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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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