United States v. Parr ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFRED CHARLES PARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:06-cr-00326-AW-1)
Submitted: December 14, 2009 Decided: January 12, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francis A. Pommett, III, LAW OFFICES OF NATHANSON & POMMETT,
P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Jonathan C. Su, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In a Superseding Indictment, Alfred Charles Parr was
charged with three counts of possession with intent to
distribute and distribution of marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006) (Counts 1-3), and one count
of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) (Count 4).
Parr proceeded to trial and at the close of the Government’s
evidence pled guilty to Counts 1-3. Although Parr persisted in
his plea of not guilty on Count 4, the jury found Parr guilty.
The district court sentenced Parr to six months’ imprisonment on
Counts 1-3 and 60 months’ imprisonment on Count 4 to run
consecutively. On appeal, Parr argues that the district court
erred in allowing the Government to question him about his prior
gun arrest in the District of Colombia. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Because Parr did not object to the Government’s line
of questioning at trial, our review is for plain error. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that:
(1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the
error affected his “substantial rights.” Olano, 507 U.S. at
732. We are not required to correct a plain error unless “a
miscarriage of justice would otherwise result,” meaning that
2
“the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736 (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Assuming without deciding that Parr can establish the
first two elements of the plain error test, we find that the
district court’s admission of the testimony elicited by the
Government’s questioning was not plain error because Parr’s
substantial rights were not affected. Leaving the evidence of
the prior arrest aside, there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to conclude Parr violated § 924(c). The confidential
informant who participated in two controlled drug purchases with
Parr testified that he saw a gun in Parr’s waistband during the
second purchase. Additionally, during a search of Parr’s home,
police found two loaded weapons between the mattress and box
springs of Parr’s bed – where he was sleeping at the time – one
of which was resting on a stack of cash near the head of the
bed. Agent Jeffrey Meixner, the agent in charge of Parr’s case
who also testified as a qualified expert in drug trafficking and
firearms, stated that storing a loaded weapon between the
mattress and box springs made it readily available to protect
drugs and drug money.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4