United States v. Claytor , 208 F. App'x 213 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-5138
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JULIUS CHRISTOPHER CLAYTOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-05-7)
    Submitted:   October 25, 2006               Decided:   December 5, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Weber III, WEBER PEARSON PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
    John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julius Christopher Claytor was convicted by a jury of
    possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2000); possession of a firearm in furtherance
    of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)
    (2000); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g) (2000), and was sentenced to a
    total of 240 months’ imprisonment.        On appeal, Claytor raises four
    issues.   For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    First, Claytor argues that the drugs and money found in
    his pants pockets should have been suppressed.           This court reviews
    the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to
    suppress ruling for clear error, and the district court’s legal
    determinations de novo.     Ornelas v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 690
    ,
    699 (1996); United States v. Bush, 
    404 F.3d 263
    , 275 (4th Cir.
    2005).    When a suppression motion has been denied, this court
    reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.
    United States v. Grossman, 
    400 F.3d 212
    , 216 (4th Cir. 2005).
    After having reviewed the transcript of the hearing of the motion
    to suppress, the parties’ briefs, and the materials submitted in
    the joint appendix, we conclude that the evidence would have been
    inevitably    discovered   by   lawful    means,   and   we   thus   find   no
    reversible error.    See Nix v. Williams, 
    467 U.S. 431
    , 444 (1984).
    - 2 -
    Second, Claytor argues that the Government improperly
    used    race    in    selecting     his   jury,    in   violation    of   Batson   v.
    Kentucky, 
    476 U.S. 79
     (1986).                 Generally, a Batson challenge
    consists of three steps: (1) the defendant makes out a prima facie
    case of discrimination; (2) the Government offers a race-neutral
    explanation; and (3) the trial court decides whether the defendant
    has    carried       his   burden   and   proved    purposeful      discrimination.
    Purkett v. Elem, 
    514 U.S. 765
    , 767-68 (1995).                 Upon review of the
    jury selection transcript, we conclude that the district court did
    not clearly err in determining that Claytor did not meet his burden
    of proving purposeful discrimination in the jury selection.
    Third, Claytor argues that the district court erred in
    denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and first motion for
    a new trial based on insufficient evidence.                 This court reviews de
    novo the district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of
    acquittal.       United States v. Romer, 
    148 F.3d 359
    , 364 (4th Cir.
    1998).    This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion
    for new trial for abuse of discretion.                  United States v. Huggins,
    
    191 F.3d 532
    , 536 (4th Cir. 1999).                In evaluating the sufficiency
    of the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of
    witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved all contradictions in
    the testimony in favor of the government.                  Id.; United States v.
    Saunders, 
    886 F.2d 56
    , 60 (4th Cir. 1989).                   The reviewing court
    must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
    - 3 -
    favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable trier of fact could
    have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
    doubt.    Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).              The
    reviewing court must consider circumstantial as well as direct
    evidence and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable
    inferences.      United States v. Tresvant, 
    677 F.2d 1018
    , 1021 (4th
    Cir. 1982).     Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
    evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to prove that Claytor
    possessed with intent to distribute cocaine; possessed a firearm in
    furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and possessed a firearm as
    a convicted felon. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial
    of Claytor’s motion for judgment of acquittal and first motion for
    a new trial.
    Finally, Claytor argues that the district court erred in
    denying his second motion for a new trial based on an affidavit
    submitted by Monique Preston, in which she recanted portions of her
    Grand Jury and trial testimony.        When a witness recants testimony
    given at trial, a new trial should be granted only when: (1) the
    court    is   reasonably   satisfied   that   the   testimony   given   by   a
    material witness is false; (2) without the evidence a jury might
    have reached a different conclusion; and (3) the party seeking the
    new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given
    and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until
    after the trial.     United States v. Wallace, 
    528 F.2d 863
    , 866 (4th
    - 4 -
    Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Carmichael, 
    726 F.2d 158
    , 160
    (4th Cir. 1984) (noting the “[f]indings of the district court made
    on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence
    should   not      be   disturbed       except      for    the    most   extraordinary
    circumstances”). The failure to meet any one of the Wallace test’s
    three prongs is fatal.              Carmichael, 
    726 F.2d at 159
    .              Post-trial
    recantations      of     testimony        are   “looked    upon      with    the   utmost
    suspicion.” United States v. Johnson, 
    487 F.2d 1278
    , 1279 (4th Cir.
    1973) (citations omitted). A thorough review of the record reveals
    that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Claytor’s    motion      for    a    new    trial.        The   district      court   was
    reasonably     unconvinced           by     the     truthfulness        of     Preston’s
    recantation, and there is no evidence that the jury would have
    reached a different conclusion, or that Claytor was taken by
    surprise.
    For    the    reasons      stated      herein,      we   affirm    Claytor’s
    conviction and sentence.             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
    - 5 -