Court Opinion

ID: 998782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:16:05.885602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:21.257380
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4639

DARTY JAMES REED,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CR-97-448)

Submitted: May 11, 1999

Decided: May 28, 1999

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Steven M.
Dettelbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darty James Reed appeals from his conviction and sen-
tence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distrib-
ute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm.

Sufficient probable cause existed to support Reed's arrest, and the
district court did not err in denying Reed's motion to suppress. See
United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540-41 (4th Cir. 1996). Reed
failed to show that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity
would significantly aid his defense, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to order disclosure. See Roviaro v.
United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957); United States v. D'Anjou,
16 F.3d 604, 609 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court similarly did not
abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the narcotics
trade, see United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1435 (4th Cir. 1993),
or in declining to give a reasonable doubt jury instruction. See United
States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1998).

The court's decision not do depart downward from the sentencing
range is not reviewable. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.3d 28,
30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, the prosecutor's remarks during clos-
ing argument did not so prejudicially affect Reed's substantial rights
as to deprive him of a fair trial, and we find no reason to disturb the
court's refusal to order a mistrial. See United States v. Wilson, 135
F.3d 291, 297-302 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1852 (1998).

We affirm Reed's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2