United States v. Gregory Graves , 551 F. App'x 680 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4416
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GREGORY GRAVES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:10-cr-00164-PJM-1)
    Argued:   October 31, 2013                  Decided:   January 13, 2014
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and Joseph F. ANDERSON,
    Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South
    Carolina, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Anderson             wrote   the
    opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Agee joined.
    ARGUED: Meghan Suzanne Skelton, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
    DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Steven Edward
    Swaney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
    Maryland, for Appellee.    ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public
    Defender, Martin G. Bahl, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.   Rod J. Rosenstein, United
    States   Attorney,  OFFICE   OF  THE  UNITED   STATES  ATTORNEY,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    ANDERSON, District Judge:
    Following a trial in the United States District Court for
    the     District       of    Maryland,     Southern           Division,       a   jury    found
    Gregory Graves guilty of robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two
    weapons offenses, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c).                                   On appeal,
    Graves argues that the district court erred by (1) denying his
    motion to suppress statements that he made to the police; (2)
    denying    his     motion         to   dismiss      the       indictment      because      of    a
    violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–3174; and
    (3) admitting Graves’ prior robberies as evidence under Rule
    404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rule 404(b)”).                                     For
    reasons set forth below, we affirm.
    I.
    In the early morning hours of December 31, 2009, Graves
    walked    into     a    7-Eleven       store       on       Central    Avenue     in     Capitol
    Heights, Maryland.                Graves pointed a shotgun at the cashier,
    demanded money from the register, and, subsequently, fled on
    foot with an unknown amount of money.                               Graves did not wear a
    mask     during    the        robbery,    and          a    store     surveillance       camera
    captured an image of his face.                     A week later, in the evening of
    January    6,     2010,       Graves     entered           another    7-Eleven      store,      on
    Boone’s Lane in District Heights, Maryland.                             As before, Graves
    demanded money from the cash register, but this time he wore a
    black    ski    mask        and   brandished       a       knife.      When   the    employees
    3
    refused, Graves walked behind the counter, tried unsuccessfully
    to open the register, and then fled.                    An employee later gave the
    police a description of the car in which Graves left.                                During
    the investigation that ensued, a detective found in the state’s
    vehicle database a 1985 Mercury registered to Graves, and that
    car   matched     the    description    provided         by    the    employee       of    the
    Boone’s    Lane       store.      Based         on   Graves’         driver’s       license
    photograph, the detective also identified Graves as the person
    who had robbed the Central Avenue store.
    On January 9, 2010, law enforcement authorities arrested
    Graves    and     transported     him    to      a   police     station        in    Prince
    George’s County, Maryland.              At the police station, Graves was
    placed    in    an    interrogation     room.           After    about    an        hour    of
    waiting,       Graves   knocked   on    a       table    and    called    out       for     an
    officer.       In response, a detective from another division, whose
    desk was near the interrogation room, opened the door.                               Video-
    audio surveillance equipment captured some of their exchange:
    Detective:        Can I help you?
    Graves:        Excuse me, when do I . . . see about a phone call?
    Detective:        When do you get a phone call?
    Graves:        Yeah . . .
    Detective:        Um, does somebody know you’re                . . . ?
    Graves:        . . . attorney.
    Detective:        . . . Okay, I will let them know. Okay?
    4
    Graves:      Thank you, ma’am. *
    Shortly after this exchange, two other detectives entered
    the interrogation room.                During questioning, Graves signed a
    form waiving his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    (1966), and admitted both orally and in writing that he had
    committed     the     robbery     at    Central       Avenue    and     the    attempted
    robbery at Boone’s Lane.           As a result of Graves’ statements, the
    police later recovered a shotgun behind Graves’ home.
