US v. Lincoln Moquete
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00419-WDQ-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4805]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
LINCOLN NORMANDO MOQUETE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
October 13, 2016
October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Justin Brown, BROWN & NIETO, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Lincoln Normando Moquete appeals from the criminal judgment
possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine and sentencing him to a 144-month term of imprisonment.
Moquete argues that the court erred in failing to issue a jury
instruction regarding witness hostility or bias toward Moquete.
He also contests the quantity of drugs attributed to him at
First, Moquete objects to the district court’s refusal to
give a proposed jury instruction on witness hostility and bias.
“We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial
of . . . proposed jury instructions.”
discretion in this regard.
United States v. Sonmez,
A “district court d[oes] not abuse
“clearly covered by the instructions given,” United States v.
Green, 599 F.3d 360, 378 (4th Cir. 2010), just because “a more
defendant, id. (quoting United States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d
Pg: 3 of 4
evidence related to a particular witness.
The district court
instructed the jury on evaluating the credibility of witnesses.
Moquete also challenges the district court’s calculation of
the drug weight, asserting that the court improperly credited
reviewing the district court’s calculations under the Sentencing
Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We will “find clear error only if, on
the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir.
The court, therefore, “must only determine that it was
more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for at
least the drug quantity attributed to him.”
Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004).
United States v.
Having reviewed the
Pg: 4 of 4
record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in calculating the drug weight.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
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.
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?