United States v. Edward Andrews

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD MARTIN ANDREWS, a/k/a Edward Andrews,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00320-LMB-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, W. Todd Watson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Marc Birnbaum,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Martin Andrews appeals his convictions for bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and possessing a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
Counsel for Andrews has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues on appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred when it denied Andrews’s request for a new
trial based on an alleged violation of Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972). Andrews was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a
new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stokes, 261
F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir. 2001). Material evidence tending to
impeach a prosecution’s witness must be disclosed to a defendant
if known to the prosecution. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-55.
Undisclosed evidence is material when its cumulative effect is
such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514
U.S. 419, 433-34 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our
review of the trial transcript leads us to conclude that the
2
district court correctly determined the challenged evidence was
not material and, therefore, that the court did not abuse its
discretion when it declined to order a new trial based on an
alleged violation of Giglio.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Andrews, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Andrews requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Andrews.
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
3