United States v. Daniel Carrington

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 12
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL CARRINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-4240
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL CARRINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:20-cr-00106-JAG-LRL-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: February 14, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 12
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge
Quattlebaum and Judge Motz joined.
ON BRIEF: Murdock Walker, II, Bingzi Hu, LOWTHER | WALKER LLC, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano-
Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, John F. Butler, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 3 of 12
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
A jury sitting in Norfolk, Virginia, convicted Daniel Carrington on five counts,
finding him guilty on one count of conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs and on four counts
of actual distribution on four different occasions, one resulting in death.
Several months after the jury’s verdict, the government learned that one of its
witnesses, a detective who had participated in the investigation, was accused of lying to
superiors about reimbursement for gas he had purchased for his personal vehicle, and it
disclosed the information to the court and Carrington. Based on this newly discovered
evidence, Carrington filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion
and then, during the same hearing, imposed a downward variant sentence of 540 months’
imprisonment.
Carrington filed appeals from both his criminal judgment and the district court’s
order denying his motion for a new trial. In his appeal of the judgment, he contends that
the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and he challenges his sentence.
As to his sentence, he argues that the district court erred in finding an offense level of 43
by applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1), which provides for an offense level 43 if, among other
things, his drug trafficking conviction was committed after he had one or more prior
convictions “for a similar offense.” He also argues that the court imposed a sentence
“greater than necessary.” And in his appeal of the order denying his motion for a new trial,
he contends that the new evidence, discovered after the jury’s verdict, demonstrated that
an important witness at trial was “untruthful.”
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 4 of 12
I
Beginning in 2017, Carrington engaged in a conspiracy in the Tidewater area of
Virginia to traffic in heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl, which he obtained from a source
in Baltimore, Maryland. During the course of his drug trafficking, he provided a mixture
of fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl to a woman referred to as “D.J.,” which resulted in her death
on December 27, 2019.
Following an investigation of Carrington’s conduct, which included several
controlled purchases of illegal drugs from him, the government charged Carrington with
one count of conspiracy to traffic in heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846; one count of distribution of fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl, resulting in death,
in violation of § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C); and three counts of distribution on April 28,
2020; May 1, 2020; and May 7, 2020.
After a five day trial, a jury returned a verdict on May 21, 2021, finding not only
that Carrington was guilty on all counts but also that he conspired to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, 40 grams or more of fentanyl, and
a detectable amount of acetyl fentanyl.
Several months after the jury returned its verdict — in September 2021 — the
government learned that one of its witnesses — Chesapeake City Detective Omar Higazi,
who participated in the investigation of the case — had been found to be untruthful with
his superiors regarding his March 2021 request for gas reimbursement. The finding was
made in August 2021 by the Chesapeake City Police Chief, who then fired Detective
4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 5 of 12
Higazi. During the trial in this case, however, neither Detective Higazi nor the
government’s attorneys were aware of the administrative charge against Detective Higazi.
When the government learned about it, it filed a notice, disclosing the information to the
district court and to Carrington’s counsel.
Based on the information in the government’s notice, Carrington filed a motion for
a new trial on December 29, 2021.
A month later, the government filed a supplemental notice, informing the court and
Carrington’s counsel that Detective Higazi’s status had changed during the administrative
appeal process and that the disciplinary action filed against Detective Higazi had been
withdrawn, his employment record purged, and the determination made that Detective
Higazi’s firing was a voluntary resignation and he was eligible for rehire.
At a hearing on April 4, 2022, the district court denied Carrington’s motion for a
new trial and then proceeded to sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court found that Carrington’s offense level was 43 and,
with his criminal history Category IV, his advisory Guidelines sentence was life
imprisonment. The offense level of 43 was derived from U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1), which
established a level 43 for drug distribution convictions when death results and the
defendant had “one or more prior convictions for a similar offense.” The court found that
Carrington had a prior similar conviction. It then imposed a downward variant sentence of
540 months’ imprisonment.
5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 6 of 12
Carrington filed an appeal from the district court’s judgment and a separate appeal
from the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. By order dated April 21,
2022, we consolidated the two appeals.
II
Carrington contends first that the evidence presented by the government was
insufficient to convict him on Counts 2 through 5, which charged him with actual
distributions of controlled substances on particular dates, and, in Count 2, with one such
distribution resulting in death. He devotes most of his argument to his conviction on Count
2.
