UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gloria Patricia TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4773
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 2, 2017. Decided: May 23, 2017
114-118
Smith argues that the search warrants lacked probable cause and that the good faith exception is inapplicable. Because we conclude that law enforcement‘s reliance on the search warrants was objectively reasonable, we need not consider whether there was a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause. Leon, 468 U.S. at 925, 104 S.Ct. 3405.
Law enforcement obtained six search warrants supported by substantially similar affidavits to track three vehicles allegedly owned by Pope and operated by Smith. The affidavits asserted that Smith had been robbed at his residence in April 2013, and that the suspect informed police that Smith “was a known drug dealer with over 1 million dollars in product in a stash house.” Additional allegations tied Smith to Pope and three vehicles registered in her name.
Smith contends that the affidavits contained misleading information about his prior marijuana charges, a confidential informant‘s tip, and the affiant‘s knowledge concerning Smith‘s operation of the targeted vehicles. The substance of this argument, however, is addressed not to misleading allegations, but rather to weaknesses in the affidavits. While additional information about Smith‘s criminal history, the timing of the informant‘s tip, and the affiant‘s basis of knowledge would have bolstered the affidavits, the absence of this information did not, without more, render them misleading.
Smith also argues that the affidavits were so lacking in probable cause that reliance thereon was unreasonable. Four different North Carolina superior court judges determined that the affidavits were sufficient to show probable cause. Even assuming, without deciding, that these decisions were erroneous, the consensus among these judicial officers indicates that law enforcement‘s reliance on the warrants was objectively reasonable. See United States v. Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578, 1583 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gloria Patricia Taylor was convicted by a jury of two counts of using a communications device to facilitate narcotics trafficking, in violation of
Taylor argues that, after law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on her residence and vehicles and recovered 286 pounds of marijuana, the officers coerced her into providing a written statement by threatening to arrest her son if she did not cooperate. The district court denied Taylor‘s motion to suppress the statement. In assessing the propriety of the district court‘s decision, we “review factual findings for clear error and the legal determination that the statement was voluntary de novo.” United States v. Holmes, 670 F.3d 586, 591 (4th Cir. 2012). “To determine whether a statement or confession was obtained involuntarily, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the proper inquiry is whether the defendant‘s will has been overborne or h[er] capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” United States v. Umana, 750 F.3d 320, 344 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). Even where law enforcement uses coercive tactics, such as “threats, violence, implied promises, [or] improper influence,” a defendant‘s statement “is not necessarily rendered involuntary.” Holmes, 670 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the inquiry requires a consideration of “the totality of the circumstances, including the characteristics of the defendant, the setting of the interview, and the details of the interrogation.” Umana, 750 F.3d at 344 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The hearing testimony established that officers apprehended Taylor and her son as they were unloading a crate containing 286 pounds of marijuana from the back of a U-Haul van that was parked at Taylor‘s residence. After the search warrant was executed, an officer informed Taylor that she and her son could be arrested.*
“[A] law enforcement officer may properly tell the truth to the accused. Indeed, truthful statements about the defendant‘s predicament are not the type of coercion that threatens to render a statement involuntary.” United States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 782 (4th Cir. 1997) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court correctly determined that, “based on the totality of the relevant circumstances,” United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164, 172 (4th Cir. 2011), probable cause existed that would have authorized officers to arrest Taylor‘s son. Thus, an officer‘s truthful statement that Taylor‘s son could be arrested was not an unduly coercive threat that rendered Taylor‘s statement involuntary. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Taylor‘s suppression motion.
We reject Taylor‘s claim that her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when a summary chart that had been displayed to the jury but not admitted into evidence was inadvertently shown to the jury during deliberations. Although prejudice is presumed when evidence improperly comes before the jury, United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191, 219 (4th Cir. 2004), the Government maintained that there was no prejudice because the jury had seen the chart in open court, and Taylor‘s counsel admitted that he could not identify any harm resulting from this oversight. In an abundance of caution, the district court instructed the jurors to erase or cross out any notes that they may have taken on the chart during deliberations, and reminded the jury that the chart was not part of the evidence. We conclude that this was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Id.
Taylor next challenges the district court‘s calculation of her Sentencing Guidelines range. In assessing Guidelines calculations, we review factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and unpreserved arguments for plain error. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
Although Taylor was convicted of possessing 100 or more but less than 1000 kilograms of marijuana, the district court calculated Taylor‘s base offense level based on a drug weight of at least 3000 but less than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana. See
Taylor also disputes the court‘s methodology for calculating the drug weight. When sentencing a defendant, a court may consider certain conduct for which the de-
Based on evidence adduced at trial, the district court determined that sixteen shipments sent before the charged conspiracy commenced involved the same shipping company and fictitious businesses that were later associated with the conspiracy. The court found that these shipments also contained marijuana, and it calculated the marijuana weight by adding the total weight of these sixteen shipments and multiplying the result by 45 per cent—the percentage of the weight of actually seized shipments attributable to marijuana. The court then combined this weight—2458 kilograms—with the 2487 kilograms that Taylor possessed during the conspiracy, to arrive at a total of 4945 kilograms. We discern no clear error in this determination.
Next, Taylor contests the application of a 2-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, which is properly imposed if the sentencing court finds “that the defendant (1) gave false testimony; (2) concerning a material matter; (3) with willful intent to deceive.” United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 229-30 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1833, 194 L.Ed.2d 837 (2016). The district court found that Taylor provided false testimony at the suppression hearing concerning law enforcement‘s efforts to coerce her into giving a written statement, and that she did so with the intent to deceive the court. Taylor disputes the court‘s decision to discredit her testimony; however, we accord “the highest degree of appellate deference” to a district court‘s credibility determinations, and see no reason to disturb the court‘s findings here. United States v. White, 836 F.3d 437, 442 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, we find Taylor‘s challenge to the district court‘s forfeiture order unpersuasive. While Taylor alleges that the court relied on the sixteen preconspiracy shipments of marijuana in calculating the money judgment, the record makes clear that the court‘s forfeiture determination was confined to the marijuana sold during the dates of the conspiracy.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Taylor‘s motion for release pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED