Court Opinion

ID: 9841072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 21:00:49.253537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:45.872702
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4514      Doc: 38         Filed: 09/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4514

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MAURICE D. SHACKLEFORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:20−cr−00520−D−1)

        Submitted: May 15, 2023                                     Decided: September 19, 2023

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John L. Gibbons, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4514      Doc: 38         Filed: 09/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Maurice Shackleford was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a

        firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) *. The district court imposed a

        sentence of 48 months in prison.

               On appeal, Shackleford argues that the court erred by (1) denying his motion for

        judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, asserting that there

        was insufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that Shackleford knew of his felony status

        under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and (2) denying Shackleford’s

        motion to suppress statements he made while detained during his detention, asserting that

        he was “in custody” when he admitted that there was a gun in his car and that he had not

        received warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

               We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shackleford, No. 5:20-CR-520-

        D-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2021, May 17, 2022 & Aug. 24, 2022). 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

               *
                 Section 924(a)(2) has been 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).

                                                     2