UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4814

JAMES LEWIS BLANCO, a/k/a Carlito,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-01-120-A)

Submitted: July 29, 2002

Decided: September 23, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Edwin Cicero Brown, Jr., BROWN, BROWN & BROWN, P.C.,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States

Attorney, Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James Lewis Blanco appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, powder

cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). On

appeal, Blanco alleges that the district court erred in denying his

motion for a new trial based upon improper remarks by the prosecutor

during closing argument. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

A jury convicted Blanco after the Government presented evidence

at trial that consisted primarily of the testimony of nine convicted coconspirators and tangible evidence that corroborated their testimony.

Blanco called no witnesses to rebut the testimony. During the prosecutor’s closing rebuttal argument, he stated, "one other thing that

prosecutors are allowed to do in closing is to make a plea for law

enforcement . . . . I’m not here to tell you (what the verdict should

be), because it’s your decision. It’s your community. Do what you

think is right." (JA 839-40). 

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1486

(4th Cir. 1985). A district court should exercise its discretion to grant

a new trial "sparingly" and should grant a new trial based on the

weight of the evidence "only when the evidence weighs heavily

against the verdict." Id.

To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Blanco must

show: (1) the government’s remarks and conduct were improper; and

(2) the remarks or conduct prejudicially affected his substantial rights

so as to deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Golding, 168 F.3d

700, 702 (4th Cir. 1999). We review a district court’s factual findings

on prosecutorial misconduct for clear error. United States v. Ellis, 121

F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir. 1997). Blanco contends that the prosecutor’s

comments constituted a plea to convict him to protect community values, preserve civil order, or deter commission of future offenses. He

relies on a District of Columbia Circuit case, United States v. Monaghan, 741 F.2d 1434, 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1984), in which the court held

that it is impermissible for a prosecutor to urge jurors to convict based

2 UNITED STATES v. BLANCO
upon community concerns because jurors may be persuaded that a

guilty verdict will alleviate serious social problems, regardless of the

guilt or innocence of the defendant. This court has also found a prosecutor’s remarks improper that urged the jury to "make that statement

so that we can address these types of conspiracies that are taking

place in our community." United States v. Pupo, 841 F.2d 1235, 1240

(4th Cir. 1988). 

We find that the district court did not err in concluding that there

was no prosecutorial misconduct. First, although the prosecutor said

that he was permitted to make a plea for law enforcement, he never

actually made such a plea. The comments cannot fairly be said to

incite the passions and prejudices of the jurors. The argument focused

nearly in its entirety on the overwhelming evidence in the record of

Blanco’s guilt. 

Even if the Government’s remarks were improper, Blanco suffered

no prejudice. In determining whether there was prejudice, the court

considers:

(1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; (2)

whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent

the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to

establish the guilt of the accused; and (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert

attention to extraneous matters. 

United States v. Harrison, 716 F.2d 1050, 1052 (4th Cir. 1983).

Courts also consider whether the remarks were invited, see United

States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1985), and the remedial effect of

any curative instructions, see Harrison, 716 F.2d at 1053. 

The comments objected to by Blanco were isolated and minimal in

nature compared to the rest of the argument by the prosecutor. The

district court found that the remarks were invited in part by defense

counsel and we find it was not clear error to find so. Further, there

was overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence of Blanco’s guilt

presented at trial. 

UNITED STATES v. BLANCO 3
We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

4 UNITED STATES v. BLANCO