United States v. Shamel Nesbitt, 23-4359

Shamel Nesbitt was convicted by a jury in August 2022 of distributing a substance containing cyclopropyl fentanyl, resulting in serious bodily injury and death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
The district court sentenced Nesbitt to 292 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release.
On appeal, Nesbitt challenged the admission of certain testimony by Detective Joey Wheeler regarding surveillance footage and the identification of the decedent, Lucas Urbina, as the driver.
Nesbitt also challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction, arguing there was a lack of direct evidence tying him to the drug transaction.
The appellate panel reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and for plain error, and reviewed the sufficiency of evidence de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of time-stamp testimony as hearsay	Testimony should be excluded as hearsay	Testimony based on detective's own observation, not hearsay	No error; objection overruled
Admission of lay opinion on identification	Detective’s identification of decedent as driver was improper	Detective’s identification was rationally based on perception	No error; Rule 701 satisfied
Sufficiency of the evidence	Government’s evidence was insufficient, lacking direct proof	Circumstantial evidence linked Nesbitt to transaction and death	Sufficient evidence; affirmed

United States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280 (4th Cir. 1986) (lay witness identification of individuals in surveillance admissible where familiarity is greater than jury’s)
United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
United States v. Martin, 523 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support conviction)