United States v. Earl Fuller, Jr. , 498 F. App'x 330 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4050
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    EARL R. FULLER, JR.,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    No. 12-4095
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID A. WHEELER, a/k/a Sampson,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 12-4110
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SAMUEL LLOYD, a/k/a Sammy,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.       Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge.   (2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-6; 2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-3; 2:11-
    cr-00036-MSD-FBS-1)
    Submitted:   November 1, 2012            Decided:   December 7, 2012
    Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Patricia Palmer Nagel, THE LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA PALMER NAGEL,
    PLC, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellant Earl R. Fuller, Jr.;
    Jason Alan Dunn, JONES, JONES & DUNN, PLC, Chesapeake, Virginia,
    for Appellant David A. Wheeler; Lance C. Hamm, LANCE C. HAMM,
    Houston, Texas, for Appellant Samuel Lloyd.    Neil H. MacBride,
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Laura M. Everhart,
    Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Following a jury trial in the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, the appellants, Samuel
    Lloyd, David Wheeler, and Earl Fuller, Jr., were convicted of
    conspiracy    to     distribute    and     to    possess      with     the    intent    to
    distribute    cocaine     and      marijuana,         and    numerous        substantive
    offenses.       On    appeal,     they    challenge          their    convictions       on
    numerous fronts.       We affirm.
    First,    Fuller     argues     that       the    district      court     erred    in
    failing to grant his motion to sever his case from that of his
    codefendants.        We review a district court’s decision to deny a
    motion to sever for an abuse of discretion.                          United States v.
    Singh, 
    518 F.3d 236
    , 255 (4th Cir. 2008).                       While severance of
    trials for defendants named in the same indictment is permitted
    if joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant,” Fed. R. Crim. P.
    14, joint trials of defendants who are indicted together are
    preferred.    Zafiro v. United States, 
    506 U.S. 534
    , 537 (1993).
    In a conspiracy case, joinder is particularly favored.                           United
    States v. Montgomery, 
    262 F.3d 233
    , 244 n.5 (4th Cir. 2001).
    Accordingly, “a district court should grant a severance under
    Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would
    compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or
    prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or
    innocence.”        Zafiro,   
    506 U.S. at 539
    .     In     other    words,    a
    - 3 -
    district      court   abuses      its    discretion       “only    where   the     trial
    court’s decision to deny a severance deprives the defendants of
    a fair trial and results in a miscarriage of justice.”                             United
    States v. Harris, 
    498 F.3d 278
    , 291 (4th Cir. 2007) (citation
    and internal quotation marks omitted).
    The record here supports the district court’s decision to
    deny the motion for severance.                 Having been indicted together
    with   his     codefendants,      Fuller      has   not    demonstrated        a   strong
    showing       of   prejudice      from    a   joint    trial      as    required      for
    severance under Rule 14.                United States v. Mir, 
    525 F.3d 351
    ,
    357    (4th    Cir.   2008).       Fuller’s       concerns    about      the   relative
    culpability of himself and about the nature and quantity of the
    evidence against each respective defendant simply does not rise
    to the level of a miscarriage of justice.
    Second,      the   appellants      contend     that    the      district     court
    erred when it failed to grant a mistrial sua sponte once it
    became known that a government witness, Clive Black, spoke to
    Lloyd’s       attorney,    Paul    Watson,      IV,   prior       to   Black’s      trial
    testimony.         Because the appellants did not move for a mistrial
    below, we review the district court’s decision not to declare
    one sua sponte for plain error.                   United States v. Castner, 
    50 F.3d 1267
    , 1272 (4th Cir. 1995).                  Plain error occurs when there
    is (1) an error, (2) which is plain and obvious under existing
    law, (3) which is so prejudicial as to affect the outcome of the
    - 4 -
    proceedings,       and    (4)       which    seriously          affects   the     fairness,
    integrity,    or    public      reputation          of    the    proceedings.        United
    States v. Hanno, 
    21 F.3d 42
    , 45 (4th Cir. 1994).
