Court Opinion

ID: 9388551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 21:00:56.051251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.728021
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692      Doc: 41         Filed: 04/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4692

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JONATHAN REVELS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00020-BO-2)

        Submitted: April 3, 2023                                          Decided: April 19, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692      Doc: 41         Filed: 04/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               On September 4, 2016, Jonathan Revels was involved in a dispute at a property in

        Red Springs, North Carolina, that ultimately resulted in the fatal shooting of Jason Hunt.

        Following the incident, Revels was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a

        convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2018). 1 A jury convicted

        Revels of the charge, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.

        On appeal, Revels argues that the court erred in admitting certain testimony at trial,

        miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range, failed to rule on disputed facts at

        sentencing, and failed to adequately explain the sentence. We affirm Revels’ conviction,

        vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing.

               We first address Revels’ contention that the district court should have excluded

        testimony, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403, that obliquely referenced the shooting at the Red

        Springs property. Under Rule 403, a court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative

        value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

        “Unfair prejudice speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the

        factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense

        charged.” United States v. Tillmon, 954 F.3d 628, 643 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Thus,

        under Rule 403, relevant evidence is inadmissible “when there is a genuine risk that the

               1
                 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
        Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
        year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because the defendant’s
        offense occurred before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.
                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692       Doc: 41         Filed: 04/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        emotions of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and this risk is disproportionate to

        the probative value of the offered evidence.” PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.,

        639 F.3d 111, 124 (4th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).

               “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” United

        States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 340 (4th Cir. 2018); see also Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank,

        N.A., 762 F.3d 339, 349-50 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting we “will not overturn a Rule 403

        decision except under the most extraordinary of circumstances, where a trial court’s

        discretion has been plainly abused” (cleaned up)). Even if an evidentiary ruling is

        erroneous, however, we will not vacate the defendant’s conviction if the error was

        harmless. “An error is harmless if we can say with fair assurance, after pondering all that

        happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not

        substantially swayed by the error.” Burfoot, 899 F.3d at 340 (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Here, video footage from a cell phone conclusively established that Revels

        possessed two firearms, and Revels stipulated that he knew he was a felon. In light of this

        overwhelming evidence of Revels’ guilt on the felon-in-possession charge, we conclude

        that the district court’s allowance of testimony briefly mentioning the shooting at Red

        Springs, even if erroneous, was harmless. See United States v. Ball, 18 F.4th 445, 453

        (4th Cir. 2021) (noting elements of § 922(g) offense). Accordingly, we affirm Revels’

        conviction.

               With respect to the sentence, Revels argues, in part, that the district court’s

        application of the Guidelines was erroneous in light of the facts of his offense. In response,

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692         Doc: 41     Filed: 04/19/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        the Government concedes that it mistakenly misrepresented a material fact at the

        sentencing hearing. Given this admission, we conclude that remand for resentencing is

        warranted to ensure that the court does not rely on erroneous factual representations in

        selecting Revels’ sentence.     See United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111-13

        (4th Cir. 2015) (noting court errs by “selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous

        facts”). 2 Because the Government’s factual misrepresentation independently requires

        resentencing, we do not address at this juncture Revels’ additional challenges to the

        original sentence.

               Accordingly, we affirm Revels’ conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for

        resentencing. 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 IN PART,
                                                                             VACATED IN PART,
                                                                              AND REMANDED

               2
                 Revels suggests that the Government’s misrepresentation of a material fact also
        warrants further investigation. We conclude that remand for resentencing will cure any
        potential prejudice. See United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 236 (4th Cir. 2007)
        (discussing proper remedy for prosecutorial misconduct).

                                                   4