US v. Richard Hick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00028-JPJ-PMS-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999983654].. [15-4696]

Appeal: 15-4696

Doc: 52

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD JERRY HICKS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00028-JPJ-PMS-2)

Submitted:

December 1, 2016

Decided:

December 9, 2016

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.
John P.
Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin L. Jayne, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4696

Doc: 52

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
A

jury

convicted

Richard

Jerry

Hicks

of

five

counts

relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (c)(1)-(2), 858, 860a (2012).
The district court sentenced Hicks to 180 months’ imprisonment.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred
under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) when it admitted evidence of Hicks’
past

conviction

for

manufacturing

methamphetamine

and

the

circumstances underlying that conviction.
We review a district court’s Rule 404(b) rulings for abuse
of discretion and will affirm unless “the district court judge
acted arbitrarily or irrationally.”

United States v. Cabrera-

Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 755 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

Rule

404(b)(1)

prohibits

the

admission

of

“[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act . . . to prove a
person’s

character

in

order

to

show

that

on

a

particular

occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
Evidence
admissible
opportunity,
absence

of

404(b)(2).
of

a

of

for

other

crimes

other

intent,
mistake,

or

purposes,

preparation,
or

lack

of

bad

acts,

however,

such

as

proving

plan,

knowledge,

accident.”

Fed.

“may

be

motive,
identity,
R.

Evid.

In drug cases, this court generally admits evidence

defendant’s

prior,

similar

defendant’s knowledge and intent.
2

drug

conduct

to

prove

the

Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d at

Appeal: 15-4696

755.

Doc: 52

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

The evidence must also be relevant, necessary to prove an

element of the offense, reliable, and admissible under Fed. R.
Evid. 403.
Under Rule 404(b), we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Hicks’
past drug conduct.

The evidence satisfies each of the four

requirements under Rule 404(b) and shows Hicks’ knowledge of the
methamphetamine
conspiracy.

production

and

intent

to

participate

in

Moreover, we can distinguish the cases Hicks cites.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

the

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3