US v. Charles Riley, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4239 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 7 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4239 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES RILEY, JR., a/k/a New York,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?