    In this case, the appellants cannot meet the plain error
    standard.     The district court conducted a thorough and careful
    colloquy     with    counsel         on     two    occasions        concerning      Black’s
    alleged statements to Watson.                     After these lengthy colloquies,
    the appellants accepted the government’s offer to stipulate that
    Black had made the statements described by Watson.                                Once the
    attorneys    accepted      the      government’s          stipulation,      the   district
    court was under no obligation to order a mistrial sua sponte.
    The   stipulation        was    a    reasonable          solution    that   allowed     the
    defendants to further impeach Black’s testimony.                            There was no
    error, let alone plain error. ∗
    ∗
    Fuller and Lloyd claim they received constitutionally
    ineffective   assistance  of   counsel  when   their  respective
    attorneys failed to move for a mistrial once it became known
    that Black spoke to Watson.     To prove a claim of ineffective
    assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s
    performance was deficient,” and (2) “that the deficient
    performance prejudiced the defense.”   Strickland v. Washington,
    
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 (1984). With respect to the first prong, “the
    defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an
    objective standard of reasonableness.”       
    Id. at 688
    .      In
    addition, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be
    highly deferential.”   
    Id. at 689
    .   We will address a claim of
    ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the attorney’s
    ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record.       United
    States v. Baldovinos, 
    434 F.3d 233
    , 239 (4th Cir. 2006).
    Otherwise, such claims are more properly raised in a motion
    filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .     Our review convinces us
    (Continued)
    - 5 -
    The   appellants         next     challenge          the     sufficiency          of    the
    evidence     of     their      conspiracy        convictions.                  We    review    the
    sufficiency       of     the        evidence     to        support        a    conviction      by
    determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record,
    when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to
    support the conviction.               United States v. Jaensch, 
    665 F.3d 83
    ,
    93 (4th Cir. 2011)                  Substantial evidence is evidence that a
    reasonable        finder       of     fact     could        accept        as    adequate       and
    sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
    a reasonable doubt.             United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862
    (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    In the conspiracy count, the appellants were charged with
    conspiracy    to       distribute       and    to     possess       with       the    intent    to
    distribute cocaine and marijuana.                     To obtain a conviction for a
    drug    conspiracy,         the      government        must        prove       the     following
    elements:     (1)      an   agreement         between        two     or       more    people    to
    distribute the drug or possess it with the intent to distribute;
    (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) his
    knowing,     voluntary       participation            in    the    conspiracy.            United
    States v. Green, 
    599 F.3d 360
    , 367 (4th Cir. 2010).                                  A defendant
    that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the
    face of this record, and, therefore, we decline to address this
    claim on direct appeal.
    - 6 -
    may    be    convicted      of     conspiracy      without     knowing      all     of   its
    details and even if he plays only a minor role.                           
    Id.
     at 367–68;
    Burgos, 
    94 F.3d at 858
    .
    In this case, there is sufficient evidence to support the
    appellants’ conspiracy convictions.                     The government’s evidence
    at trial established that, in 2005 or 2006, Lloyd called Black,
    whom he had known since their early lives in Jamaica.                                Lloyd
    stopped in Chesapeake, Virginia, where Black lived, on his way
    back from Baltimore, Maryland to his home in Atlanta, Georgia.
    Lloyd told Black that he had cocaine to sell and suggested that
    Black come to Atlanta to purchase some of it.                         Thereafter, Black
    and    his   friend,       Mario    Woods,      went    to   Atlanta    several     times,
    purchasing multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine from Lloyd and
    his associates on each occasion.
