597 F. App'x 151
4th Cir.2015Background
- Ingram was convicted of gun possession by a felon in connection with a drug-trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c)(1).
- He challenged a third-party consent search of his vehicle and sought suppression of evidence.
- He moved for acquittal under Rule 29, which the district court denied.
- He argued ACCA predicate convictions did not qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because prior NC breaking-and-entering offenses were not predicates.
- He contended his ACCA designation and sentence were improper because predicate facts were not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The district court denied relief and the Fourth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression based on third-party consent | Ingram claims his mother lacked capacity to consent | Government relied on consent from a third party with common authority | No reversible error; capacity found and Randolph not applicable |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) | Evidence failed to show firearm usage advanced drug trafficking | Evidence showed firearm aided drug offense | Sufficient evidence supports conviction under § 924(c) |
| ACCA predicate convictions | NC § 14-54(a) convictions cannot be ACCA predicates | § 14-54(a) convictions qualify | § 14-54(a) predicates valid; Almendarez-Torres forecloses jury-authorization challenge |
| Indictment/jury-trial requirement for ACCA designation | ACCA designation based on unsubmitted predicates | Almendarez-Torres forecloses challenge | No error; designation valid under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (establishes third-party consent standard)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (express objection to search by one occupant overrides co-occupant consent)
- United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012) (consent must be voluntary and proven by government)
- United States v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2013) (burden to prove consent lies with government; review for clear error)
- United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency review for Rule 29 motions)
- United States v. Pineda, 770 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2014) (requires firearm to advance drug trafficking under § 924(c))
- United States v. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (jury-finding not required for ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (NC § 14-54(a) convictions qualify as ACCA predicates)