Court Opinion

ID: 9371249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:00:25.544738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.384610
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240     Doc: 44        Filed: 02/14/2023   Pg: 1 of 12

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-4239

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DANIEL CARRINGTON,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

                                             No. 22-4240

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DANIEL CARRINGTON,

                           Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:20-cr-00106-JAG-LRL-1)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                               Decided: February 14, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023    Pg: 2 of 12

        Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge
        Quattlebaum and Judge Motz joined.

        ON BRIEF: Murdock Walker, II, Bingzi Hu, LOWTHER | WALKER LLC, Atlanta,
        Georgia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano-
        Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, John F. Butler, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44          Filed: 02/14/2023     Pg: 3 of 12

        NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

               A jury sitting in Norfolk, Virginia, convicted Daniel Carrington on five counts,

        finding him guilty on one count of conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs and on four counts

        of actual distribution on four different occasions, one resulting in death.

               Several months after the jury’s verdict, the government learned that one of its

        witnesses, a detective who had participated in the investigation, was accused of lying to

        superiors about reimbursement for gas he had purchased for his personal vehicle, and it

        disclosed the information to the court and Carrington. Based on this newly discovered

        evidence, Carrington filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion

        and then, during the same hearing, imposed a downward variant sentence of 540 months’

        imprisonment.

               Carrington filed appeals from both his criminal judgment and the district court’s

        order denying his motion for a new trial. In his appeal of the judgment, he contends that

        the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and he challenges his sentence.

        As to his sentence, he argues that the district court erred in finding an offense level of 43

        by applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1), which provides for an offense level 43 if, among other

        things, his drug trafficking conviction was committed after he had one or more prior

        convictions “for a similar offense.” He also argues that the court imposed a sentence

        “greater than necessary.” And in his appeal of the order denying his motion for a new trial,

        he contends that the new evidence, discovered after the jury’s verdict, demonstrated that

        an important witness at trial was “untruthful.”

               For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240       Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023      Pg: 4 of 12

                                                       I

               Beginning in 2017, Carrington engaged in a conspiracy in the Tidewater area of

        Virginia to traffic in heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl, which he obtained from a source

        in Baltimore, Maryland. During the course of his drug trafficking, he provided a mixture

        of fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl to a woman referred to as “D.J.,” which resulted in her death

        on December 27, 2019.

               Following an investigation of Carrington’s conduct, which included several

        controlled purchases of illegal drugs from him, the government charged Carrington with

        one count of conspiracy to traffic in heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl, in violation of 21

        U.S.C. § 846; one count of distribution of fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl, resulting in death,

        in violation of § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C); and three counts of distribution on April 28,

        2020; May 1, 2020; and May 7, 2020.

               After a five day trial, a jury returned a verdict on May 21, 2021, finding not only

        that Carrington was guilty on all counts but also that he conspired to distribute and possess

        with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, 40 grams or more of fentanyl, and

        a detectable amount of acetyl fentanyl.

               Several months after the jury returned its verdict — in September 2021 — the

        government learned that one of its witnesses — Chesapeake City Detective Omar Higazi,

        who participated in the investigation of the case — had been found to be untruthful with

        his superiors regarding his March 2021 request for gas reimbursement. The finding was

        made in August 2021 by the Chesapeake City Police Chief, who then fired Detective

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44          Filed: 02/14/2023    Pg: 5 of 12

        Higazi.   During the trial in this case, however, neither Detective Higazi nor the

        government’s attorneys were aware of the administrative charge against Detective Higazi.

        When the government learned about it, it filed a notice, disclosing the information to the

        district court and to Carrington’s counsel.

               Based on the information in the government’s notice, Carrington filed a motion for

        a new trial on December 29, 2021.

               A month later, the government filed a supplemental notice, informing the court and

        Carrington’s counsel that Detective Higazi’s status had changed during the administrative

        appeal process and that the disciplinary action filed against Detective Higazi had been

        withdrawn, his employment record purged, and the determination made that Detective

        Higazi’s firing was a voluntary resignation and he was eligible for rehire.

               At a hearing on April 4, 2022, the district court denied Carrington’s motion for a

        new trial and then proceeded to sentencing.

               At sentencing, the district court found that Carrington’s offense level was 43 and,

        with his criminal history Category IV, his advisory Guidelines sentence was life

        imprisonment. The offense level of 43 was derived from U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1), which

        established a level 43 for drug distribution convictions when death results and the

        defendant had “one or more prior convictions for a similar offense.” The court found that

        Carrington had a prior similar conviction. It then imposed a downward variant sentence of

        540 months’ imprisonment.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023      Pg: 6 of 12

               Carrington filed an appeal from the district court’s judgment and a separate appeal

        from the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. By order dated April 21,

        2022, we consolidated the two appeals.

                                                     II

               Carrington contends first that the evidence presented by the government was

        insufficient to convict him on Counts 2 through 5, which charged him with actual

        distributions of controlled substances on particular dates, and, in Count 2, with one such

        distribution resulting in death. He devotes most of his argument to his conviction on Count

        2.

