US v. Robert Mays

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00059-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000021344]. [15-4612, 15-4694]

Appeal: 15-4612

Doc: 72

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EARL MAYS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4694

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PARIS CORDAVA WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00059-F-1; 5:15-cr-00059-F-2)

Submitted:

January 5, 2017

Decided:

February 10, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 15-4612

Doc: 72

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 6

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina; Joshua B. Howard, GAMMON, HOWARD, ZESZOTARSKI, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. John Stuart Bruce, United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4612

Doc: 72

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
In November 2014, Paris Cordava Williams and a coconspirator
robbed a bank and then fled to a car driven by Robert Earl Mays.
Police tracked the robbers to Mays’ car and found Williams and the
coconspirator in the trunk with the stolen money and a handgun.

A

grand jury then indicted Williams and Mays for bank robbery and
aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2
(2012), and for being felons in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012).
Mays moved to sever his trial from Williams’ trial, but the
district court denied the motion.

At the joint trial, both

defendants moved for judgments of acquittal.

The court granted

Mays’ motion for acquittal for the felon in possession count, but
denied the motions as to all other counts.
The jury then convicted Mays and Williams of bank robbery and
aiding and abetting and convicted Williams of being a felon in
possession

of

a

firearm.

At

sentencing,

the

district

court

enhanced Mays’ sentence based on Williams’ possession of a firearm
under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B),

2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (2014).
On appeal, Mays and Williams challenge the denial of their
motions for judgment of acquittal, and Mays separately challenges
the denial of his motion to sever and his sentence.
each challenge and affirm.
3

We reject

Appeal: 15-4612

Doc: 72

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 4 of 6

We review de novo a denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal.

United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 228 (4th Cir.

2016), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1833 (2016).

“The question is

whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under

this

standard,

Mays

challenges

his

conviction

for

aiding and abetting bank robbery, while Williams challenges his
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The

evidence supports both convictions, and therefore, these claims
fail.
Turning to Mays’ separate arguments, we reject Mays’ claim
that the district court erred when it denied his

motion to sever.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to sever for abuse
of discretion, “recognizing that there is a presumption in favor
of joint trials in cases in which defendants have been indicted
together.”
2011).

United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d 746, 753 (4th Cir.

A district court may sever codefendants’ trials when the

joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant or the government.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 14(a).
of

prejudice,

Even where a defendant shows the possibility

“less

drastic

measures,

such

as

limiting

instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice.”
Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).
4

Mays failed to

Appeal: 15-4612

Doc: 72

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 5 of 6

show that joinder prejudiced him or that the district court’s
limiting instruction did not suffice.

Thus, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mays’
motion to sever.
Finally,

we

also

reject

Mays’

findings supporting his sentence.
factual

findings

for

clear

objection

to

the

factual

We review a sentencing court’s

error.

United

Alvarado, 779 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2015).

States

v.

Flores-

“Clear error occurs

when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on

the

entire

evidence

is

left

with

the

definite

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

and

firm

United States v.

Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the alleged error concerns the district court’s finding
that a firearm was possessed during the robbery, thereby triggering
the five-level enhancement in USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C).

Related to

that section, USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) provides that a district court
may hold a defendant accountable for his codefendant’s acts if
those acts occurred within the scope of joint criminal activity,
furthered the criminal activity, and were reasonably foreseeable.
Our review of the record shows that the district court did not
clearly err in making factual findings to support the application
of USSG §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), 2B3.1(b)(2)(C).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments against
Mays and Williams.

We dispense with oral argument because the
5

Appeal: 15-4612

facts

Doc: 72

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 02/10/2017

contentions
this

court,

Pg: 6 of 6

are
and

adequately
argument

presented
would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6