US v. Charles Riley, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00607-GJH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788602].. [15-4239]
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES RILEY, JR., a/k/a New York,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00607-GJH-2)
Submitted:
January 28, 2016
Decided:
April 5, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erek L. Barron, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Peter J. Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Charles Riley, Jr., appeals his drug convictions.
Riley’s
first trial ended when the district court granted his motion for
a mistrial.
three
In his second trial, the jury found him guilty of
counts
from
his
superseding
indictment:
Count
1,
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
cocaine,
and
Counts
2
and
3,
possession
distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting.
with
intent
to
In Count 2 the jury
found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of distributing
an unspecified amount of cocaine (the indictment alleged 500
grams or more of cocaine).
imprisonment.
Riley was sentenced to 240 months of
Riley makes numerous claims on appeal.
For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
First,
indictment
Riley
should
alleges
have
the
from
dismissed
been
counts
with
his
original
prejudice
and
precluded from being charged in his superseding indictment.
In
reviewing
to
the
district
court’s
denial
of
Riley’s
motion
dismiss the indictment, we review the district court’s factual
findings
for
clear
error
and
its
legal
conclusions
de
novo.
United States v. Pasquantino, 305 F.3d 291, 294 (4th Cir. 2002).
We
find
no
reversible
error
and
note
that
Riley
was
not
prejudiced as a result of the government’s conduct during grand
jury proceedings, see Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487
U.S. 250, 254 (1988) (finding that a district court may not
2
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
dismiss
an
Filed: 04/05/2016
indictment
for
Pg: 3 of 7
errors
in
grand
jury
proceedings
unless such errors prejudiced the defendant), as the Government
obtained a superseding indictment, free from earlier errors made
in
the
grand
indictment.
jury
proceedings
leading
to
the
original
See United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 488 (4th
Cir. 2003) (noting that in the absence of prejudice, “courts
lack
authority
to
review
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
supporting an indictment, even when a mistake was mistakenly
made”) (citations omitted).
Next, Riley contends that the district court should have
granted his motion to suppress the evidence because officers
entered his home before the issuance of the search warrant.
We
review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion
to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2014).
Because
construe
the
district
the
evidence
court
in
denied
the
Riley’s
light
most
motion
below,
favorable
to
we
the
Government.
United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th
Cir. 2011).
The record is clear that officers did not take any
evidence
Riley’s
prior
home.
to
properly
Thus,
executing
Riley’s
claim
the
fails
search
under
warrant
the
at
Supreme
Court’s decision in Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 813–
16 (1984).
a
home
In Segura the Court held that warrantless entry into
does
not
require
the
suppression
3
of
evidence
later
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
obtained
from
Filed: 04/05/2016
that
home
if
Pg: 4 of 7
that
evidence
discovered pursuant to a valid warrant.
was
independently
468 U.S. at 813–14
(“Whether the initial entry [of a home] was illegal or not is
irrelevant
to
the
admissibility
of
the
challenged
evidence
because there was an independent source for the warrant under
which
that
evidence
was
seized.
Exclusion
of
evidence
as
derivative or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is not warranted
here because of that independent source.”).
Third,
Riley
alleges
that
the
district
court
erred
by
denying his motions to sever Counts 2 and 5 from the remaining
counts.
Two
indictment
or
when
more
the
offenses
offenses
may
“are
be
of
charged
the
same
in
or
the
same
similar
character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are
connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a).
In determining whether charges are based
on the same transaction or are part of a common plan, this Court
has interpreted the rule flexibly, requiring that the joined
offenses have a logical relationship to one another.
United
States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385 (4th Cir. 2005).
Court
reviews
de
novo
whether
the
offenses was proper under Rule 8(a).
initial
joinder
of
This
the
United States v. Mouzone,
687 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2012).
We note that Riley was not retried on Count 5, so this
claim is without merit.
Count 2 was properly joined under Rule
4
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 5 of 7
8(a), United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296, 309 (4th Cir.
2012)
(“Where
offenses
are
properly
joined
under
Rule
8(a),
severance of the offenses is rare”), and we find no abuse of
discretion by the district court in denying Riley’s motions for
severance.
United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 367 (4th
Cir. 2012) (providing review standard).
Thus, this claim lacks
merit.
Next, Riley argues that submission of Count 2 to the jury
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Count 2 charged Riley with
distributing 500 grams or more of cocaine.
Because less than
that amount of the drug was presented at trial, however, the
district court charged the jury — and the jury found — Riley
guilty
for
distributing
lesser-included
forfeited
offense
because
Riley
an
of
unspecified
Count
failed
2.
to
amount
We
raise
note
his
of
cocaine,
this
double
claim
a
is
jeopardy
claim in the district court, United States v. Jarvis, 7 F.3d
404, 409 (4th Cir. 1993), and Riley fails to show plain error in
any event.
See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)
(providing plain error test).
Criminal Rule 31(c)(1) provides
that a defendant may be found guilty of an offense necessarily
included in the offense charged.
Moreover, a court may submit
an uncharged lesser-included offense to the jury, and the jury
may convict on a lesser-included offense, if all the elements
are proven after it determines that the evidence is insufficient
5
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/05/2016
on the greater offense.
Pg: 6 of 7
United States v. Walkingeagle, 974 F.2d
551, 553-54 (4th Cir. 1992).
Thus, this claim fails.
In his fifth claim Riley argues that the district court
erred by granting a mistrial in his first trial on the basis of
manifest necessity.
failed
to
meet
Government
We agree with the district court that Riley
the
sought
challenging
to
goad
him
burden
into
of
seeking
required for him to prevail on this claim.
Smith,
441
F.3d
254,
265
(4th
showing
Cir.
a
that
the
mistrial,
as
See United States v.
2006)
(finding
that
an
appellant bears the burden of proving specific intent to provoke
a mistrial); United States v. Wentz, 800 F.2d 1325, 1327 (4th
Cir.
1986)
(noting
conditions
strict”).
for
where
defendant
invocation
of
the
obtains
double
a
mistrial,
jeopardy
bar
“the
are
We find no abuse of discretion regarding the district
court’s factual findings in this regard.
See United States v.
Johnson, 55 F.3d 976, 978 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard).
Finally, Riley contends that his second trial violated the
Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
We review questions
of double jeopardy de novo, United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d
415, 418 (4th Cir. 2001), but with regard to the more specific
question
of
whether
the
Government
intentionally
provoked
a
mistrial, this Court reviews factual findings for clear error.
Johnson, 55 F.3d at 978.
We conclude that the district court’s
factual and legal conclusions on the matter were not erroneous.
6
Appeal: 15-4239
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 7 of 7
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-78 (1982); Wentz, 800 F.2d
at 1327.
Accordingly,
because
affirm his convictions.
Riley’s
claims
fail
on
appeal,
we
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?