United States v. Roberts

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERNEST ROBERTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
03-369)
Submitted: April 16, 2007 Decided: May 29, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Warren Bennett, BENNETT & BAIR, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Andrea L.
Smith, Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Roberts appeals his convictions for one count of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
crack cocaine, cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Roberts claims the district
court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sever the
charges for trial, abused its discretion in denying the motion for
a mistrial based on possible contact between a juror and Roberts’
relative, abused its discretion in denying the motion for a
mistrial based on an officer’s testimony regarding Roberts’
involvement selling marijuana prior to the dates of the marijuana
conspiracy and erred in denying the motion to suppress the fruits
of the wiretap surveillance. Roberts also argues the evidence was
insufficient to support the marijuana conspiracy conviction.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Joinder of offenses is the rule, not the exception, and
a trial judge’s decision to deny a motion to sever should only be
overturned upon a “showing of clear prejudice or abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514 (4th Cir.
1995) (citation omitted). We find Roberts failed to make a
sufficient showing of prejudice. The evidence supporting each
charge was distinct and of different natures. We fail to see how
- 2 -
the jury could have been confused. There is no evidence the
joinder prevented Roberts from presenting a defense. Because of
the court’s instruction it is unlikely the jury found Roberts
guilty of both charges because of a finding that he had a criminal
disposition. See United States v. Goldman, 750 F.2d 1221, 1225
(4th Cir. 1984).
We further find the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial based upon contact
between a juror and Roberts’ mother. Neither this juror, nor any
juror who heard about the contact, expressed any reservations as to
their ability to be impartial in reaching a verdict. We also find
the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial motion
based on a law enforcement agent’s testimony regarding Roberts’
involvement in selling marijuana several years prior to the dates
in the indictment. The jury was made aware of Roberts’ involvement
in selling marijuana prior to the challenged testimony. In
addition, the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony.
We also find the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to suppress evidence from the wiretap. See
United States v. Oriakhi, 57 F.3d 1290, 1298 (4th Cir. 1995). The
Government showed that traditional evidence gathering methods were
losing steam and becoming dangerous.
- 3 -
Finally, we find the evidence was more than sufficient to
support the marijuana conviction. See Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions 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
- 4 -