    A   grand     jury   returned      an       indictment   on   April     12,   2010,
    charging Graves with two counts of obstructing, delaying, and
    affecting,      and    attempting       to        obstruct,    delay,    and     affect,
    commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; one count
    of possessing, using, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance
    of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and
    one   count   of      being   a   prohibited         person    in   possession      of   a
    firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
    Graves made his initial appearance on May 5, 2010, and was
    arraigned on May 17, 2010.                On June 1, 2010, Graves filed a
    motion to suppress the statements he had made to the police
    detectives during the interrogation after his arrest, arguing
    *
    After watching the video during a motion’s proceeding, the
    detective testified that she did not have an independent
    recollection of having the conversation with Graves.
    5
    that he had invoked his right to counsel when he asked the first
    detective for the opportunity to make a telephone call.
    Graves’ motion to suppress, as well as other motions filed
    on June 21, 2010, remained pending for more than a year, until
    September 30, 2011.         On that date, the district court held an
    evidentiary hearing and denied Graves’ motions.                  With respect to
    the motion to suppress Graves’ statements, the court stated that
    a suspect’s request for an attorney must be honored, but that
    such a request must be “clear and unambiguous and reasonably
    understood.     The court found that Graves “at best . . . was
    ambiguously asserting a right to consult his counsel.”
    During the same hearing, the parties agreed that the trial,
    which was scheduled to begin on November 8, 2011, would take
    three to four days.         The district court noted that it needed to
    get the trial done that week because of the district judge’s
    upcoming absence.         On October 21, 2011, Graves filed a pro se
    motion   to   dismiss     the   indictment    alleging     violations        of   the
    Speedy Trial Act.
    On November 1, 2011, during a conference call among the
    parties and the district court, the Government indicated that
    the trial likely would take longer than anticipated, according
    to a memorandum from the district court dated that same day.                      If
    the   trial   did   not   finish    in   three     days,   the    district    court
    wrote,   it   would   run    into   a    federal    holiday      as   well   as   the
    6
    district   judge’s   scheduled   travel   the   following   week.        The
    result would be a lengthy delay in the middle of the trial.
    Acknowledging that Graves opposed any continuance in general,
    the district court scheduled a status hearing for November 4,
    2011, to consider whether to postpone the trial.
    At the status hearing on November 4, 2011, the parties and
    the   district   court   discussed   postponement   and   its   effect    on
    Graves’ rights to a speedy trial:
    Government: [W]ith respect to the speedy trial clock,
    our   calculations  show   that   we should  be  fine
    currently. We have motions that have been pending for
    the majority of the time that this case has been
    filed, and there’s currently a motion before the
    Court. I do believe there are actually additional
    motions that need to be adjudicated with respect to
    [Rule] 404(b) and possibly the admission of the
    defendant’s videotaped statements, which, if the
    defendant doesn’t file a motion in limine, the
    government will be filing motions in limine with
    respect to that evidence as well.
    Counsel for Graves: Your Honor, as we discussed during
    the telephone conference, I would object on behalf of
    Mr. Graves to the continuance for no other reason than
    this case has been around for quite a while. . . . for
    well over a year.   . . . I understand the logistical
    difficulties with the schedule the Court has, but Mr.
    Graves also has pending, as the Court knows, a Motion
    to Dismiss the Indictment on speedy trial grounds, so
    I think all indications . . .
    The Court: [B]efore you go much further . . . it does
    help for speedy trial purposes to have some motions
    pending, but there’s no reason we can’t have a hearing
    on the Motion to Dismiss next week. . . . I have time
    7
    to address at least one of these              motions   without
    knocking all of them off the docket.
    Counsel for Graves: That would be fine, Your Honor.
    And I would indicate to the Court, as government
    counsel has, that there is the [Rule] 404(b) issue
    [on] which either I or government counsel will have to
    file a motion in limine.
    The Court: Well, obviously, that          would     extend   the
    speedy trial clock anyway . . .
    At   the   conclusion   of   the   hearing,   the   district   court
    rescheduled the trial for February 21, 2012, but noted that it
    could hear arguments on motions before trial as long as a motion
    remained on the docket for speedy trial purposes.
