Court Opinion

ID: 9929151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:00:45.389231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:55.071556
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4438      Doc: 40         Filed: 01/31/2024    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4438

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DEMETRIUS ANTWON MCGREGOR,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cr-00034-MSD-DEM-1)

        Submitted: December 29, 2023                                      Decided: January 31, 2024

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD, MORECOCK,
        TALBERT & WOODWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D.
        Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, William B. Jackson, Assistant United
        States Attorney, Joseph E. DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4438        Doc: 40        Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               A jury convicted Demetrius Antwon McGregor of two counts of possession of a

        firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e), one count of possession

        with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and one

        count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

        18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). After calculating an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range

        of 360 months to life imprisonment, the district court sentenced McGregor to 360 months’

        imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, McGregor argues that the court

        (1) erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered from an apartment, (2) erred

        in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, and (3) imposed an

        unreasonable sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

               We begin with McGregor’s challenge to the district court’s order denying his

        motion to suppress. In his opening brief, McGregor argues that the district court erred in

        finding that the search warrant for the apartment was supported by probable cause.

        However, the court also found that the Leon ∗ good faith exception to the exclusionary rule

        applied. On appeal, McGregor does not challenge this independent, alternate ground for

        the denial of the motion to suppress. Accordingly, he has waived appellate review of the

        issue. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party

        waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its

        argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)); Brown v. Nucor

               ∗
                   United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4438       Doc: 40         Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 3 of 5

        Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Failure of a party in its opening brief to

        challenge an alternate ground for a district court’s ruling waives that challenge.” (cleaned

        up)).

                Next, McGregor contends that the district court erred in denying his Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 29 motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence. We review a district court’s

        denial of a Rule 29 motion based on the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United

        States v. Farrell, 921 F.3d 116, 136 (4th Cir. 2019). “A jury’s guilty verdict must be upheld

        if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, substantial evidence

        supports it.” United States v. Haas, 986 F.3d 467, 477 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could

        accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a

        reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up).

                In assessing whether substantial evidence supports a conviction, “we are not entitled

        to assess witness credibility.” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). We must also “draw[] all reasonable inferences from

        the facts” in “the light most favorable to the prosecution.” United States v. Denton, 944

        F.3d 170, 179 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “[a]

        defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal

        on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is

        clear.” Savage, 885 F.3d at 219 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports

        McGregor’s convictions. The Government presented evidence that drugs and firearms

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4438       Doc: 40        Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 4 of 5

        were found in the bedroom of McGregor’s apartment. The bedroom also contained

        ammunition and magazines that matched a handgun recovered from McGregor’s person

        during his arrest, an arrest that took place just outside of the apartment. Further, expert

        witnesses opined that the firearms and drugs found in the bedroom were consistent with

        drug trafficking.    Therefore, rational jurors could reasonably infer that McGregor

        constructively possessed the drugs and firearms, that he intended to distribute the drugs,

        and that he possessed at least one firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

        Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying McGregor’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29

        motion for acquittal.

               Turning to McGregor’s sentence, we review a criminal sentence for reasonableness

        “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th

        553, 561 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing whether a

        sentence is reasonable, we first “ensure that the district court committed no significant

        procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines

        range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)

        factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

        explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is procedurally sound, we “then

        consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of

        the circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Any sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines

        range is presumptively substantively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934,

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4438      Doc: 40         Filed: 01/31/2024     Pg: 5 of 5

        945 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). A defendant can rebut this presumption

        only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)

        factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               We conclude that McGregor’s sentence is procedurally and substantively

        reasonable. The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range and thoroughly

        explained the chosen sentence after considering the parties’ arguments and the statutory

        sentencing factors.   And, while McGregor argues that his sentence is substantively

        unreasonable, he fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-

        Guidelines-range sentence.

               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

                                                    5