Court Opinion

ID: 1000194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:36:44.257447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:18:01.345653
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 98-4763

SHAHBORN EMMANUEL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-97-288)

Submitted: October 20, 1999

Decided: November 10, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mark P. Foster, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Shahborn Emmanuel appeals his conviction on one count of assault
inflicting bodily injury on a protected government employee in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 111(a)(1), (b), & 1114 (West Supp. 1999).
Emmanuel was charged with assaulting a detention officer for the
Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. Emmanuel, a federal inmate,
was in the custody of the County awaiting transfer to the United
States Bureau of Prisons. The County and the United States Marshals
Service contracted to permit the housing of federal inmates in the
County jail. On appeal, Emmanuel contends that: (1) written state-
ments he made several days after the assault were admitted in evi-
dence in error because the probative value of the statements were
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, see Fed. R. Evid. 403;
(2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; and (3) the
court erred by giving the jury an Allen charge before there was evi-
dence that the jury's deliberative process had reached a standstill.*
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court's evidentiary decisions for abuse of dis-
cretion. A district court's decision will not be upset "except under the
most extraordinary of circumstances, where that discretion has been
plainly abused." United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir.
1990) (internal quotations omitted). Such abuse occurs if the decision
is "arbitrary and irrational." United States v. Williams, 89 F.3d 165,
167 (4th Cir. 1996) (court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
defendant's handwritten statements). We find that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by admitting Emmanuel's statements. The
statements were relevant and there was no evidence of unfair preju-
dice.

We also find that the evidence was sufficient. We review chal-
lenges to the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence at
trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution, including all rea-
sonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. See Glasser
_________________________________________________________________

*See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

                    2
v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Russell, 971
F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992). If substantial evidence exists to sup-
port the conviction, the verdict must be sustained. See id. Addition-
ally, this court does not assess witness credibility on appeal. See
United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992). There
was substantial evidence showing that the victim, a detention officer,
was assisting an employee of the United States Government. See
§ 1114; United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 145, 147 (4th Cir.
1994).

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in giving the jury an Allen charge. See United States v. Burgos,
55 F.3d 933, 935 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the jury deliberated for
about an hour-and-a-half after the charge was given, there was no evi-
dence that the jury was coerced into reaching a decision because of
the charge. See United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281, 291 (4th Cir.
1989) (finding no evidence of coercion where a jury deliberated for
two hours before reaching a verdict after hearing the Allen charge
where there were four defendants and multiple charges).

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3