    On November 8, 2011, the district court heard arguments on
    Graves’ pro se motion to dismiss, which it denied the following
    day.    At the hearing, the district court also asked the parties
    about how much time remained on the speedy trial clock:
    Government: I believe there are about 25 more days
    remaining on the speedy trial clock. . . . [E]xpired
    time totals about 45 days.
    The Court: What other motions are contemplated?
    Government: Either the defendant or the government is
    going to file a [Rule] 404(b) motion relating to the
    admissibility of prior convictions.
    The Court: How soon is the government going to file
    its motion?
    Government: We intend to file it today, Your Honor.
    . . .
    8
    The Court: And the government’s motion would affect
    the clock?
    Government: Yes, Your Honor.
    At the end of the hearing, the district court reiterated,
    “So, the court will deny the motion to dismiss. And I’m assuming
    there      will     be     further     motions        filed    today     or   immediately”
    tolling the speedy trial clock.
    Two days later, on November 10, 2011, the Government filed
    a   motion        in     limine   to    admit        Graves’    prior     convictions     as
    evidence     under        Rule    404(b).            Graves    had   been     convicted   of
    robbing three 7-Eleven stores over a three-day period in March
    2001,   including          the    store     on   Central       Avenue,      which   was   the
    subject of count one of the indictment.                          The motion in limine
    remained pending until the first day of trial.
    On February 15, 2012, six days before the case was to be
    called for trial, Graves filed a second motion to dismiss the
    indictment again alleging violations of the Speedy Trial Act.
    For   the    first       time,    Graves     argued      that    the    district    court’s
    reasons for postponing the trial were insufficient for purposes
    of the Speedy Trial Act and that the Government’s motion in
    limine had not tolled the speedy trial clock.
    On    the        first   day     of   trial,      on    February      21,   2012,   the
    district court heard arguments before jury selection on Graves’
    second motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations and on the
    9
    Government’s motion in limine to admit evidence of Graves’ prior
    robberies under Rule 404(b).               After reviewing Fourth Circuit
    case law, the district court denied Graves’ motion to dismiss,
    finding that the Government’s Rule 404(b) motion was a “pretrial
    motion” that tolled the Act’s 70-day time period.                     The district
    court    granted      the   Government’s      motion,   deciding      that   Graves’
    past robberies were admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant to
    identity.           After three days of trial, the jury found Graves
    guilty on all four counts in the indictment.                    On June 1, 2012,
    the district court sentenced Graves to 30 years in prison.
    II.
    On   appeal,    Graves   challenges      his    conviction     on    multiple
    grounds.       We assess his contentions in turn.
    A.
    Graves’ first claim of error is that the district court
    should       have    granted   the   motion    to    suppress   his    statements.
    Specifically, Graves asserts that he invoked his constitutional
    right to counsel when he asked to make a telephone call before
    being questioned by the police, and that the court below applied
    the wrong legal standard in finding that he did not invoke that
    right.         We    review    the   district       court’s   legal    conclusions
    underlying its suppression determination de novo and its factual
    findings for clear error.             United States v. Sterling, 
    283 F.3d 10
    216, 218 (4th Cir. 2002).                For reasons set forth below, we
    reject Graves’ argument.
    While the text of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
    Constitution     contains    no     specific          guarantee      of   counsel,    the
    constitutional      protection     against        compelled       self-incrimination
    long   has   been    held    to    include        a    right    to    counsel    during
    custodial interrogations.           See, e.g., 
    Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478
    –
    79.    Once a suspect in custody asserts the right to counsel, the
    current   “interrogation      must       cease,”        and    the   police     may   not
    approach the suspect for further interrogation “until counsel
    has been made available to him.”                  Edwards v. Arizona, 
    451 U.S. 477
    ,   484–85    (1981).      If       the    police,     subsequently,         initiate
    interrogation without counsel present and without a break in
    custody, the suspect’s statements “are presumed involuntary and
    therefore    inadmissible         as    substantive           evidence     at   trial.”