With respect to that count, he argues that the investigation was deficient because the
police did not search all of D.J.’s house, but only the room in which she was found dead;
that medical examiners concluded that D.J.’s death was caused by fentanyl and acetyl
fentanyl “without a thorough autopsy”; that during the investigation a detective “admitted
that he ‘[didn’t] have probable cause to arrest’” Carrington; that while there was video
footage of a black Chevrolet Malibu (Carrington’s car) arriving at D.J.’s house, the footage
did not disclose the identity of the driver or any drug transaction; that officers never
recovered the cell phone that linked Carrington to the conversations he had with D.J.; that
forensic examiners “only tested one out of nine capsules and one out of the three spoons
located” in D.J.’s room; and that an associate and friend of Carrington, who testified on
behalf of the government, lied as to some dates on which he said he had engaged in
activities with Carrington.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 7 of 12
Carrington’s arguments do not, however, address the affirmative evidence that the
government presented to support conviction. The fact that officers did not search D.J.’s
house or test drugs and paraphernalia in the room was inconsequential. D.J. was not a
criminal suspect, although she was acknowledged to have been a drug addict. The relevant
fact to be established at trial was that D.J. was found dead shortly after receiving fentanyl
from Carrington pursuant to an arrangement that they made by cell phone. To confirm the
cause of death, the medical examiner conducted blood tests, which revealed that D.J. had
overdosed on fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl, with the tests indicating that she had ingested
five times what was considered to be a lethal dose. Moreover, Carrington provided no
speculation as to what an autopsy might have shown that would have been relevant to his
defense. As to the video camera footage, it showed that following numerous telephone
calls between D.J. and Carrington, during which Carrington finally agreed to give D.J. a
“dime” of drugs (meaning $10 worth), his car arrived at D.J.’s house. The footage shows
that D.J. walked from her house to the car and then back into the house. A few hours later,
her mother found her dead in her room. Moreover, a witness testified that Carrington later
admitted that following a number of telephone calls that he had with D.J., he had finally
sold her the “dime” of fentanyl that resulted in her death. In addition, from their
investigation of D.J.’s room and purse, investigators recovered a folded piece of paper and
a baggie that had traces of fentanyl, which witnesses linked to similar packaging obtained
from Carrington during controlled purchases.
In short, there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Count 2.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 8 of 12
As to Counts 3 through 5, which arose out of controlled purchases of drugs from
Carrington, Carrington argues that the evidence on those counts was insufficient because
the circumstances of the controlled purchases, including the identity of Carrington, was
undocumented by recordings or video, having only been testified to by the detective who
organized, supervised, and observed the purchases. The detective reported in detail what
he saw, implicating Carrington.
While video recordings or photographs surely would have been strong evidence of
the transactions, the detective’s testimony was clear and precise, providing all of the details
of the transactions based on personal knowledge. Such evidence was both competent and
sufficient to support convictions.
As the government noted, this case was tried over a period of 5 days, during which
it presented 15 witnesses. The witnesses included individuals who testified to their
personal participation in the conspiracy and individuals who relied on Carrington as a
source of supply for controlled substances, as well as family members of the victim.
Witness testimony also included the expertise of law enforcement officers, forensic
scientists, a death investigator, an assistant chief medical examiner, a certified physician
assistant, a narcotics expert, and a cellular tower expert. In addition, the jury was provided
with over a hundred exhibits, which included recorded videos, phone calls, and messages.
Indeed, in a recorded interview with law enforcement, Carrington admitted to being a drug
dealer and having sold heroin since he was 16. The jury was also shown cell phone photos
and videos, cell phone and text records, and social media accounts in which Carrington
discussed and documented the drug trafficking conspiracy. Carrington’s cell phone,
8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 9 of 12
indeed, included videos taken by him that showed his residence, a firearm, bagged drugs,
and a drawer full of thousands of dollars in cash. It also had the contact information for
and communications with his Baltimore source of supply. Moreover, following the
execution of a search warrant in Carrington’s house, police recovered a scale and a sifter.
We conclude that Carrington’s insufficiency of the evidence argument has no merit
and therefore affirm his convictions.
III
Carrington next challenges his sentence. He contends (1) that he did not qualify for
an offense level 43 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1) because none of his prior convictions
qualified as “a similar offense,” as required by the Guideline, and (2) that, in any event, his
540-month sentence was “greater than necessary” to achieve the sentencing goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Section 2D1.1(a)(1) specifies an offense level of 43 for a drug distribution offense
when the use of the drug involved resulted in death and the offense was committed after
one or more prior convictions “for a similar offense.” In this case, Carrington had been
convicted under state law in 2013 for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in
violation of Va. Code. § 18.2-248. Carrington argues that his 2013 conviction was under
a statute whose elements were broader than those for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and that
therefore, under the categorical approach, the 2013 conviction did not qualify as a “similar
offense” under § 2D1.1(a)(1).
