Court Opinion

ID: 998756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:15:34.062252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:35.858784
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                       No. 98-4460
WAYNE KEITH BARNES, a/k/a John
Wayne Vanparys,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-97-337)

Submitted: May 4, 1999

Decided: May 18, 1999

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James T. McBratney, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Keith Barnes was convicted for possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(1994), possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1999), maintaining a
place for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (1994), and causing a substantial risk to human
life by manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 858 (1994). On appeal he argues that the district court violated the
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (1994), by granting the Govern-
ment a continuance to indict him, that the district court erred in deny-
ing his motion to suppress statements made by him to police during
questioning, and that the court erred by failing to exclude the testi-
mony of two Government witnesses under the terms of his proffer
agreement. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the district court did not err in granting the Govern-
ment a continuance to indict Barnes. See United States v. Keith, 42
F.3d 234, 237 (4th Cir. 1994). We find that Barnes did not clearly
articulate a desire to remain silent and cease talking to law enforce-
ment agents, and therefore any statements made by Barnes during the
continued interrogation were admissible. See Davis v. United States,
512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). Finally, we find that the district court did
not err in admitting the testimony of Pierce and Whitlow because the
Government was able to derive the information the witnesses testified
to from an independent source and therefore immunity was not impli-
cated. See United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1036 (4th Cir.
1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1281 (1997).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2