Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    United States v. Larry R. Gunnell, JR, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit affirmed Larry Gunnell's conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court found that the traffic stop was not unduly prolonged, Gunnell consented to the vehicle search, and the officers had probable cause to continue searching after Gunnell attempted to withdraw consent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the timing of Gunnell's flight from the vehicle as the officers discovered drugs. Finally, the court held that a comment by the district judge did not demonstrate bias given that the judge properly formulated opinions about the evidence at the suppression hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Larry R. Gunnell, JR, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    78 views4 pages
    The Fourth Circuit affirmed Larry Gunnell's conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court found that the traffic stop was not unduly prolonged, Gunnell consented to the vehicle search, and the officers had probable cause to continue searching after Gunnell attempted to withdraw consent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the timing of Gunnell's flight from the vehicle as the officers discovered drugs. Finally, the court held that a comment by the district judge did not demonstrate bias given that the judge properly formulated opinions about the evidence at the suppression hearing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-4513

    Original Title

    United States v. Larry R. Gunnell, Jr, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Fourth Circuit affirmed Larry Gunnell's conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court found that the traffic stop was not unduly prolonged, Gunnell consented to the vehicle search, and the officers had probable cause to continue searching after Gunnell attempted to withdraw consent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the timing of Gunnell's flight from the vehicle as the officers discovered drugs. Finally, the court held that a comment by the district judge did not demonstrate bias given that the judge properly formulated opinions about the evidence at the suppression hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    78 views4 pages

    United States v. Larry R. Gunnell, JR, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit affirmed Larry Gunnell's conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court found that the traffic stop was not unduly prolonged, Gunnell consented to the vehicle search, and the officers had probable cause to continue searching after Gunnell attempted to withdraw consent. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the timing of Gunnell's flight from the vehicle as the officers discovered drugs. Finally, the court held that a comment by the district judge did not demonstrate bias given that the judge properly formulated opinions about the evidence at the suppression hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 99-4513

    LARRY ROSCOE GUNNELL, JR.,


    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-99-22)
    Submitted: January 31, 2000
    Decided: March 1, 2000
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
    and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Keith B. Marcus, BREMNER, JANUS & COOK, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, N.
    George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Roscoe Gunnell, Jr. appeals his conviction on the sole count
    of aiding and abetting and possession of crack cocaine with intent to
    distribute. See 18 U.S.C. 2 (1994) & 21 U.S.C.A. 841(a)(1) (West
    1999). Gunnell argues that the district court erred by denying his
    motion to suppress, that insufficient evidence supports his conviction,
    and that the district court's bias denied him due process of law. After
    a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
    Gunnell first argues that the district court erroneously denied his
    motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his vehicle
    because the police transformed their initially legitimate traffic stop of
    his vehicle into an illegal seizure when they detained him for over
    forty-five minutes and when their questioning exceeded the scope of
    the initial stop. While Gunnell asserts that he was detained for fortyfive minutes, the record clearly demonstrates that the officer returned
    Gunnell's license, registration, and insurance card within twelve minutes of being pulled over, thereby effectively concluding the traffic
    stop. See United States v. Sullivan, 138 F.3d 126, 133 (4th Cir. 1998).
    Additionally, Gunnell's assertion that the police exceeded the purposes of the stop by questioning him about the contents of his vehicle
    before concluding the traffic stop is also belied by the record. The
    record reflects that the officer asked about the presence of illegal
    objects in the vehicle only after returning Gunnell's papers.
    Gunnell responded to the inquiry about illegal objects by telling the
    officer he could check himself. Gunnell argues that he withdrew his
    consent prior to the discovery of incriminating evidence by stating
    that he wished to leave, but that police continued to search. Again, the
    record refutes Gunnell's claim. Even construing Gunnell's statement
    that he wished to leave as a withdrawal of his consent, we find that
    the police had probable cause prior to the statement. When Gunnell
    2

    made this statement the officers had already found a twenty-dollar bill
    in the right vent and black mesh concealing a plastic bag apparently
    filled with money in the central vent. Additionally, the officers had
    also discovered, by this time, marijuana residue in the glove box, and
    evidence that someone had possibly tampered with the vehicle's ventilation system to secure a hidden compartment. Therefore, we hold
    that the district court correctly denied Gunnell's suppression motion.
    Next, Gunnell argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction because the evidence did not show beyond a reasonable doubt
    that he knew drugs or money were hidden in the vehicle. Gunnell
    essentially argues that flight alone does not constitute knowledge. We
    find Gunnell's argument unpersuasive.
    On direct appeal, we must sustain the district court's judgment "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). When challenging the evidentiary sufficiency, this Court will
    consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. See United States v.
    Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Moreover, knowledge
    can be shown by circumstantial evidence. See United States v.
    Grubbs, 773 F.2d 599, 601 (4th Cir. 1985).
    It is not the flight alone, but the timing of it, that suggested Gunnell's knowledge of the presence of drugs in this case. Only after the
    officers' initial discovery of the twenty-dollar bill and concealing
    black mesh did Gunnell ask to leave. Then, only after the officer
    began removing the vent blades that concealed the drugs did Gunnell
    flee. Furthermore, Gunnell's claim that he had no dominion or control
    over the drugs is refuted by his knowledge of the drugs and his
    dominion and control over the vehicle hiding them. When viewing all
    evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we hold that
    the district court properly found the evidence sufficient to convict.
    Finally, Gunnell argues that a comment the district judge made
    during the trial indicates that the judge was biased against him by
    determining his guilt before the trial started. Because Gunnell failed
    to preserve this error at his trial we review his claim under the plain
    error rule. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d
    1430, 1434 (4th Cir. 1993). Under the plain error rule, we will only
    3

    correct those errors which are "particularly egregious" and that


    amount to "a miscarriage of justice." United States v. Jarvis, 7 F.3d
    404, 410 (4th Cir. 1993). Under this rule, Gunnell must show that a
    plain error occurred that prejudiced his substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.
    See Brewer, 1 F.3d at 1434-35.
    Gunnell cannot make a showing of prejudice. The evidence of guilt
    in this case revolved around Gunnell's flight and the circumstances
    leading to it. The district court heard all this evidence prior to trial,
    at the suppression hearing, and properly formulated opinions about
    the evidence at that time. Because Gunnell offered no additional evidence concerning his flight or the circumstances leading up to it, the
    fact that the district court's opinion did not change does not reflect
    bias or prejudice.
    Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 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

    You might also like