9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 10 of 12
The difficulty with Carrington’s argument is that § 2D1.1(a) gives no indication that
it is to be interpreted under the categorical approach. To the contrary, that section provides
that the prior conviction need only be similar to his current offense. His current offense
involves the distribution of illegal drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl,
while his earlier Virginia conviction involved the distribution of heroin, although the
Virginia statute prohibited a broader scope of drugs than did the federal statute under which
he was convicted here. Thus, while the Virginia offense might not be a precise match of
the sort that would be recognized under the categorical approach, it is nonetheless “similar”
to the federal statute. Both the Virginia statute and the federal statute prohibit the
distribution of illegal drugs, and the drugs for which Carrington was convicted of
distributing under the Virginia statute are also covered by the federal statute. We conclude
that the Virginia conviction thus qualifies as a similar offense under § 2D1.1(a)(1). See
United States v. Johnson, 706 F.3d 728, 731 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that the term “similar
offense” in § 2D1.1 is similar to the term “felony drug offense” as defined in the Controlled
Substances Act); United States v. Ward, 972 F.3d 364, 369 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that a
violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-248 amounts to a “controlled substance offense” under
the Sentencing Guidelines).
As to the substantive challenge to his 540-month sentence, the Guidelines advise
that Carrington be sentenced to life imprisonment, which would have presumptively been
a reasonable sentence. Taking into account Carrington’s personal circumstances, however,
the district court imposed a downward variance sentence of 540 months’ (45 years’)
imprisonment. In light of all the § 3553(a) factors, which the district court addressed at
10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 11 of 12
some length during sentencing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
selecting a 540-months sentence.
IV
Finally, in his separate appeal, Carrington contends that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for a new trial based on information learned subsequent
to the jury’s verdict that an important witness, Detective Higazi, was accused of lying to
his superiors when asking for a reimbursement for gas he purchased for his personal
vehicle. Carrington contends that the new evidence “[d]emonstrated Detective Higazi’s
untruthfulness when working as law enforcement prior to and during the trial.”
Relying on the five-factor standard articulated in United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d
1355 (4th Cir. 1993), for considering motions for new trials, the district court denied
Carrington’s motion. The court noted that the administrative claim and proceedings
involving Detective Higazi’s gas reimbursement had nothing to do with this case and
therefore had no bearing on its merits. Therefore, the court concluded, the new evidence
could only be used as impeachment evidence. Of course, as Custis points out, new
impeachment evidence is merely one of the five factors, and it does not alone justify a new
trial. See Custis, 988 F.2d at 1359; see also United States v. Stockton, 788 F.2d 210, 220
(4th Cir. 1986). While Custis does note an exception to the impeachment rule “[i]f the
government’s case rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness who
was discovered after trial to be utterly unworthy of being believed because he had lied
consistently in a string of previous cases,” 988 F.2d at 1359 (quoting United States v.
11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240 Doc: 44 Filed: 02/14/2023 Pg: 12 of 12
Taglia, 922 F.2d 413, 415 (7th Cir. 1991)), the district court in this case pointed out that
the government’s case did not rest solely on the testimony of Detective Higazi. To the
contrary, the case rested on a broad range of evidence presented by numerous witnesses
and much corroborating documentation. As the court noted:
As to Counts One and Two, the overwhelming evidence against
Carrington greatly dilutes the importance of [Detective Higazi’s] testimony.
For example, four cooperators who either directly participated in
Carrington’s drug trafficking conspiracy or purchased drugs from Carrington
testified against him. Furthermore, at least six other law enforcement
officials testified against Carrington, and the government presented dozens
of exhibits and recordings to prove Carrington’s guilt on these counts.
Carrington similarly fails to show that the newly discovered evidence
would probably lead to an acquittal of Counts Three through Five. The
government presented numerous recordings of Carrington setting up,
conducting, and discussing three controlled buys of fentanyl for which the
jury convicted him. And despite Carrington’s attempts to impeach the officer
by asking him why he repeatedly used a deficient recording device during
the three controlled buys, the jury still convicted Carrington of these counts.
Thus, the newly discovered evidence will not probably lead to an acquittal at
trial.
In these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Carrington’s motion for a new trial.
* * *
In sum, we affirm the judgment in appeal No. 22-4239 and the district court’s order
in appeal No. 22-4240.
AFFIRMED
12