United States v. Savino Braxton, 663 F. App'x 253

Braxton was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute heroin and, at trial, summarily convicted of criminal contempt; on remand the case proceeded to retrial and resentencing.
Prosecutors had previously filed a § 851 notice (2012) alleging a 1991 felony drug conviction, which exposed Braxton to a 20-year mandatory minimum; the Government filed a second § 851 notice after remand reiterating the same prior conviction.
Nearly a year after Braxton’s first sentencing, the DEA central lab destroyed heroin evidence seized from his car and apartment; defense moved to dismiss, arguing due process violation from destroyed evidence.
The district court denied the dismissal motion, finding no bad faith in the destruction because evidence is typically destroyed after sentencing and prosecutors were not involved.
The district court convicted Braxton of contempt for knowingly mentioning punishment before the jury despite repeated admonitions; Braxton appealed raising three issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether destruction of seized heroin violated due process	Braxton: destroyed evidence deprived him of potentially useful evidence and due process	Gov: no bad faith; evidence destroyed routinely after sentencing without prosecutor direction	No due process violation — no evidence of bad faith in destruction (Arizona v. Youngblood standard)
Whether filing a second § 851 notice after remand was vindictive	Braxton: second notice was vindictive and violated due process	Gov: second notice merely reasserted the same enhancement he faced originally	Not vindictive — exposure to same enhanced penalty continued; no unconstitutional retaliation
Whether contempt conviction was invalid for lack of willfulness finding or insufficiency	Braxton: court failed to specifically find willfulness; conduct did not warrant contempt	Gov: court twice warned Braxton; court found he "disobeyed and resisted knowingly"	Affirmed — plain error review satisfied; findings showed willful violation of clear court order

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court 1988) (police bad faith required for due process claim when potentially useful evidence is lost or destroyed)
United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (standard of de novo review for due process claims involving evidence preservation)
Jean v. Collins, 221 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2000) (bad faith requires intentional withholding to deprive defendant of evidence)
United States v. Talib, [citation="347 F. App'x 934"] (4th Cir. 2009) (destruction after case concluded does not show bad faith)
United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2001) (prosecutorial vindictiveness when prosecutor increases charges in retaliation for appeal)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain error standard of review for unpreserved objections)
United States v. Allen, 587 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2009) (elements of contempt under § 401(3): specific order, violation, willful intent)
United States v. Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593 (4th Cir. 2015) (contempt requires willful violation of a clear decree)