United States v. Shirley Ingram, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Shirley Ingram, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHIRLEY INGRAM, JR., a/k/a Raheem,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00069-FDW-1)
Submitted:
December 23, 2014
Decided:
January 8, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson
DEFENDERS
Carolina,
Attorney,
Asheville,
Hill, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL
OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shirley
Ingram,
Jr.,
appeals
his
convictions
and
sentences for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2012), and in furtherance of
a
drug-trafficking
924(c)(1) (2012).
(1)
not
suppressing
offense,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
Ingram claims the district court erred by
evidence
found
following
third-party
consent search of his vehicle; (2) denying his Fed. R. Crim. P.
29 motion for a judgment of acquittal; (3) designating Ingram an
armed
career
(ACCA),
18
criminal,
U.S.C.
under
the
924(e)
Armed
(2012),
Career
by
Criminal
relying
on
Act
prior
convictions that he claims do not qualify as predicate offenses;
and (4) imposing an ACCA sentence based on facts not alleged in
the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
We affirm.
I.
Suppression claim
In evaluating [an] appeal of the denial of [a] motion
to suppress . . . , we review the district courts factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Brown, 757 F.3d 183, 190 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 229 (2014).
When the district court denies
a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government.
United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d
263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1572 (2014).
2
The
government
bears
the
burden
warrantless search or seizure.
A
consent
to
authority
warrantless
search
over
inspected.
of
proof
in
justifying
Id.
search
may
be
by
third
the
premises
justified
party
who
or
by
showing
possessed
effects
common
sought
to
be
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974);
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300, 306 (4th Cir. 2012).
However, a physically present inhabitants express refusal of
consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless
of the consent of a fellow occupant.
U.S. 103, 122-23 (2006).
proving
consent,
and
we
Georgia v. Randolph, 547
The government has the burden of
review
for
clear
error
courts determination that a search [was] consensual.
district
United
States v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 677, 680 (4th Cir. 2013).
In
determining whether consent to search was freely and voluntarily
given, a court is to consider the totality of the circumstances,
including
the
characteristics
mental capacity.
of
the
consenter,
such
as
her
United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 1300, 1318
(10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Here,
prior
to
trial,
Ingram
moved
to
suppress
evidence seized from the search of his vehicle, arguing that his
mother, who had consented to the search, lacked the capacity to
do so.
He also claimed that, regardless of whether his mothers
3
consent
was
Randolph.
voluntary,
We
discern
the
no
search
was
reversible
unreasonable
error
in
the
under
district
courts determinations that Ingrams mother did not lack the
requisite capacity to consent and that, because Ingram never
expressly refused his consent, Randolph does not apply to his
case.
Therefore,
we
affirm
the
district
courts
denial
of
Ingrams motion to suppress.
II.
Sufficiency of the evidence claim.
This court reviews de novo the denial of a Rule 29
motion for a judgment of acquittal.
United States v. Jaensch,
665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).
A defendant challenging the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
faces
heavy
burden.
States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2013).
United
The jury
verdict must be sustained if any rational trier of fact could
have
found
the
essential
reasonable doubt.
(4th
Cir.
2014)
elements
of
the
crime
beyond
United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313, 317
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
[T]he
jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the
evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented
. . . .
McLean, 715 F.3d at 137 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Moreover, we give the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to
be established.
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370,
378
(internal
(4th
Cir.)
quotations
4
marks
omitted),
cert.
denied,
135
S.
Ct.
305
(2014).
Thus,
[r]eversal
for
insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the
prosecutions failure is clear.
F.3d
135,
138
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Ashley, 606
2010)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Section
924(c)
requires
the
government
to
present
evidence indicating that the possession of a firearm furthered,
advanced, or helped forward a drug trafficking crime.
770
F.3d
omitted).
at
317
(internal
quotation
marks
and
Pineda,
alteration
Because the government introduced ample evidence from
which a reasonable factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that Ingram had possessed a firearm that furthered and
advanced a drug trafficking crime, we conclude that sufficient
evidence supported his 924(c) conviction.
Thus, the district
court did not err by denying Ingrams Rule 29 motion.
III. ACCA claims
Ingram
imposing
an
claims
ACCA
that
sentence
the
because
district
his
court
prior
North
erred
by
Carolina
breaking or entering convictions, under N.C. Gen. Stat. 1454(a)
(2011),
purposes
of
did
ACCA.
not
count
as
Our
recent
predicate
decision
in
convictions
United
States
for
v.
Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, __ S. Ct.
__, 83 U.S.L.W. 3328 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2014) (No. 14-6886), holding
that
14-54(a)
convictions
qualify
5
as
ACCA
predicate
convictions, forecloses this argument.
that
he
was
improperly
designated
an
Ingrams final claim
armed
career
criminal
because his prior convictions were not submitted to the jury and
proved beyond a reasonable doubtis foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
Therefore, the
district court did not err in rejecting these claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
