Court Opinion

ID: 9352083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 21:00:55.345282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:52.486055
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4109      Doc: 37           Filed: 01/03/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 21-4109

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff – Appellee,

        v.

        LUIS ANALBERTO PINEDA ANCHECTA, a/k/a Luis Peneda, a/k/a Luis Analberto,

                     Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00027-RJC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: October 28, 2022                                       Decided: January 3, 2023

        Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William T. Stetzer, Acting United States
        Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4109       Doc: 37         Filed: 01/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:
               Luis Analberto Pineda Anchecta (“Pineda”) appeals from his conviction after a jury

        trial for kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). On appeal, Pineda argues that

        the prosecutor improperly relied on facts not in evidence during closing arguments and

        improperly vouched for a witness’s truthfulness, therefore violating his due process rights.

        We affirm.

               On appeal, we review a district court’s rulings on objections to closing arguments

        for abuse of discretion. United States v. Saint Louis, 889 F.3d 145, 156 (4th Cir. 2018).

        “[A]n error of law by a district court is by definition an abuse of discretion.” In re Wray,

        433 F.3d 376, 378 n.* (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Whether a prosecutor “made an

        improper statement” during closing argument is an issue of law that we review de novo.

        United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 2005).

               When a defendant fails to object to a prosecutor’s statement during closing

        argument, we apply plain error review. United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 202 (4th Cir.

        2013). Under plain error review, a defendant must show that the district court “committed

        an ‘error’ that was ‘plain,’” and “that the error affected [the defendant’s] substantial rights

        thereby impacting the outcome of his trial.” Id. (quoting United States v. Gonzales–Flores,

        701 F.3d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 2012)). And “even when a defendant establishes the above

        elements of plain error, ‘we may nevertheless decline to notice the error unless it seriously

        affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting

        Gonzales-Flores, 701 F.3d at 115).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4109         Doc: 37      Filed: 01/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               “In determining whether a defendant’s due process rights were violated by a

        prosecutor’s closing argument, we consider (1) whether the remarks were, in fact,

        improper, and, (2) if so, whether the improper remarks so prejudiced the defendant’s

        substantial rights that the defendant was denied a fair trial.” United States v. Lighty, 616

        F.3d 321, 359 (4th Cir. 2010).

               Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find that the prosecutor’s

        remarks were not improper and, even assuming they were, the remarks did not prejudice

        Pineda’s substantial rights such that he was denied a fair trial. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s judgment.

               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