United States v. Eddie Blanchard ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4497
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDDIE BLANCHARD, a/k/a Jughead, a/k/a Jug,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cr-00139-HEH-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 15, 2016
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven P. Hanna, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas
Arthur Garnett, Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Eddie Blanchard of conspiracy to commit
mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012),
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2 (2012), mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2 (2012), aggravated
identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1), 2
(2012), conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (2012), and obstruction of
official proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), 2
(2012). The district court sentenced Blanchard to an aggregate
term of 204 months’ imprisonment. In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Blanchard’s counsel has filed a
brief certifying there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court erred in admitting
codefendant Junior Jean Merilia’s out-of-court statements,
describing the conspiracy and implicating Blanchard in the
conspiracy, through the testimony of Merilia’s former
girlfriend. Although notified of his right to file a pro se
brief, Blanchard has failed to do so. We affirm the district
court’s judgment.
The district court admitted Merilia’s statements to his
former girlfriend under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). We review the
district court’s admission of these statements for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643, 649 (4th
2
Cir. 2013). For the statements to be admissible, (1) the
declarant must be unavailable, (2) the statement must be
inculpatory, and (3) the statement must be sufficiently
corroborated. Id. Merilia’s statements satisfied the first two
requirements, as they clearly implicated him in the conspiracy
and he was unavailable to testify as he had yet to be sentenced
after his guilty plea. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S.
314, 328-29 (1999) (holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination extends to sentencing proceedings).
As to the corroboration of a statement under Rule 804(b)(3), we
have identified six factors to assist in this inquiry:
(1) whether the declarant had at the time of making
the statement pled guilty or was still exposed to
prosecution for making the statement, (2) the
declarant’s motive in making the statement and whether
there was a reason for the declarant to lie, (3)
whether the declarant repeated the statement and did
so consistently, (4) the party or parties to whom the
statement was made, (5) the relationship of the
declarant with the accused, and (6) the nature and
strength of independent evidence relevant to the
conduct in question.
United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 792 (4th Cir. 2013).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting Merilia’s statements. At the time he
made the statements, Merilia was aware that law enforcement was
investigating codefendant Ramoth Jean, and later himself. While
Merilia did not repeat the statements a large number of times,
he made several statements to his former girlfriend over the
3
course of several months. Additionally, Merilia had a years-
long relationship with his former girlfriend. Moreover, Merilia
and Blanchard were lifelong friends. Finally, Merilia’s
statements were corroborated by the other evidence introduced
over the course of the trial.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Blanchard, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Blanchard 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 Blanchard.
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
4