United States v. Jonte Partridge , 571 F. App'x 195 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONTE DERRELL PARTRIDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00112-HCM-LRL-1)
Submitted: April 21, 2014 Decided: May 9, 2014
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Timothy R.
Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonte Partridge was convicted of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and
was sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison. He now
appeals. Partridge’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one
issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Partridge has filed a pro se brief raising additional
issues. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, Partridge contends that the
prosecution improperly vouched for its witnesses during closing
argument and on rebuttal. Because this matter was not raised
below, our review is for plain error. See United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). We discern no error in the
prosecutor’s use of the phrases “I think” and “I submit” during
closing and rebuttal. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d
625, 632 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Adams, 70 F.3d 776,
780 (4th Cir. 1995). Even if there was error, however, the
phrases were used in isolation, and the evidence of Partridge’s
guilt was strong. Accordingly, there was no plain error. See
United States v. Olivierre, 378 F.3d 412, 421-22 (4th Cir.
2004).
We conclude additionally that the issues raised in
Partridge’s pro se brief lack merit. Pursuant to Anders, we
2
have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Partridge, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Partridge requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Partridge. 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
3