    McNeil v. Wisconsin, 
    501 U.S. 171
    , 177 (1991).                        However, police
    are not required to cease questioning “if a suspect makes a
    reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that
    a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have
    understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to
    counsel.”       Davis v. United States, 
    512 U.S. 452
    , 459 (1994)
    (emphasis in original).           “Rather, the suspect must unambiguously
    request counsel.”      
    Id. 11 With
    this right under the Fifth Amendment as a backdrop,
    Graves    argues      that    the    heightened            standard       for   invoking     his
    right to counsel, as established in Davis, applies only when a
    suspect has been advised of, and waived, his Miranda rights.
    Graves    contends      that       the       district      court    committed     reversible
    error    when    it    required          a    clear       and   unequivocal      demand      for
    counsel   even     though      Graves         had      neither     been    advised     of,   nor
    waived, his Miranda rights.                       However, in making the argument
    that a less demanding standard applies before a suspect waives
    his Miranda rights, Graves relies on a decision by the Ninth
    Circuit Court of Appeals, since vacated by the Supreme Court.
    Sessoms v. Runnels, 
    691 F.3d 1054
    , 1055 (9th Cir. 2012) cert.
    granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Grounds v. Sessoms, 133 S.
    Ct. 2886 (2013).            The Court has remanded Sessoms to the Ninth
    Circuit for further consideration in light of Salinas v. Texas,
    
    133 S. Ct. 2174
       (2013).              In   Salinas,       police     interrogated      a
    suspect   before       he    was    placed        in    custody     and    without     Miranda
    warnings.       
    Id. at 2177.
                    Drawing no distinction between the
    invocation      requirements         before         and    after    custody      and   Miranda
    warnings, the Court found no Fifth Amendment violation and held
    that the suspect did not expressly invoke the privilege against
    self-incrimination in response to the questions.                            
    Id. at 2178.
    In the present action, the district court stated that a
    suspect’s request for counsel must be “clear and unambiguous and
    12
    reasonably understood,” and found that Graves “at best . . . was
    ambiguously asserting a right to consult his counsel.”                            We agree
    and, accordingly, find no error.
    B.
    Graves’    next   claim     of   error      is    that   the    district    court
    should have dismissed the indictment pending against him because
    of a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–3174
    (“the       Act”).      Specifically,        he       contends     that     the   district
    court’s reasons for postponing the trial were insufficient for
    purposes of the Act and that the government’s motion in limine
    was not a pretrial motion that tolled the speedy trial clock.
    We need not address the merits of this claim because we find
    that Graves ratified the violation of the Act: First, Graves
    himself suggested to the district court that the Government’s
    motion was a pretrial motion capable of tolling the speedy trial
    clock.       Second, Graves represented that he would file a motion
    tolling the clock if, for some reason, the Government failed to
    do so.
    Under   the   Act,    the    trial     of     a     criminal    defendant   must
    “commence within seventy days from the filing date . . . [of]
    the   indictment,       or     from   the   date        the    defendant    has   appeared
    before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is
    pending, whichever date last occurs.”                         18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
    If    a    defendant    is     not    brought      to      trial   during    that    70-day
    13
    period, the district court must dismiss the indictment on motion
    of the defendant, though it may choose to do so with or without
    prejudice. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); United States v. Henry, 
    538 F.3d 300
    , 304 (4th Cir. 2008).
    In calculating the time within which a defendant’s trial
    must begin, however, the Act enumerates certain exceptions and
    excludes, among others, any delays for which the district court
    finds “that the ends of justice served by taking such action
    outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a
    speedy trial.”     18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).             Also excluded are
    delays “resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of
    the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other
    prompt disposition of, such motion.”            18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).