    On    July    24,    2006,       Cyntenious      Morris    was     released       from
    prison.        Morris      ran     into    Fuller,      whom   he     had   known    since
    childhood.          Fuller offered to assist Morris in reestablishing
    himself in the drug distribution business.                        Morris began buying
    half-ounces of cocaine from Fuller, but then began buying larger
    quantities.         Sometime in 2008, Morris thought that the prices
    that    he   was     paying      were     too   high.        Fuller     then    agreed    to
    introduce Morris to Fuller’s source of supply, Trenton Hawkins,
    so    that   Morris     could      negotiate      a    lower     price.        Thereafter,
    Morris bought cocaine from Hawkins, always placing his order
    - 7 -
    with Fuller, who delivered the cocaine to Morris on all but one
    occasion.
    Hawkins was obtaining the cocaine from Michael Cromwell.
    His biggest customers were Black and Fuller.                The cocaine was
    transported from Texas to Virginia using commercial trucks owned
    by Hawkins.      This continued until June 7, 2009, when Hawkins was
    stopped by police in Mississippi while on his way to Texas.                 The
    police    confiscated    approximately     $700,000.00    that    Hawkins   had
    intended to use to purchase cocaine.               After the stop, Hawkins
    introduced Fuller to another supplier since Hawkins was getting
    out of the business.
    Hawkins’ trucking services were also used by Lloyd.                     In
    late 2007 or early 2008, Lloyd called Black and told Black that
    he and Michael Daugherty were looking for a truck driver to
    transport marijuana from Texas to Virginia.                Black asked his
    friend Lewis Scott if he knew of anyone who could do this, and
    Scott introduced Black to Hawkins.             Black, in turn, introduced
    Hawkins     to   Lloyd   and   David    Wheeler,    who   hired   Hawkins    to
    transport 1,700 pounds of marijuana from El Paso to Virginia,
    for which Hawkins and Black were paid a total of $70,000.00.
    In July 2008, Hawkins and a driver took Hawkins’ tractor-
    trailer to El Paso, where they rendezvoused with Lloyd, Wheeler,
    and some Mexicans.       In El Paso, they picked up a trailer packed
    with the marijuana hidden under a false floor and covered by a
    - 8 -
    load of watermelons.         The truck was driven to Norfolk, Virginia
    followed by Lloyd, Wheeler, and the Mexicans.                        The watermelons
    were unloaded in Norfolk, and the truck was taken to Hawkins’
    trucking     yard    in   Portsmouth,        Virginia.         The    marijuana    was
    removed by Hawkins, Black, Lloyd, Wheeler, Daugherty, Scott, and
    Robert Napier.        The marijuana was stored at Scott’s house, in
    several    storage    units,      and   at   a   house   on    Barkleaf    Drive   in
    Virginia Beach, Virginia.           Fuller later told Johnnie Cowan about
    this 1,700 pound shipment of marijuana.
    The house on Barkleaf Drive was used to store drugs and
    money, as a distribution point, and as a place for Lloyd and
    Wheeler to stay when they were in town from Atlanta and Texas.
    Andre Todd was allowed by Black to stay at the house on Barkleaf
    Drive after Todd was released from jail on September 4, 2008.
    Todd observed thousands of pounds of marijuana and up to ten
    kilograms of cocaine being stored there.
    When a shipment of drugs arrived in Virginia, Wheeler or
    Lloyd would also arrive.            They would collect the proceeds from
    the sale of the drugs as the money came in.
    On    July     31,   2008,   the   Virginia       Beach    Police    Department
    executed a search warrant at one of the storage units rented by
    Black to store some of the marijuana and recovered 212 pounds of
    marijuana.        Wheeler,     Daugherty,        and   Black    had     brought    the
    marijuana to this Virginia Beach unit.                   When Black learned of
    - 9 -
    the police activity, he enlisted the aid of Simuel Hinton and
    Ronald     Nunn,    and    they     removed   400    pounds    of    marijuana       from
    another storage unit.
    In    addition       to   using    tractor-trailers,          members     of    the
    conspiracy used cars and trucks to transport cocaine, marijuana,
    and   cash.        These    vehicles     included     three    Ford     F-150   pickup
    trucks, one gray/black and the others red.                    If the loads arrived
    during the day, they would use the attached garage at Black’s
    house in Chesapeake, Virginia to unload the contraband.                              They
    usually rendezvoused at a strip shopping center near Black’s
    home before going to the house.                     The trucks were driven by
    Wheeler,      Daugherty,        and     Napier.       The     trucks     had    secret
    compartments that were fitted into the taillights and opened
    hydraulically.
