sentence.

Weston contests the district court’s admission of testimony that
he possessed a .22 caliber pistol that was not the subject of
the charged counts and the court’s denial of his motions for a
mistrial, and asserts that the court impermissibly sentenced him
based on facts found by a preponderance of evidence.

After a

thorough review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we
affirm.
We

first

challenges

review,

to

the

for

abuse

district

of

court’s

discretion,

admission

Weston’s

of

evidence.

United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 130 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied,

135

S.

Ct.

157

(2014).

Weston

contends

that

the

testimony regarding Weston’s possession of a .22 caliber pistol
stolen from the same area at the same time as the charged 9 mm
Beretta was not intrinsic evidence or admissible under Federal
Rules

of

Evidence

introduction

of

404(b)

or

“[e]vidence

403.

of

a

Rule
crime,

404(b)(1)
wrong,

or

prohibits
other

act

. . . to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
particular
character.”

occasion

the

Evidence

person

acted

“concern[ing]
2

in

accordance

acts

intrinsic

with

the

to

the

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/23/2015

alleged

crime,”

ambit.

United States v. Otuya, 720 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir.

2013)

however,

Pg: 3 of 7

(internal

quotation

“[E]vidence

of

things,

involves

it

does

other

bad
the

not

fall

marks

acts
same

within

and

is

brackets

intrinsic

series

Rule

of

if,

404(b)’s

omitted).
among

transactions

other

as

the

charged offense, which is to say that both acts are part of a
single criminal episode.”
citation

omitted).

Id. (internal quotation marks and

Moreover,

evidence

subject

to

exclusion

under Rule 404(b)(1) “may be admissible for another purpose,
such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
To
acts”

be

admissible

evidence

must

under
be

Rule

404(b),

relevant

to

the

an

proffered

issue

other

“bad
than

character, necessary to prove an element of the crime charged,
reliable,

and

its

probative

value

outweighed by its prejudicial nature.

must

not

be

substantially

United States v. Fuertes,

___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 13-4755, 2015 WL 4910113, at *4 (4th Cir.
Aug. 18, 2015).
court

abused

its

Generally, we will not find that a district
discretion

in

admitting

evidence

over

an

objection unless that decision was “arbitrary and irrational.”
United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2014).
Under these standards, we conclude that there was no abuse of

3

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

discretion

in

Filed: 11/23/2015

the

district

Pg: 4 of 7

court’s

decision

to

admit

the

challenged testimony.
Next,

Weston

denying his

contends

motion

for

a

that

the

mistrial

district
because

court
juror

a

erred

in

allegedly

viewed him in restraints, without first allowing him to question
the

marshals

discretion

transporting

the

district

him.

We
denial

of

court’s

review
a

for

abuse

motion

for

mistrial or the denial of a motion for a new trial.
States

v.

Robinson,

627

F.3d

941,

948

(4th

of
a

United

Cir.

2010)

(discussing motion for new trial); United States v. Wallace, 515
F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2008) (discussing motion for mistrial).
The district court’s denial “will be disturbed only under the
most

extraordinary

of

circumstances.”

United

States

v.

Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997).
The

juror

who

the

defendant

thought

had

seen

him

in

restraints credibly and unequivocally testified that he had not
seen the defendant during the morning in question.
found

the

juror

to

be

credible

and

that

with

The court

the

fact

in

question resolved, there was no need for further investigation.
This factual finding, based on the court’s assessment of the
witness’s credibility, is not clearly erroneous.
States

v.

DiTommaso,

(providing standard).

405

F.2d

385,

393

(4th

See United
Cir.

1968)

We therefore determine that the court did

not abuse its discretion.
4

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

Next,

Filed: 11/23/2015

Weston

argues

Pg: 5 of 7

that

the

district

court

erred

in

denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.
At trial, Weston contended that there was no direct evidence of
his possession of the 9 mm Beretta and the testimonial evidence
was contradictory, inconsistent, and incredible.

In denying the

motion, the court made several specific credibility findings in
favor

of

the

Government’s

witnesses

and

stated

that

the

defendant perjured himself.
The denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion.

United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 334

(4th

Federal

Cir.

2013).

Rule

of

Criminal

Procedure

33

authorizes a district court to “vacate any judgment and grant a
new trial if the interest of justice so requires.”
Crim. P. 33(a).

Fed. R.

When the Rule 33 motion “attacks the weight of

the evidence, the court’s authority is much broader than when it
is deciding a motion to acquit on the ground of insufficient
evidence”

in

witnesses.”

that

“it

may

evaluate

the

credibility

of

the

United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1485

(4th Cir. 1985).

“When the evidence weighs so heavily against

the verdict that it would be unjust to enter judgment, the court
should

grant

a

new

trial.”

Id.

(citing

cases).

We

have

reviewed the record with the requisite standards and conclude
that,

in

light

of

the

heavy

weight

of

the

evidence

and

credibility findings made by the court, including that Weston
5

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

perjured

Filed: 11/23/2015

himself

at

trial,

Pg: 6 of 7

the

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion in denying the motion.
Finally, Weston argues that the court erred in considering
acquitted

or

Guidelines

uncharged

range

conduct

and

in

in

making

calculating
sentencing

the

Sentencing

findings

by

a

preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt.
A district court’s legal conclusions at sentencing are reviewed
de novo and factual findings for clear error.

United States v.

Gomez–Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 380 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 305, 384 (2014).

Weston recognized at sentencing and

admits on appeal that Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151
(2013), forecloses his argument.

The Supreme Court made clear

in Alleyne that its holding “does not mean that any fact that
influences judicial discretion must be found by a jury.

We have

long recognized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by
judicial

factfinding,

does

not

violate

the

Sixth

Amendment.”

133 S. Ct. at 2163; see United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107,
117 (3d Cir.) (“Alleyne did not curtail a sentencing court’s
ability to find facts relevant in selecting a sentence within
the prescribed statutory range.”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 383,
497

(2014).

considering

The
the

district

conduct

and

court

therefore

applying

evidence standard.

6

a

did

not

preponderance

err

in

of

the

Appeal: 15-4028

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 7 of 7

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

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

7