United States v. Medina , 326 F. App'x 692 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO MORALES MEDINA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00312-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 17, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, David Paul Folmar, Jr., Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Morales Medina was convicted of two counts
of distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006), and was sentenced to sixty-three months in prison. He
now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Medina
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
did not file such a brief.
Counsel contends in the Anders brief that the district
court erred when it refused to ask certain questions of
prospective jurors during voir dire. The questions related to
the existence and content of any bumper stickers on the
prospective jurors’ vehicles.
“The conduct of voir dire is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court, and thus it is only a ‘rare
case in which a reviewing court will find error in the trial
court’s conduct.’” United States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192, 203 (4th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Sasaki v. Class, 92 F.3d 232, 239 (4th Cir.
1996)). If “the proposed voir dire question does not address
issues of racial or ethnic prejudice, circuit courts of appeals
have held that the district court need not pursue a specific
line of questioning on voir dire, provided the voir dire as a
whole is reasonably sufficient to uncover bias or partiality in
2
the venire.” United States v. Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734, 739-40
(4th Cir. 1996). “A district court abuses its discretion . . .
if the voir dire does not provide ‘a reasonable assurance that
prejudice would be discovered if present.’” Id. at 740(quoting United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342, 1353 (5th Cir.
1995)).
Here, the proposed questions had no relation to
matters of racial or ethnic prejudice. Further, our review of
the record discloses that the district court’s questions to the
venire were sufficient to uncover any possible bias. We
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing
to ask the questions about bumper stickers.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the
client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before
3
the court and argument would not significantly aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4