UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAUN ORLANDO GRIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:13-cr-00243-AW-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2015 Decided: October 13, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marnitta L. King, KING LAW P.A., Largo Maryland, for Appellant. 

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom, 

Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Orlando Grier appeals his convictions on charges of 

possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (“PCP”) and 

cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a person 

previously convicted of a felony offense. The district court 

sentenced Grier to an aggregate of 350 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, he challenges a number of evidentiary rulings by the 

district court, and he asserts that the district court abused 

its discretion by limiting the time for his closing argument to 

the jury. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Grier first contends that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress the contents of a package he 

placed in the mail intended to be sent to an address in San 

Francisco, California, and his motion to suppress evidence of 

the drugs and firearms recovered during the search of his 

residence and vehicles. When considering the validity of a 

search pursuant to a warrant, the district court must determine 

whether the magistrate judge issuing the search warrant had a 

“substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” 

United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).

We conclude that the district court did not err in determining 

that the search warrants were valid. Accordingly, the district 

court did not err in denying the motions to suppress evidence 
3

recovered pursuant to the warrants. See United States v. Jones, 

667 F.3d 477, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing standard).

Next, Grier contends that the district court abused its 

discretion with respect to a number of evidentiary rulings, 

specifically, by limiting Grier’s cross-examination of the 

postal inspector as to the legality of the seizure of a package 

that he intended to mail to California, allowing the Government 

to introduce evidence of his prior conviction for possession 

with intent to distribute PCP, overruling his objection to the 

Government’s use of leading questions during its questioning of 

Grier’s mother who was called as a Government witness, allowing 

the Government to introduce hearsay evidence of his bank

balances, excluding the testimony and report of the Government’s 

forensic chemist, and denying Grier’s request to call his own 

expert to testify as to the contents of the Government’s 

expert’s report. We have reviewed the arguments presented by 

the parties and find no abuse of discretion by the district 

court’s rulings. See United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 

(4th Cir. 2011) (reviewing court will only overturn an 

evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational); United 

States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (district 

court has discretion to admit or exclude evidence).

Lastly, Grier contends that the district court abused its 

discretion and prejudiced his defense by cutting short counsel’s 
4

closing argument. The court agreed to the parties’ request for 

45 minutes each for closing arguments. Prior to closing 

arguments, the court reminded the parties of the time limit. 

During the closing arguments, the court advised both the 

Government attorney and Grier’s attorney when they had ten 

minutes remaining and also when five minutes remained. At the 

end of the 45 minutes, Grier’s counsel requested an additional 

five minutes. The court acquiesced, and then allowed Grier’s 

counsel to continue her summation for ten minutes. At that 

time, Grier’s summation was 55 minutes, and the court informed 

counsel that her time was up. We find no abuse of discretion by 

the district court in imposing and enforcing this time limit. 

See United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 1998)

(providing standard); United States v. Moye, 951 F.2d 59, 63 

(5th Cir. 1992) (same); see also United States v. Collins, 372 

F.3d 629, 634 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding defendant’s challenge 

to 45-minute limitation on closing argument “unpersuasive”).

Having found no error and no abuse of discretion by the 

district court, we affirm Grier’s convictions. 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