Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4239
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00607-GJH-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
April 5, 2016
PER CURIAM:
Charles Riley, Jr., appeals his drug convictions.
Rileys
first trial ended when the district court granted his motion for
a mistrial.
three
counts
from
his
superseding
indictment:
Count
1,
and
Counts
and
3,
possession
with
intent
to
For the
Riley
should
alleges
have
the
been
counts
from
dismissed
with
his
original
prejudice
and
In
reviewing
to
the
district
courts
denial
of
Rileys
motion
for
clear
error
and
its
legal
conclusions
de
novo.
United States v. Pasquantino, 305 F.3d 291, 294 (4th Cir. 2002).
We
find
no
reversible
error
and
note
that
Riley
was
not
dismiss
an
indictment
for
errors
in
grand
jury
proceedings
the
grand
indictment.
jury
proceedings
leading
to
the
original
authority
to
review
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
We
the
district
the
evidence
court
in
denied
the
Rileys
light
most
motion
below,
favorable
to
we
the
Government.
Cir. 2011).
evidence
Rileys
prior
home.
to
properly
Thus,
executing
Rileys
claim
the
fails
search
under
warrant
the
at
Supreme
home
does
not
require
the
suppression
3
of
evidence
later
obtained
from
that
home
if
that
evidence
was
independently
to
the
admissibility
of
the
challenged
evidence
that
evidence
was
seized.
Exclusion
of
evidence
as
Riley
alleges
that
the
district
court
erred
by
Two
indictment
or
when
more
the
offenses
offenses
may
are
be
of
charged
the
same
in
or
the
same
similar
United
reviews
de
novo
whether
the
initial
joinder
of
This
the
8(a), United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296, 309 (4th Cir.
2012)
(Where
offenses
are
properly
joined
under
Rule
8(a),
merit.
Next, Riley argues that submission of Count 2 to the jury
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
for
distributing
lesser-included
forfeited
offense
because
Riley
an
of
unspecified
Count
failed
2.
to
amount
We
raise
note
his
of
cocaine,
this
double
claim
a
is
jeopardy
to
meet
Government
the
sought
challenging
to
goad
him
burden
into
of
seeking
441
F.3d
254,
265
(4th
showing
Cir.
that
the
mistrial,
as
2006)
(finding
that
an
1986)
(noting
conditions
strict).
for
where
defendant
invocation
of
the
obtains
double
mistrial,
jeopardy
bar
the
are
We review questions
of
whether
the
Government
intentionally
provoked
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-78 (1982); Wentz, 800 F.2d
at 1327.
Accordingly,
because
Rileys
claims
fail
on
appeal,
we
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED