United States v. Langley ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4663
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FLOYD A. LANGLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-10124)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: May 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory M. Kallen, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Lucas Hobbs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Langley appeals his conviction in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia for aggravated
armed robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and (e)
(2000). He asserts that the district court erred in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal and abused its discretion in
refusing two proffered jury instructions. Finding no merit to his
contentions, we affirm his conviction.
On the afternoon of October 31, 2003, Floyd Langley
robbed the Peoples Bank branch in Gibson Station, Virginia. He
does not dispute the testimony of two bank tellers that he robbed
them, forced them by gunpoint into a men’s restroom, and blocked
the doorway with a table. He contends, however, that his actions
did not meet what he characterizes as the abduction requirement of
§ 2113(e), because he only forced the movement of the tellers over
a short distance and claims he did so for their protection.
Furthermore, he contends that he robbed the bank out of duress.
Specifically, he claims that, two weeks before the robbery, two
unidentified men threatened him with the death of his family if he
did not comply with their order to rob the bank, which they
reinforced with a threatening letter “a few days” before the
robbery. Langley testified that he discarded the letter and
admitted that he never informed authorities of the alleged threat
until a subsequent confession four months after he robbed the bank.
- 2 -
At the conclusion of the Government’s case-in-chief,
Langley moved for a judgment of acquittal, asserting that the
extent to which he forced the tellers’ accompaniment did not
satisfy § 2113(e). The district court denied the motion and
subsequently refused Langley’s proffered jury instructions
concerning abduction and duress.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal de novo. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136
(4th Cir. 2001). We also review questions of statutory
interpretation de novo. See United States v. Davis, 98 F.3d 141,
144 (4th Cir. 1996). And we review refusals of proffered jury
instructions for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 384 (4th Cir. 1999).
Langley’s arguments regarding abduction are foreclosed by
United States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2004), in which we
held that a forced accompaniment, regardless of distance traversed
or the degree of danger posed, satisfies § 2113. Id. at 120.
Moreover, his duress defense is foreclosed by United States v.
King, 879 F.2d 137 (4th Cir. 1989), because he did not demonstrate
that he “acted under a reasonable fear of an imminent threat of
bodily harm and that he had no reasonable choice but to commit the
illegal act.” Id. at 139 (emphasis in original). Thus, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying Langley’s
motion for a judgment of acquittal or abuse its discretion in
- 3 -
determining that the proffered jury instructions could not be
supported as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed. 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
- 4 -