United States v. Marcus Byrd
700 F. App'x 183
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marcus Dorrell Byrd was tried for a drug-distribution conspiracy (5+ kg cocaine), two substantive cocaine distributions, possession of a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- A confidential informant, Robin Applewhite, under police supervision, made two controlled buys from Byrd in June 2011; audio recordings, photos, and police testimony corroborated the transactions.
- A warrant search of Byrd’s apartment on June 24, 2011 found $15,000+ in bundled cash, drug processing paraphernalia (scale, press, baggies, razor blades), and a loaded semi-automatic handgun under Byrd’s side of the bed; no actual cocaine was recovered there.
- The jury convicted Byrd on all counts. At sentencing the district court designated Byrd an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA based on a prior prison-riot conviction, but Byrd received a mandatory life term under the drug-conspiracy statute due to prior felony drug convictions.
- Byrd appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that the firearm was possessed in furtherance of the conspiracy, (2) erroneous limitation of cross-examination about Applewhite’s pending state charges, and (3) erroneous ACCA classification (raised for the first time on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Byrd's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on § 924(c) (gun in furtherance) | The conspiracy ended before June 24, 2011 (Moore stopped supplying Byrd in March) and Byrd bought the gun the day before, so the gun wasn’t in furtherance of the charged conspiracy | The indictment alleged an ongoing conspiracy “with others known and unknown” through June 24; evidence showed Byrd had another supplier and continued trafficking, plus cash/paraphernalia and Byrd’s statement that the gun was for protection | Affirmed: evidence, including recordings, cash, paraphernalia, and Byrd’s statements, permitted a rational jury to find possession in furtherance beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Limitation of cross-examination about Applewhite’s pending state charges | Exclusion of specifics (human trafficking/kidnapping) prevented showing bias/motive to lie and thus violated Confrontation Clause | Court allowed cross-examination about informant’s felony charges and cooperation; specifics were excluded as cumulative/irrelevant; evidence against Byrd was otherwise strong and corroborated | Any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Applewhite’s credibility was already impeached and his testimony was corroborated |
| ACCA designation (prior prison-riot conviction) after Johnson | Johnson removes prison riot as a violent felony under ACCA, so Byrd’s ACCA designation is erroneous and affects sentencing | Even if ACCA designation was erroneous, Byrd’s life sentence was mandated by the drug statute based on prior drug convictions, so ACCA error did not affect substantial rights | Plain-error review: no relief because the ACCA error did not affect Byrd’s sentence or substantial rights; affirmed |
| Request to amend judgment to remove ACCA designation (concurrence concern) | District-court judgment is materially erroneous under current law; request to correct judgment so it conforms to Johnson | Government opposed vacatur/amendment; plain-error constraints apply on appeal where no timely Johnson objection was made | Concurrence: judge lamented inability to correct manifest legal error under plain-error rules but did not change the judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Royal, 731 F.3d 333 (4th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)
- United States v. Moore, 769 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (firearm may further drug trafficking by protecting drugs, profits, or person)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless-error standard for improper limitation of cross-examination)
- United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (limits on cross-examination reviewed for abuse of discretion; harmless-error framework)
- United States v. Williams, 632 F.3d 129 (4th Cir.) (error that did not contribute to verdict is harmless)
- United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review for sentencing issues raised first on appeal)
- United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.) (declining to vacate ACCA designation where it did not affect sentence)
- United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 593 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review: no relief when error did not affect substantial rights)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions may be used to enhance sentence)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life sentences described as grave and serious)