Court Opinion

ID: 9929152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:00:46.46583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:56.757525
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4370      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/31/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4370

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANDRE DAVIS, a/k/a 2 Chainz,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00350-GLR-2)

        Submitted: January 26, 2024                                       Decided: January 31, 2024

        Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Alfred Guillaume III, LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED GUILLAUME III,
        Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Peter Jeffrey Martinez, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4370      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/31/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Andre Davis appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury verdict finding

        him guilty of racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Counsel for

        Davis has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

        there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning one of the district court’s

        evidentiary rulings, as well as the court’s sua sponte decision to discharge a juror after

        deliberations began. Although notified of his right to do so, Davis has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief. We affirm.

               “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Banks,

        29 F.4th 168, 181 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unless prohibited,

        relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. “[E]vidence is relevant if it is

        sufficiently related to the charged offense.” United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 472

        (4th Cir. 2018). “[R]elevance typically presents a low barrier to admissibility. Indeed, to

        be admissible, evidence need only be worth consideration by the jury, or have a plus value.”

        United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 346 (4th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).

               At trial, the Government presented evidence establishing that Davis, formerly a

        correctional officer, accepted bribes from detainees in exchange for smuggling controlled

        substances and other contraband into the detention facility where he worked. Among the

        evidence was a letter, seized from Davis’ house, between two detainees discussing the

        distribution of drugs at the facility. Davis moved to preclude this evidence, disputing its

        connection to the charged offense. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the

        letter was relevant because it discussed the same conduct for which Davis had been

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4370         Doc: 24       Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        indicted. Further, the court emphasized that, according to one of the Government’s

        witnesses, a correctional officer would have no legitimate reason for keeping such a letter

        at his residence. Anders counsel questions the district court’s ruling on appeal. However,

        we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to allow the letter’s admission into

        evidence.

               Next, Anders counsel questions the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a juror

        who, after deliberations began, tested positive for Covid-19. Trial courts are “afforded

        wide discretion in handling matters relating to the integrity of the jury.” United States v.

        Small, 944 F.3d 490, 505 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Given the obvious risk that the

        dismissed juror posed to everyone involved in the trial, we conclude that the court properly

        exercised its discretion in discharging the juror with dispatch.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Davis’ criminal judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be

        filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

        in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

        a copy thereof was served on Davis.

               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

                                                      3