    In May 2009, a series of telephone conversations on Black’s
    phone were intercepted pursuant to a court-ordered wiretap.                            On
    May 16, 2009, Black and Lloyd discussed marijuana deals.                             Lloyd
    was in Maryland at the time.              On May 21, 2009, Black told Lloyd
    that Napier wanted to transport marijuana from Arizona.                              They
    also discussed setting up a 1,000 pound marijuana transaction
    between Todd and Lloyd’s Baltimore associates.
    On May 23, 2009, a meeting took place in Virginia Beach
    involving     Lloyd,       Black,     Todd,   and   the     Baltimore    associates.
    - 10 -
    They discussed Todd purchasing the marijuana.                      No agreement was
    reached.
    On June 1, 2009, Lloyd again was in Baltimore.                                He and
    Black again spoke of Mexico and Arizona.                     On June 4, 2009, Lloyd
    flew into the Phoenix, Arizona airport.                       He was approached by
    Detective Donald Gabrick of the Phoenix Police Department after
    acting     suspiciously      while     claiming             his   luggage.         Lloyd
    eventually consented to a search of his luggage, and Detective
    Gabrick found $100,530.00 concealed in the lining of Lloyd’s
    suitcase,    for     which    Lloyd     had       no        plausible     explanation.
    Detective Gabrick also recovered two used boarding passes and
    other documents indicating that Lloyd had flown from Baltimore
    to Phoenix on May 19 and May 28.             Lloyd later told Black that he
    had lost $100,000.00 belonging to his Baltimore associates while
    he was in Arizona.
    In    July   2009,    Lloyd    called    a   friend,         Bruce   Heyward,    in
    Atlanta who owned a trucking company.                       This was shortly after
    Hawkins was stopped in Mississippi while on his way to Texas
    with nearly $700,000.00.           Unbeknownst to Lloyd, Heyward had been
    arrested and was cooperating with law enforcement.                        Lloyd wanted
    Heyward     to    transport    marijuana          from        Texas     to      Virginia,
    Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.               Heyward recorded a series of
    telephone    calls    at     the    direction          of     agents,     and    Heyward
    eventually set Lloyd up with an undercover agent, who continued
    - 11 -
    negotiations       with    Lloyd    regarding      price      and   quantity.        This
    continued       through    September       2009.      Lloyd    mentioned     marijuana
    loads of up to 4,000 pounds originating in Arizona and Houston,
    Texas.       Nothing was ever agreed upon.             The last contact between
    the undercover agent and Lloyd occurred on June 8, 2010, when
    Lloyd tried again to arrange a meeting in Arizona to further
    discuss transporting marijuana.
    By this time, Black had been approached by agents and was
    cooperating in the investigation.                  In July 2009, Lloyd and his
    Baltimore associates came to Virginia looking for an individual
    who owed them money for a $200,000.00 drug debt.                        Black alerted
    the agents, and a violent confrontation was averted.
    The evidence summarized above is sufficient to support the
    appellants’ conspiracy convictions.                  Reduced to its essence, the
    appellants’ challenge to these convictions rests on an attack on
    the    credibility    of     the    government’s       witnesses,      but   the     jury
    resolved the credibility issues in favor of the government.                           As
    an    appeals    court,     we    cannot    review    the     credibility      of   these
    witnesses.       United States v. Foster, 
    507 F.3d 233
    , 244–45 (4th
    Cir. 2007).
    The     appellants    raise    other    arguments       which    they    contend
    should    be    resolved     in    their    favor.      We    have    reviewed      these
    arguments and find them to be without merit.                         Accordingly, the
    judgments of the district court are affirmed.
    - 12 -
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 13 -