United States v. Antoin Garrison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTOIN GARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00688-CCB-1)
Submitted: April 30, 2015 Decided: May 13, 2015
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICE OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Matthew K. Hoff, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoin Garrison was found guilty on all five counts of a
superseding indictment: possession of ammunition by a convicted
person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012) (Count 1);
possession of a firearm by a convicted person, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Counts 2 & 4); possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012)
(Count 3); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012)
(Count 5). The district court sentenced Garrison to concurrent
terms of 180 months of imprisonment on Counts 1-4, and to a
consecutive sentence of 60 months of imprisonment on Count 5,
for a total sentence of 240 months.
Garrison appeals raising four issues, asking whether: (1)
the district court properly denied his motion for judgment of
acquittal as to Count 5; (2) the district court properly
exercised its discretion in denying his request to continue the
trial; (3) the district court properly denied the defendant’s
request for an entrapment jury instruction; and (4) the district
court correctly counted his prior 1984 conviction for robbery
with a deadly weapon as a qualifying predicate offense for
purposes of enhancing his sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
2
Garrison argues that the Government failed to show the guns
he possessed were in furtherance of his drug trafficking crimes
as required in Count 5. We review the denial of a motion for
acquittal de novo, United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
(4th Cir. 2005), and where, as here, the motion was based on a
claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict of a jury must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Reviewing the evidence as
required, we find that the jury was entitled to find that the
firearms Garrison possessed were in furtherance of his drug
trafficking crimes.
The determination of whether a continuance is justified is
left to the sound discretion of the trial court and that
discretion only exceeds its constitutional bounds when it is
exercised to deny a continuance on the basis of an “unreasoning
and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a
justifiable request for delay.” Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1,
11-12 (1983) (internal quotation omitted). The district court
adequately explored Garrison’s grounds for seeking a continuance
and determined that defense counsel was ready to proceed. We
also note that Garrison sought the continuance on the day of
trial. See United States v. Larouche, 896 F.2d 815, 824 (4th
Cir. 1990) (noting that the later a motion for a continuance is
3
made, the more likely it is made for dilatory tactics and thus
the less likely that the district court arbitrarily denied the
continuance).
Next, Garrison alleges that the district court erred by
failing to give the jury his requested entrapment instruction.
Entrapment occurs when (1) the government induces a person to
commit a crime, and (2) the person induced had no predisposition
to engage in the criminal act. United States v. Sarihifard, 155
F.3d 301, 308 (4th Cir. 1998); see Mathews v. United States, 485
U.S. 58, 62-63 (1988)). We have repeatedly held that
“solicitation of the crime alone is not sufficient to grant the
instruction, as that ‘is not the kind of conduct that would
persuade an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime.’”
United States v. Ramos, 462 F.3d 329, 334 (4th Cir. 2006)
(quoting United States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192, 200 (4th Cir.
2004)). We find no reversible error in the district court’s
refusal to give an entrapment instruction. See United States v.
Phan, 121 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 1997) (providing de novo
review standard).
In his final argument, Garrison contends that his juvenile
conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon was not a proper
predicate offense for his ACCA enhancement because the documents
used to establish the conviction are insufficient under the
Supreme Court’s decision in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S.
413, 26 (1995). We find that the documents relied upon by the
district court were sufficient. Applying a “categorical”
approach, id. at 20-21; Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575,
600 (1990), the district court correctly looked to the fact of
Garrison’s prior conviction (and the statutory definition of the
prior offense), which was supported by record documents. United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm Garrison’s convictions and sentence.
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
5