    “The plain terms of the statute . . . exclude all time between
    the filing of and the hearing on a motion whether that hearing
    was prompt or not.”        Henderson v. United States, 
    476 U.S. 321
    ,
    326 (1986).
    Graves and the Government do not dispute that the original
    date for the trial, November 8, 2011, fell well within the 70-
    day limit imposed by the Act.            Instead, the time period at issue
    is   between   November    9,    2011,   when   the   district   court   denied
    Graves’   first   motion    to    dismiss     for   violating    the   Act,   and
    February 15, 2012, when Graves filed a second motion to dismiss.
    14
    Without any exclusions, that 98-day period placed the trial date
    beyond the limits set by the Act.
    Graves argues that the Government’s motion in limine to
    admit evidence under Rule 404(b), filed on November 10, 2011,
    and pending until the first day of trial, on February 21, 2012,
    was a notice of the Government’s intent to use evidence, under
    Rule 12(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not a
    pretrial motion that would toll the speedy trial clock.                             Graves
    had    advanced      this     argument   before      the       district    court    in   his
    second motion to dismiss for violating the Act.
    However, before Graves filed that second motion to dismiss
    on February 15, 2012, the record shows that he endorsed the view
    that    the       Government’s      submission     was     a    pretrial      motion     that
    would    toll      the   70-day     limit    imposed     by     the    Act.     Moreover,
    Graves represented that he would file an appropriate pretrial
    motion himself in the event that the Government failed to do so.
    At     the    hearing       on   November     4,     2011,       which     involved      the
    possibility         of      postponing      the    trial,        the     district      court
    explicitly discussed the status of the speedy trial clock, and
    both parties indicated that either of them would be filing a
    motion       in    limine    that    would    toll    the       time   under    the      Act.
    Specifically, Graves’ counsel stated:                       “[T]here is the [Rule]
    404(b) issue [on] which either I or the government counsel will
    have to file a motion in limine.”                  At the hearing on Graves’ pro
    15
    se motion to dismiss on November 8, 2011, counsel for Graves
    raised no objections when the Government told the district court
    that Graves or the Government would file a Rule 404(b) motion
    that would toll the Act.                When the district court at the end of
    the hearing reiterated that the motion would toll the speedy
    trial    clock,      counsel      for    Graves    again    voiced   no   objections.
    Then, just six days before trial, Graves filed his second motion
    to dismiss arguing that the Government’s motion in limine was
    not a pretrial motion for purposes of the Act and that the
    speedy    trial      clock     had   been     ticking    since   November    8,     2011,
    without any exclusions.
    While criminal defendants cannot prospectively waive their
    rights to a speedy trial under the Act, we long have recognized
    an exception that prevents defendants “from using the [Act] as a
    sword and a shield.”            See, e.g., United States v. Keith, 
    42 F.3d 234
    , 238–39 (4th Cir. 1994).                  In Keith, we endorsed a rule that
    precludes      a     defendant       from     “sandbagging     the   court    and    the
    government by agreeing to a continuance and then later urging a
    dismissal using the time covered by the continuance.”                        
    Keith, 42 F.3d at 239
    .        If   we    adopt     Graves’     argument,   we    would     be
    permitting another sort of sandbagging, by allowing a defendant
    to imply that a pending motion tolls the speedy trial clock but
    then to seek dismissal on that precise issue.                        Indeed, Graves’
    counsel      did   more    than      simply    imply    that   the   clock   would    be
    16
    tolled:        He represented that he would file a pretrial motion
    tolling the clock should the Government fail to do so. Other
    courts    have    declined    to      endorse       similar    strategies.        United
    States v. Shetty, 
    130 F.3d 1324
    , 1331 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e
    will not sanction the use of the [Act] as a ‘sandbag,’ held for
    540 days and then thrown at the district court ten days before
    trial.”); United States v. Gambino, 
    59 F.3d 353
    , 360 (2d Cir.