               With respect to that count, he argues that the investigation was deficient because the

        police did not search all of D.J.’s house, but only the room in which she was found dead;

        that medical examiners concluded that D.J.’s death was caused by fentanyl and acetyl

        fentanyl “without a thorough autopsy”; that during the investigation a detective “admitted

        that he ‘[didn’t] have probable cause to arrest’” Carrington; that while there was video

        footage of a black Chevrolet Malibu (Carrington’s car) arriving at D.J.’s house, the footage

        did not disclose the identity of the driver or any drug transaction; that officers never

        recovered the cell phone that linked Carrington to the conversations he had with D.J.; that

        forensic examiners “only tested one out of nine capsules and one out of the three spoons

        located” in D.J.’s room; and that an associate and friend of Carrington, who testified on

        behalf of the government, lied as to some dates on which he said he had engaged in

        activities with Carrington.

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023      Pg: 7 of 12

               Carrington’s arguments do not, however, address the affirmative evidence that the

        government presented to support conviction. The fact that officers did not search D.J.’s

        house or test drugs and paraphernalia in the room was inconsequential. D.J. was not a

        criminal suspect, although she was acknowledged to have been a drug addict. The relevant

        fact to be established at trial was that D.J. was found dead shortly after receiving fentanyl

        from Carrington pursuant to an arrangement that they made by cell phone. To confirm the

        cause of death, the medical examiner conducted blood tests, which revealed that D.J. had

        overdosed on fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl, with the tests indicating that she had ingested

        five times what was considered to be a lethal dose. Moreover, Carrington provided no

        speculation as to what an autopsy might have shown that would have been relevant to his

        defense. As to the video camera footage, it showed that following numerous telephone

        calls between D.J. and Carrington, during which Carrington finally agreed to give D.J. a

        “dime” of drugs (meaning $10 worth), his car arrived at D.J.’s house. The footage shows

        that D.J. walked from her house to the car and then back into the house. A few hours later,

        her mother found her dead in her room. Moreover, a witness testified that Carrington later

        admitted that following a number of telephone calls that he had with D.J., he had finally

        sold her the “dime” of fentanyl that resulted in her death.         In addition, from their

        investigation of D.J.’s room and purse, investigators recovered a folded piece of paper and

        a baggie that had traces of fentanyl, which witnesses linked to similar packaging obtained

        from Carrington during controlled purchases.

               In short, there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Count 2.

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240       Doc: 44          Filed: 02/14/2023     Pg: 8 of 12

               As to Counts 3 through 5, which arose out of controlled purchases of drugs from

        Carrington, Carrington argues that the evidence on those counts was insufficient because

        the circumstances of the controlled purchases, including the identity of Carrington, was

        undocumented by recordings or video, having only been testified to by the detective who

        organized, supervised, and observed the purchases. The detective reported in detail what

        he saw, implicating Carrington.

               While video recordings or photographs surely would have been strong evidence of

        the transactions, the detective’s testimony was clear and precise, providing all of the details

        of the transactions based on personal knowledge. Such evidence was both competent and

        sufficient to support convictions.

               As the government noted, this case was tried over a period of 5 days, during which

        it presented 15 witnesses. The witnesses included individuals who testified to their

        personal participation in the conspiracy and individuals who relied on Carrington as a

        source of supply for controlled substances, as well as family members of the victim.

        Witness testimony also included the expertise of law enforcement officers, forensic

        scientists, a death investigator, an assistant chief medical examiner, a certified physician

        assistant, a narcotics expert, and a cellular tower expert. In addition, the jury was provided

        with over a hundred exhibits, which included recorded videos, phone calls, and messages.

        Indeed, in a recorded interview with law enforcement, Carrington admitted to being a drug

        dealer and having sold heroin since he was 16. The jury was also shown cell phone photos

        and videos, cell phone and text records, and social media accounts in which Carrington

        discussed and documented the drug trafficking conspiracy. Carrington’s cell phone,

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240       Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023      Pg: 9 of 12

        indeed, included videos taken by him that showed his residence, a firearm, bagged drugs,

        and a drawer full of thousands of dollars in cash. It also had the contact information for

        and communications with his Baltimore source of supply. Moreover, following the

        execution of a search warrant in Carrington’s house, police recovered a scale and a sifter.

               We conclude that Carrington’s insufficiency of the evidence argument has no merit

        and therefore affirm his convictions.

                                                      III

               Carrington next challenges his sentence. He contends (1) that he did not qualify for

        an offense level 43 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1) because none of his prior convictions

        qualified as “a similar offense,” as required by the Guideline, and (2) that, in any event, his

        540-month sentence was “greater than necessary” to achieve the sentencing goals of 18

        U.S.C. § 3553(a).

