United States v. Davidson ( 2012 )

11-4196-cr
United States v. Davidson
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at New York Law School, 185
3 West Broadway, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of
4 October, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 11-4196-cr
17
18 DAVID FELTON,
19 Defendant,
20 CHRISTOPHER DAVIDSON,
21 Defendant-Appellant.
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
23
24 FOR APPELLANT: Darrell B. Fields, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR APPELLEES: Una A. Dean, Jo Ann M. Navickas,
28 for Loretta E. Lynch, United
1
1 States Attorneys Office for the
2 Eastern District of New York,
3 Brooklyn, New York.
4
5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
6 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Cogan, J.).
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
10 AFFIRMED.
11
12 Christopher Davidson appeals his conviction for weapons
13 possession and obstruction. He argues that the district
14 court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during
15 a traffic stop and in declining to give a particular jury
16 instruction concerning obstruction. We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
18 history, and the issues presented for review.
19
20 [1] Davidson was a passenger in a car stopped by the police
21 on the ground that its left brake light was defective. The
22 district court found that the car was not in compliance with
23 § 376 of New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL), which
24 requires a vehicle to have “signaling devices and reflectors
25 of a type approved by the Commissioner which are in good
26 working condition.” N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 376 (1)
27 (McKinney 2006). Davidson does not challenge the district
28 court’s finding that his left brake light was defective: one
29 of the paired bulbs in the left taillight assembly was out.
30 Instead, he asserts that another statute, § 375(40)(b),
31 specifically governs “stop lamps” and that therefore the
32 court should have applied § 375 instead. But these statutes
33 are not in tension; they complement one another. As a
34 result, the district court properly concluded that under VTL
35 § 376 the officers had a “reasonable suspicion” to stop the
36 vehicle in which Davidson was a passenger. United States v.
37 Scopo, 19 F.3d 777, 781 (2d Cir. 1994).
38
39 [2] Davidson also argues that the district court erred in
40 failing to grant his requested instruction as to all three
41 obstruction counts that “the government must prove that the
42 defendant foresaw the possibility that Mr. Felton’s lie
43 would make its way to a federal proceeding.” A 347
44 (emphasis added). This is an inaccurate statement of the
45 law. Section 1512 expressly provides that “no state of mind
46 need be proved with respect to the circumstance . . . that
47 the official proceeding . . . is before a judge or court of
2
1 the United States . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g)(1). The
2 district court committed no error by refusing this charge,
3 and Davidson’s convictions therefore must stand. See United
4 States v. Desinor, 525 F.3d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A
5 conviction will not be reversed . . . unless the requested
6 instruction was legally correct[.]”).
7
8 Finding no merit in Davidson’s remaining arguments, we
9 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
10
11
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
14
15
16
3