United States v. Gregory Graves, 551 F. App'x 680

In December 2009 and January 2010 Gregory Graves committed one 7-Eleven robbery (shotgun, face on camera) and attempted a second (knife, ski mask); investigation tied a car and license photo to Graves and police recovered a shotgun after his statements.
Graves was arrested January 9, 2010, taken to the police station, briefly spoke to a detective about a phone call/attorney, later signed a Miranda waiver and gave oral and written admissions; those statements led to physical evidence recovery.
Grand jury indicted Graves on Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), possession by a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and use/brandishing of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). Trial occurred in Feb. 2012; jury convicted on all counts; sentence 30 years.
Pretrial, Graves moved to suppress his statements (arguing he invoked right to counsel when asking about a phone call), and moved pro se to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act; government filed a Rule 404(b) motion to admit three prior 2001 7‑Eleven robberies.
District court denied suppression (request for counsel ambiguous), denied dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act (found motion in limine tolled the clock and Graves acquiesced), and admitted prior-robbery evidence under Rule 404(b) for identity; Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression — invocation of right to counsel	Graves: his request to make a phone call amounted to invoking right to counsel, so subsequent interrogation/statements were inadmissible	Government: request was ambiguous; Davis standard requires an unambiguous invocation	Court: request was ambiguous; applied Davis standard; no suppression error
Speedy Trial Act dismissal	Graves: continuance and pending gov't 404(b) motion did not sufficiently toll §3161; indictment should be dismissed	Government: filing of pretrial motion in limine tolled the 70‑day clock; parties/defense counsel agreed such a motion would be filed	Court: Graves acquiesced/ratified tolling by representing a motion would be filed; no dismissal
Rule 404(b) admission of prior robberies	Graves: prior offenses insufficiently distinctive; admission unfairly prejudicial as identity evidence	Government: prior robberies were probative of identity and met Rule 404(b) standards	Court: admission for identity was not arbitrary or irrational; probative value outweighed prejudice; no abuse of discretion

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once right to counsel asserted, interrogation must cease)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (statements after unlawful initiation of interrogation presumed involuntary)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (no distinction in invocation requirement outside custody; ambiguous responses insufficient)
Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (time between filing and hearing on pretrial motion excluded under Speedy Trial Act)
United States v. Keith, 42 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 1994) (defendants cannot sandbag with agreed continuances to later seek dismissal)
United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2009) (standards for admitting 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2011) (404(b) admissibility: relevance to noncharacter issue, necessity, reliability)