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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-4239]
Pg: 1 of 7
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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.
January 28, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 7
Charles Riley, Jr., appeals his drug convictions.
first trial ended when the district court granted his motion for
In his second trial, the jury found him guilty of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting.
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).
Riley was sentenced to 240 months of
Riley makes numerous claims on appeal.
reasons that follow, we affirm.
precluded from being charged in his superseding indictment.
dismiss the indictment, we review the district court’s factual
United States v. Pasquantino, 305 F.3d 291, 294 (4th Cir. 2002).
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
Pg: 3 of 7
unless such errors prejudiced the defendant), as the Government
obtained a superseding indictment, free from earlier errors made
See United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 488 (4th
Cir. 2003) (noting that in the absence of prejudice, “courts
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.
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).
United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th
The record is clear that officers did not take any
Court’s decision in Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 813–
In Segura the Court held that warrantless entry into
Pg: 4 of 7
discovered pursuant to a valid warrant.
468 U.S. at 813–14
(“Whether the initial entry [of a home] was illegal or not is
because there was an independent source for the warrant under
derivative or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is not warranted
here because of that independent source.”).
denying his motions to sever Counts 2 and 5 from the remaining
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.
States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385 (4th Cir. 2005).
offenses was proper under Rule 8(a).
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
Pg: 5 of 7
8(a), United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296, 309 (4th Cir.
severance of the offenses is rare”), and we find no abuse of
discretion by the district court in denying Riley’s motions for
United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 367 (4th
Cir. 2012) (providing review standard).
Thus, this claim lacks
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
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
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
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
We agree with the district court that Riley
required for him to prevail on this claim.
See United States v.
appellant bears the burden of proving specific intent to provoke
a mistrial); United States v. Wentz, 800 F.2d 1325, 1327 (4th
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
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.
Pg: 7 of 7
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-78 (1982); Wentz, 800 F.2d
affirm his convictions.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
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?