US v. Lincoln Moquete
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00419-WDQ-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999948085]. [15-4805]
Appeal: 15-4805
Doc: 36
Filed: 10/17/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4805
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LINCOLN NORMANDO MOQUETE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00419-WDQ-2)
Submitted:
October 13, 2016
Decided:
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellant.
Rod
J.
Rosenstein,
United
States
Attorney,
Christopher
J.
Romano,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4805
Doc: 36
Filed: 10/17/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Lincoln Normando Moquete appeals from the criminal judgment
convicting
him
intent
distribute
to
of
conspiracy
five
to
distribute
kilograms
or
and
more
of
possess
with
cocaine
and
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
sentencing.
We affirm.
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.”
777
F.3d
684,
688
(4th
Cir.
discretion in this regard.
its
discretion”
by
United States v. Sonmez,
2015).
We
see
no
abuse
of
A “district court d[oes] not abuse
refusing
a
proposed
instruction
that
was
“clearly covered by the instructions given,” United States v.
Green, 599 F.3d 360, 378 (4th Cir. 2010), just because “a more
specific
instruction
might
have
been
desirable
to”
the
defendant, id. (quoting United States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d
382,
388
(4th
instruction
general
were
Cir.
seemed
biased
1998)).
to
be
Moquete’s
that
against
the
him.
2
reasoning
testifying
He
did
not
for
the
witnesses
in
advance
any
Appeal: 15-4805
Doc: 36
Filed: 10/17/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
evidence related to a particular witness.
The district court
instructed the jury on evaluating the credibility of witnesses.
There
was
simply
no
basis
on
which
to
find
an
abuse
of
discretion.
Moquete also challenges the district court’s calculation of
the drug weight, asserting that the court improperly credited
the
testimony
allegedly
of
vague,
two
coconspirators
inconsistent,
and
whose
testimony
lacking
credibility.
was
In
reviewing the district court’s calculations under the Sentencing
Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo
and
its
factual
findings
for
clear
error.”
United
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
conviction
that
a
mistake
has
been
committed.”
Id.
at
631
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
The
district
attributable
evidence.
2011).
to
court
the
need
only
defendant
by
find
a
the
drug
preponderance
quantity
of
the
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).
3
United States v.
Having reviewed the
Appeal: 15-4805
Doc: 36
Filed: 10/17/2016
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.
AFFIRMED
4
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?