               Section 2D1.1(a)(1) specifies an offense level of 43 for a drug distribution offense

        when the use of the drug involved resulted in death and the offense was committed after

        one or more prior convictions “for a similar offense.” In this case, Carrington had been

        convicted under state law in 2013 for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in

        violation of Va. Code. § 18.2-248. Carrington argues that his 2013 conviction was under

        a statute whose elements were broader than those for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and that

        therefore, under the categorical approach, the 2013 conviction did not qualify as a “similar

        offense” under § 2D1.1(a)(1).

                                                      9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44          Filed: 02/14/2023     Pg: 10 of 12

               The difficulty with Carrington’s argument is that § 2D1.1(a) gives no indication that

        it is to be interpreted under the categorical approach. To the contrary, that section provides

        that the prior conviction need only be similar to his current offense. His current offense

        involves the distribution of illegal drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl,

        while his earlier Virginia conviction involved the distribution of heroin, although the

        Virginia statute prohibited a broader scope of drugs than did the federal statute under which

        he was convicted here. Thus, while the Virginia offense might not be a precise match of

        the sort that would be recognized under the categorical approach, it is nonetheless “similar”

        to the federal statute. Both the Virginia statute and the federal statute prohibit the

        distribution of illegal drugs, and the drugs for which Carrington was convicted of

        distributing under the Virginia statute are also covered by the federal statute. We conclude

        that the Virginia conviction thus qualifies as a similar offense under § 2D1.1(a)(1). See

        United States v. Johnson, 706 F.3d 728, 731 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that the term “similar

        offense” in § 2D1.1 is similar to the term “felony drug offense” as defined in the Controlled

        Substances Act); United States v. Ward, 972 F.3d 364, 369 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that a

        violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-248 amounts to a “controlled substance offense” under

        the Sentencing Guidelines).

               As to the substantive challenge to his 540-month sentence, the Guidelines advise

        that Carrington be sentenced to life imprisonment, which would have presumptively been

        a reasonable sentence. Taking into account Carrington’s personal circumstances, however,

        the district court imposed a downward variance sentence of 540 months’ (45 years’)

        imprisonment. In light of all the § 3553(a) factors, which the district court addressed at

                                                     10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023     Pg: 11 of 12

        some length during sentencing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in

        selecting a 540-months sentence.

                                                    IV

              Finally, in his separate appeal, Carrington contends that the district court abused its

        discretion in denying his motion for a new trial based on information learned subsequent

        to the jury’s verdict that an important witness, Detective Higazi, was accused of lying to

        his superiors when asking for a reimbursement for gas he purchased for his personal

        vehicle. Carrington contends that the new evidence “[d]emonstrated Detective Higazi’s

        untruthfulness when working as law enforcement prior to and during the trial.”

              Relying on the five-factor standard articulated in United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d

        1355 (4th Cir. 1993), for considering motions for new trials, the district court denied

        Carrington’s motion. The court noted that the administrative claim and proceedings

        involving Detective Higazi’s gas reimbursement had nothing to do with this case and

        therefore had no bearing on its merits. Therefore, the court concluded, the new evidence

        could only be used as impeachment evidence. Of course, as Custis points out, new

        impeachment evidence is merely one of the five factors, and it does not alone justify a new

        trial. See Custis, 988 F.2d at 1359; see also United States v. Stockton, 788 F.2d 210, 220

        (4th Cir. 1986). While Custis does note an exception to the impeachment rule “[i]f the

        government’s case rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness who

        was discovered after trial to be utterly unworthy of being believed because he had lied

        consistently in a string of previous cases,” 988 F.2d at 1359 (quoting United States v.

                                                    11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4240      Doc: 44         Filed: 02/14/2023      Pg: 12 of 12

        Taglia, 922 F.2d 413, 415 (7th Cir. 1991)), the district court in this case pointed out that

        the government’s case did not rest solely on the testimony of Detective Higazi. To the

        contrary, the case rested on a broad range of evidence presented by numerous witnesses

        and much corroborating documentation. As the court noted:

                       As to Counts One and Two, the overwhelming evidence against
               Carrington greatly dilutes the importance of [Detective Higazi’s] testimony.
               For example, four cooperators who either directly participated in
               Carrington’s drug trafficking conspiracy or purchased drugs from Carrington
               testified against him. Furthermore, at least six other law enforcement
               officials testified against Carrington, and the government presented dozens
               of exhibits and recordings to prove Carrington’s guilt on these counts.

                      Carrington similarly fails to show that the newly discovered evidence
               would probably lead to an acquittal of Counts Three through Five. The
               government presented numerous recordings of Carrington setting up,
               conducting, and discussing three controlled buys of fentanyl for which the
               jury convicted him. And despite Carrington’s attempts to impeach the officer
               by asking him why he repeatedly used a deficient recording device during
               the three controlled buys, the jury still convicted Carrington of these counts.
               Thus, the newly discovered evidence will not probably lead to an acquittal at
               trial.

               In these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in denying Carrington’s motion for a new trial.

                                              *      *       *

               In sum, we affirm the judgment in appeal No. 22-4239 and the district court’s order

        in appeal No. 22-4240.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     12