    1995) (The Act is “not to be mistaken for the rules of a game
    where defense counsel’s cunning strategy may effectively subvert
    Congress’ goal of implementing sound trial management.”); United
    States    v.    Baskin-Bey,      
    45 F.3d 200
    ,   204     (7th   Cir.    1995)    (A
    defendant cannot “implicitly agree to the government’s request
    that time be excluded because of [the defendant’s] request, and
    then try to sandbag the government by insisting that the time be
    counted    against     the   speedy         trial    clock.”);     United      States    v.
    Ciancola, 
    920 F.2d 1295
    , 1298 (6th Cir. 1990) (The Act does not
    “provide defendants with tactics for ensnaring the courts into
    situations       where     charges       will       have    to     be    dismissed       on
    technicalities.”) (internal citation omitted).
    We    recognize      that     an    overly       broad      application     of     the
    exception      could     swallow      the    Act’s       non-waiver     rule.      Here,
    however, counsel for Graves did not alert the district court or
    the Government that he questioned the motion in limine’s effect
    on the speedy trial clock.              Rather, he affirmatively represented
    17
    that should the Government fail to file a motion tolling the
    clock, he would do so himself.              As a result, we hold that Graves
    acquiesced that the Government’s motion in limine was a pretrial
    motion, tolling the speedy trial clock.                  Accordingly, we find no
    error.
    C.
    In a final claim of error, Graves argues that the district
    court committed reversible error in admitting under Rule 404(b)
    evidence    of   his   three   prior   robberies         of   7-Eleven   stores     in
    March 2001, including the Central Avenue store at issue in this
    case.    Specifically, Graves submits that the lower court erred
    in admitting those prior offenses under Rule 404(b)’s identity
    exception    because     the   details       of    those      offenses   were      not
    sufficiently     distinctive.          We     review      the   district    court’s
    decision    to   admit   evidence      under      Rule    404(b)   for     abuse    of
    discretion, United States v. Basham, 
    561 F.3d 302
    , 325 (4th Cir.
    2009), and will not find that it abused its discretion unless
    the decision “was arbitrary and irrational.”                    United States v.
    Weaver, 
    282 F.3d 302
    , 313 (4th Cir. 2002).                    For the reasons set
    out below, we reject Graves’ contention.
    Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of “‘other crimes, wrongs,
    or acts’” solely to prove a defendant’s bad character, but a
    district court may admit such evidence “‘for other purposes,
    such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
    18
    knowledge,      identity,    or   absence       of     mistake        or     accident.’”
    
    Basham, 561 F.3d at 326
    (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)).                                Rule
    404(b) is a rule of inclusion, “admitting all evidence of other
    crimes or acts except that which tends to prove only criminal
    disposition.”      United States v. Young, 
    248 F.3d 260
    , 271–72 (4th
    Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    For a court to admit prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), the
    proffered evidence must be (a) “relevant to an issue other than
    character,”     including    identity      or   motive;         (b)    “necessary       to
    prove an element of the crime charged,” or to prove context; and
    (c) reliable.       United States v. Byers, 
    649 F.3d 197
    , 206 (4th
    Cir.    2011)    cert.     denied,   
    132 S. Ct. 468
        (2011)        (internal
    citations omitted).         In addition, the probative value of the
    evidence must not be substantially outweighed by a danger of
    unfair prejudice.        See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
    After    weighing    the   possibility        of    unfair          prejudice    to
    Graves,   the    district    court   held       that      evidence         of   the    2001
    robberies was relevant to establish identity in light of the
    similarities     between     those   offenses        and    the    robbery        of   the
    Central Avenue store and the attempted robbery of the Boone’s
    Lane store.       Concluding that the district court’s decision to
    admit the evidence under Rule 404(b) was neither arbitrary nor
    irrational, we find no error.
    19
    III.
    For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of
    the district court.
    AFFIRMED
    20