US v. Olabimpe Adetayo
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00637-PJM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4660]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
OLABIMPE K. ADETAYO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
March 16, 2017
March 24, 2017
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Hollis Weisman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Olabimpe K. Adetayo appeals from the district court’s order
impeding or interfering with an officer in the performance of
official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (2012). *
Finding no merit to Adetayo’s claims, we affirm.
Adetayo first alleges that the magistrate judge erred by
denying her motion to dismiss the criminal complaint, arguing
destroying the video recording of the incident giving rise to
dismiss, we review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
United States v.
Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 313-14 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir. 2005).
The state’s failure to disclose evidence favorable to an
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Brady v. Maryland, 373
The magistrate judge also convicted Adetayo of driving on
a learner’s permit without supervision, in violation of Md. Code
Ann, Transp. § 16-105(b)(1) (LexisNexis 2012); failing to carry
vehicle registration, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Transp.
§ 13-409(a) (LexisNexis 2012); and unsafe lane changing, in
violation of Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-309(b) (LexisNexis
2012). On appeal, Adetayo does not challenge those convictions.
U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
Pg: 3 of 4
By contrast, where the state fails to
violate the Due Process Clause unless the defendant can show bad
Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547-48 (2004) (citing
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58 (1988)).
withheld the evidence for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff
of the use of that evidence during h[er] criminal trial.”
v. Collins, 221 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir. 2000).
destruction of evidence, without more, does not constitute bad
See Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783, 831 (4th Cir. 2011)
(finding the negligent erasure of the tape of a bank robbery was
not bad faith).
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the
reversible error in the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion
In her second claim, Adetayo contends that the magistrate
judge improperly declined to apply an adverse inference against
the Government that unpreserved video surveillance footage would
have been favorable to her.
We discern no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
Pg: 4 of 4
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
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?