450 F. App'x 249
4th Cir.2011Background
- Pittman was convicted by a jury of two counts of bank robbery, two counts of armed bank robbery, two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and three counts of interference with commerce by robbery for robberies at two banks and three General Nutrition Center stores in the Middle District of North Carolina.
- The district court admitted certain testimony challenged as unfairly prejudicial; the appeals focused on Rule 403 admissibility and its impact on identity and other issues.
- Pittman challenged the district court’s denial of motions for mistrial based on allegedly improper testimony, arguing prejudice.
- The district court sentenced Pittman to a total of 609 months, with two 924(c) sentences imposed consecutively as required by statute.
- The court conducted a reasonableness review of the sentence, affirming the departure and the cumulative sentence as reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenged testimony was admissible under Rule 403 | Pittman contends prejudicial impact | Government argues evidence is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial | Evidence relevant; no abuse; not unfairly prejudicial |
| Whether denial of mistrial motions was an abuse of discretion | Improvident handling of prejudicial evidence warranted mistrial | District court properly exercised discretion; no prejudice shown | No abuse of discretion |
| Whether two 924(c) sentences must be imposed consecutively | N/A | Statute requires consecutive imposition | Consecutive imposition required |
| Whether the overall sentence is reasonable given any departures | Sentence may be unreasonable due to departure | District court provided cogent rationale; reasonable | Sentence affirmed as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility under Rule 403)
- United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008) (Rule 403 favors admissibility; balancing probative value against prejudice)
- United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1990) (view evidence in light most favorable to proponent for Rule 403)
- United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 1997) (denial of mistrial reviewed for prejudice)
- United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2008) (mistrial denial reviewed for prejudice and abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review of sentencing after departure)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review guides sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 2005) (consecutive sentencing standard under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c))
- United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)