United States v. Marvin Garrett, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Marvin Garrett, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN GARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00030-1)
Submitted:
May 27, 2015
Decided:
June 10, 2015
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John A. Carr, JOHN A. CARR, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United
States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin
sentence
Garrett
for
appeals
distributing
his
cocaine
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2012).
conviction
base,
in
and
262-month
violation
of
21
Garrett argues that the district
court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on the
Governments
failure
to
disclose
the
drug
history
of
confidential informant (C.I.) who testified against him and by
imposing a sentence that was substantively unreasonable.
We
affirm.
The Government has a responsibility to disclose material
evidence
favorable
to
impeachment evidence.
153-55
(1972).
the
accused,
including
potential
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150,
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.
United States v.
Sterling, 724 F.3d 482, 511 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks
omitted),
appeal,
the
violation,
cert.
denied,
defendant
and
we
has
134
the
review
S.
Ct.
burden
[the
2696
of
(2014).
proving
district
On
Giglio
courts]
legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 701-02 (4th Cir. 2011).
The
failed
district
to
court
disclose
the
found
that
C.I.s
2
the
drug
Government
history
and
improperly
that
this
information was favorable to Garrett.
The court also concluded,
however, that this evidence was not material because the C.I.
was effectively impeached when she admitted her drug history and
mental
conditions
at
trial
against Garrett was strong.
a
recording
of
telephone
and
because
the
other
evidence
The Governments evidence included
conversation
in
which
the
C.I.
ordered cocaine base from a man whom a detective identified as
Garrett, testimony from multiple officers that they saw Garrett
meet the C.I. at the agreed place of delivery, testimony from a
detective
that
he
saw
Garrett
give
the
C.I.
something
in
exchange for money, and evidence that the object provided by the
C.I. proved to be cocaine base.
In light of the overwhelming
evidence against Garrett, we conclude that the district court
did
not
err
in
finding
no
reasonable
probability
that
prior
disclosure of the C.I.s drug history would have affected the
outcome of the case.
See Sterling, 724 F.3d at 511.
Garrett also challenges the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence.
calculated
this
Any sentence that is within or below a properly
Guidelines
presumption
can
range
is
presumptively
only
be
rebutted
by
reasonable,
showing
that
and
the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
3553(a) factors.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,
306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014); see Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding appellate
3
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Having reviewed the record and Garretts arguments, we conclude
that Garrett has failed to rebut this presumption.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
