United States v. Aaron Reed
708 F. App'x 773
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Aaron Matthew Reed was convicted by a jury of possessing methamphetamine precursors in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), (d)(2) and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
- Items described as methamphetamine manufacturing precursors were found in a bedroom identified by witnesses as Reed’s, in a toolbox he used, and inside a safe with his valuables.
- Reed had moved out several weeks earlier; the bedroom, toolbox, and safe were accessible to family members, and another family member with addiction issues had recently used the basement bedroom and purchased pseudoephedrine.
- At trial Sergeant Kessel testified as an expert on methamphetamine manufacture, describing the “shake and bake” method and opining the seized items were consistent with manufacture.
- Two witnesses testified about Reed’s prior meth use and manufacture; the court admitted that testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) with limiting instructions.
- Reed challenged sufficiency of the evidence (constructive possession), the expert qualification and methodology, admission of 404(b) evidence, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — constructive possession | Circumstantial evidence (items in Reed’s bedroom, toolbox, and safe) supports knowledge and dominion/control | Items were accessible to others; Reed had moved out; another family member used the room and bought pseudoephedrine | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports constructive possession |
| Expert qualification (Kessel) | Kessel’s training/experience made him qualified; testimony helpful to explain meth manufacture and item uses | Qualification gave undue weight; his final opinion invaded the jury province and lacked methodological explanation | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible and adequately explained |
| Admission of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) | Prior use/manufacture evidence was relevant, necessary to show knowledge, intent, ownership, and motive; reliable; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Prior acts were dissimilar, unreliable (witnesses were felons/addicts), and unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed — Queen four-part test satisfied; no abuse of discretion |
| Sentence reasonableness | Court properly considered Reed’s pattern of prior misconduct under §3553(a) and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence at bottom of range | Court overemphasized unscored convictions and used them improperly to increase sentence severity | Affirmed — no procedural error; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and Reed failed to rebut presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.) (definition and proof of constructive possession)
- United States v. Garcia, 752 F.3d 382 (4th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert qualification under Rule 702)
- United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267 (4th Cir.) (requirements for experiential expert to explain basis for opinion)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir.) (four-part admissibility test for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Hopkins, 310 F.3d 145 (4th Cir.) (expert testimony identifying indicia/tools of drug manufacture/distribution)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)