United States v. Keith Reed
780 F.3d 260
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- In December 2012 four masked men committed three armed robberies in Alexandria/Arlington, VA; the third (a credit union) yielded $60,411.15 and contained three hidden GPS trackers that led police to the defendants.
- Officers found two GPS units, cash, masks in nearby woods where the four fled; the third GPS, cash, masks, and firearms (including one with a drum magazine) were recovered from Cannon’s residence; DNA from masks linked to defendants.
- Cell‑phone records and FBI historical cell‑site analysis placed phones attributed to the defendants near robbery sites and showed coordinated calling patterns on robbery days; photos of cash were recovered from phones.
- Defendants were indicted on conspiracy (Hobbs Act), three Hobbs Act robberies, armed bank robbery, three 924(c) counts (use/brandish firearm), and four §922(g)(1) felon‑in‑possession counts; each was convicted and sentenced to 720 months.
- On appeal they challenged (1) admission/authentication of FBI cell‑site maps (Exhibit 45); (2) admission of evidence from a phone/bag labeled “Dyer” under the Confrontation Clause; (3) sufficiency of evidence for all convictions; and (4) sufficiency on interstate‑commerce/firearm elements for §922(g) and §924(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of FBI cell‑site maps (Exhibit 45) | Maps accurately reflect phone‑tower data and phones were attributable to defendants by photos/texts and testimony | Labels used defendants’ names (not numbers); maps may be off‑scale and confuse/judge jury; insufficient authentication | Admission not an abuse of discretion: foundation for cell‑site method and phone attribution sufficient; probative value > any prejudice |
| Confrontation Clause re: phone evidence/bag labeled “Dyer” | Phone contents (photos/texts) independently linked phone to Dyer; any labeling error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Bag labeling and missing custodians' testimony violated right to confront witnesses | Even assuming testimonial error, any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given independent phone evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery/conspiracy convictions | GPS, recovered cash/masks, DNA, phones, phone‑tower timing, similarities across robberies, and photos provide ample direct and circumstantial evidence | No eyewitness identified defendants because of masks; evidence is circumstantial and insufficient | Verdicts upheld: substantial evidence (viewed favorably to gov't) supports convictions for all charged robberies, conspiracy, and related counts |
| Firearm interstate‑commerce and §924(c) causation (922(g)/924(c)) | Firearms found at Cannon’s house matched descriptions from the credit union robbery; movement between D.C. and VA suffices for interstate commerce; co‑conspirator possession/foreseeability supports §924(c) | No proof firearms traveled in interstate commerce; no direct proof each defendant possessed/used firearms in robberies | Convictions under §922(g)(1) and §924(c) proper: reasonable jury could infer same firearms used and travel in interstate commerce; constructive possession and foreseeability support §924(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and sufficiency on appeal)
- United States v. Mouzone, 687 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion review on evidence admission)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial statement framework)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1995) (elements of §922(g)(1) offense)
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (interstate travel as commerce includes D.C.–state movement)
- United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2008) (constructive possession supports §922(g) conviction)
- United States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 1998) (§924(c) liability based on coconspirator’s gun use if foreseeable)