Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4028
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00073-D-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Luke Weston appeals from his convictions after a
jury trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and
possession of a stolen firearm, both counts involving a 9 mm
Beretta
pistol.
He
also
challenges
his
175-month
sentence.
After a
first
challenges
review,
to
the
for
abuse
district
of
courts
discretion,
admission
Westons
of
evidence.
United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 130 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied,
135
S.
Ct.
157
(2014).
Weston
contends
that
the
of
Evidence
introduction
of
404(b)
or
[e]vidence
403.
of
Rule
crime,
404(b)(1)
wrong,
or
prohibits
other
act
occasion
the
Evidence
person
acted
concern[ing]
2
in
accordance
acts
intrinsic
with
the
to
the
alleged
crime,
ambit.
2013)
however,
(internal
quotation
[E]vidence
of
things,
involves
it
does
other
bad
the
not
fall
marks
acts
same
within
and
is
brackets
intrinsic
series
Rule
of
if,
404(b)s
omitted).
among
transactions
other
as
the
omitted).
Moreover,
evidence
subject
to
exclusion
be
admissible
evidence
must
under
be
Rule
404(b),
relevant
to
the
an
proffered
issue
other
bad
than
and
its
probative
value
must
not
be
substantially
___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 13-4755, 2015 WL 4910113, at *4 (4th Cir.
Aug. 18, 2015).
court
abused
its
in
admitting
evidence
over
an
discretion
in
the
district
courts
decision
to
admit
the
challenged testimony.
Next,
Weston
denying his
contends
motion
for
that
the
mistrial
district
because
court
erred
in
juror
allegedly
marshals
discretion
transporting
the
district
him.
review
denial
of
courts
We
for
abuse
motion
for
v.
Robinson,
627
F.3d
941,
948
(4th
of
a
United
Cir.
2010)
extraordinary
of
circumstances.
United
States
v.
juror
who
the
defendant
thought
had
seen
him
in
the
juror
to
be
credible
and
that
with
The court
the
fact
in
v.
DiTommaso,
(providing standard).
405
F.2d
385,
393
(4th
See United
Cir.
1968)
Next,
Weston
argues
that
the
district
court
erred
in
denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.
At trial, Weston contended that there was no direct evidence of
his possession of the 9 mm Beretta and the testimonial evidence
was contradictory, inconsistent, and incredible.
In denying the
of
the
Governments
witnesses
and
stated
that
the
(4th
Federal
Cir.
2013).
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
33
Fed. R.
in
witnesses.
that
it
may
evaluate
the
credibility
of
the
grant
new
trial.
Id.
(citing
cases).
We
have
in
light
of
the
heavy
weight
of
the
evidence
and
perjured
himself
at
trial,
the
court
did
not
abuse
its
or
Guidelines
uncharged
range
conduct
and
in
in
making
calculating
sentencing
the
Sentencing
findings
by
United States v.
GomezJimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 380 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 305, 384 (2014).
in Alleyne that its holding does not mean that any fact that
influences judicial discretion must be found by a jury.
We have
factfinding,
does
not
violate
the
Sixth
Amendment.
133 S. Ct. at 2163; see United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107,
117 (3d Cir.) (Alleyne did not curtail a sentencing courts
ability to find facts relevant in selecting a sentence within
the prescribed statutory range.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 383,
497
(2014).
considering
The
the
district
conduct
and
court
therefore
applying
evidence standard.
did
not
preponderance
err
in
of
the
AFFIRMED