United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693

King was convicted in a federal jury of possession with intent to distribute drugs, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, and two felon-in-possession counts (one from Greenville, one from Wilmington).
Greenville officers seized 100 heroin dosage units from a gray Ford Explorer and 426 bags of cocaine plus seven heroin units and firearms from King's apartment, with King admitting ownership of items.
Wilmington officers found drugs, a handgun, and scales in a shared apartment with Bilal; King claimed Bilal owned the contraband and that he only visited the apartment.
King moved to compel disclosure of information about Bilal, including grand jury testimony, arguing potential Brady/exculpatory material. The district court partially refused to compel disclosure and did not review Bilal’s grand jury transcript.
At trial, King testified and the jury convicted on Counts One, Two, Three, and Five, with Counts Four and Six later dismissed; the district court imposed an eight-level kidnapping-based enhancement and an aggregate sentence of 408 months.
On appeal, King challenged duplicity and sufficiency of Counts One and Three, and he challenged Count Five as stemming from Bilal’s ownership; the court vacated Count Five and remanded for in camera review of Bilal’s grand jury testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts One and Three are duplicit and whether Count Three charges a § 924(c) offense	King argues duplicity and insufficiency of Count Three.	King contends Count Three inadequately states § 924(c) elements.	No reversible error; duplicity waived; no plain error in Count Three.
Whether the evidence supports Counts One and Three	The Government presented sufficient evidence of distribution and gun use.	King asserts insufficient evidence for intent to distribute and for § 924(c).	Substantial evidence supports both Counts One and Three.
Whether the Government violated Brady by withholding Bilal's grand jury testimony	King claims suppression of exculpatory Bilal material violated Brady.	King argues undisclosed Bilal materials were favorable and material.	Brady violation found; in camera review required of Bilal's grand jury transcript.
Whether the Government violated Brady by withholding Bilal's other information and its effect on Count Five	Bilal materials could undermine King’s ownership of Wilmington contraband.	King seeks disclosure of exculpatory Bilal information to counter sentencing enhancement.	Vacate Count Five and remand for in camera inspection to determine materiality/favorability.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality required for Brady; prevents overbroad discovery)
Ritchie v. State, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (in camera inspection when exact materiality cannot be shown)
Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995) (plausible showing of possible exculpatory material; in camera review)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2008) (plain error and standards for reviewing indictment)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady materiality and evidence potentially undermining verdict)
Trevino v. United States, 89 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 1996) (in camera inspection triggered by plausible exculpatory material)
Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995) (in camera inspection for exculpatory information)
United States v. Stokes, 261 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2001) (standard for evidentiary suppression and materiality)