US v. Ronald Mabine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00113-HCM-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999685770]. [15-4198]

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4198

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD LEE MABINE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:14-cr-00113-HCM-TEM-1)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 26, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Sherrie S.
Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Lee Mabine was convicted, following a jury trial, of
Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012);
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation
of

18

firearm

U.S.C.
by

(2012).

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

a
On

erroneously

felon,

in

appeal,

denied

(2012);

violation
he

his

of

argues
motion

and

18

that
to

possession

U.S.C.
the

suppress

§

of

a

922(g)(1)

district

court

identification

evidence, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

We

affirm.
Mabine

first

argues

that

the

show-up

identification

was

unduly suggestive and that the identification is not reliable.
We review factual findings underlying a district court’s denial
of

a

motion

to

suppress

conclusions de novo.

for

clear

error

and

its

legal

United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246

(4th Cir. 2011).

Because the district court denied the motion

to

construe

suppress,

favorable

to

we
the

the

evidence

Government,

the

party

“in

the

light

prevailing

most

below.”

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013).
“Due process principles prohibit the admission at trial of
an out-of-court identification obtained through procedures ‘so
impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial
likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’”

United States v.

Saunders, 501 F.3d 384, 389 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Simmons v.
2

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)).

The defendant bears

the burden of proof in challenging the admissibility of an outof-court identification.

See United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d

435, 441 (4th Cir. 1997).
the

.

.

.

suggestive.”

“First, the defendant must show that

identification

procedure

Saunders, 501 F.3d at 389.

was

impermissibly

If the procedure was

improper, the court must “consider[] whether the identification
was

nevertheless

circumstances.”
court’s

Id.

denial

identification

reliable

of

at
a

without

in

the

389-90.
motion

context
We

to

determining

of

may

uphold

suppress
whether

all

an

the

a

of

the

district

out-of-court
identification

procedure was unduly suggestive if we find the identification
reliable.

Holdren v. Legursky, 16 F.3d 57, 61 (4th Cir. 1994);

see United States v. Greene, 704 F.3d 298, 308 (4th Cir. 2013)
(listing

factors

courts

consider

in

assessing

reliability

of

out-of-court identification).
We conclude that the witness’ out-of-court identification
was reliable.

The witness had ample opportunity to view the

perpetrator during the robbery and described the high degree of
attention

she

paid

to

him.

Although

the

robbery

lasted

approximately two minutes, the witness, who was within only a
few feet of the robber, testified that the robber’s face was
uncovered for the majority of that time.

Further, the witness’

description was fairly accurate; she accurately described his
3

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

skin complexion and weight, and her descriptions of the robber’s
age and height were not significantly different from Mabine’s.
Finally, the witness identified Mabine with certainty within 40
minutes of the robbery.
Mabine

next

challenges

supporting his convictions.

the

sufficiency

of

the

evidence

We review de novo the denial of a

Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal.

United

States v. Fuertes, __ F.3d __, __, Nos. 13-4755, 13-4931, 2015
WL

4910113,

challenging

at
the

burden . . . .”
Cir. 2015).
the

is

(4th

sufficiency

Aug.
of

18,

the

2015).

evidence

“A
faces

defendant
a

heavy

United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 194 (4th

in

the

light

substantial

verdict.”

Cir.

The jury verdict must by sustained when, “view[ing]

evidence

there

*7

most

evidence

favorable

in

the

to

record

the
to

government,
support

the

United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616, 630 (4th Cir.

2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, __ S.
Ct.

__,

No.

14-10267,

2015

WL

3793104

(U.S.

Oct.

5,

2015).

“[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact

could

accept

as

adequate

and

sufficient

to

support

a

conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mabine

argues

that,

without

the

identification,

the

Government’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he
committed the offenses.

However, when reviewing for sufficiency
4

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

of the evidence, “a reviewing court must consider all of the
evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless whether that
evidence was admitted erroneously.”

McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S.

120, 131 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted);
United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 159 (4th Cir. 1990).
Considering all of the evidence admitted at trial, we conclude
that

the

Government

Mabine’s convictions.
the

show-up

and

in

presented

sufficient

evidence

to

support

The witness identified Mabine—both during
court—as

the

man

who

entered

the

store,

pointed a firearm at her, demanded the money in her register,
and took $429.

Mabine, who stipulated that he was a convicted

felon and that the firearm had traveled in interstate commerce,
was discovered within 30 minutes of the crime in a dumpster
behind the store, with discarded clothing and a firearm that
matched the witness’ description, as well as four $100 bills.
See United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 271 (4th Cir. 2015)
(stating elements of Hobbs Act robbery and § 922(g)(1) offense),
cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 14-10485, 2015 WL 3946842 (U.S.
Oct. 5, 2015); United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 925
(4th

Cir.)

(stating

elements

of

§

924(c)(1)

offense),

cert.

denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014); see also 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4)
(2014) (defining brandishing).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
5

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-4198

Doc: 32

contentions

are

Filed: 10/26/2015

adequately

Pg: 6 of 6

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6