Court Opinion

ID: 9409083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:54.071316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.686869
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 16-4401      Doc: 117         Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 16-4401

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTHONY TERRELL CANNON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00047-DKC-3)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: July 13, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Christopher M. Davis, Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C.,
        for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 16-4401       Doc: 117          Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Anthony Terrell Cannon was convicted after a trial of several offenses stemming

        from the robbery of an armored vehicle and a later carjacking. Cannon asserts that the

        district court erred when it allowed the Government to qualify an FBI agent as an expert in

        the area of reviewing inmate telephone calls.         He also asserts that the evidence is

        insufficient to support his convictions for carjacking, using a firearm in relation to the

        carjacking, and transporting the stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. We affirm.

               We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision on the admissibility

        of evidence. A court abuses its discretion if the ruling is arbitrary and irrational. United

        States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 2012). “A witness who is qualified as an

        expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may give opinion and other

        testimony if: “the expert’s . . . knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the

        evidence or to determine a fact in issue; . . . the testimony is based on sufficient facts or

        data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods; and . . . the expert has reliably

        applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. “[A] district

        court must ensure that the expert is qualified and that the expert’s testimony is both relevant

        and reliable. In performing this gatekeeping role, a district court is not intended to serve

        as a replacement for the adversary system, and consequently, the rejection of expert

        testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 825, 835

        (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that FBI agent’s experience qualified him as an expert in drug and

        gang terminology (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 16-4401      Doc: 117         Filed: 07/13/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

               We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the

        agent to testify as an expert in reviewing recorded inmate telephone calls. The agent had

        years of experience in investigating violent crimes and armored vehicle robberies and had

        listened to over 100 hours of recorded inmate telephone calls. The agent’s testimony was

        brief and very limited. He only testified that, in his opinion, based on his experience in

        listening to recorded inmate telephone calls, the inmates may use language to mask the true

        nature of the subject of the phone call. And even if there was error, the error was harmless

        because of the limited nature of the testimony and sufficiency of the evidence. We also

        conclude that there was no plain error based on the claim that Cannon may not have been

        advised that the agent would be offered as an expert. United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d

        503, 510 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating elements of plain error review).

               We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v.

        Bran, 776 F.3d 276, 279 (4th Cir. 2015). In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we

        determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the conviction when viewed in

        the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Haas, 986 F.3d 467, 477

        (4th Cir. 2021). “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. (internal quotation marks omitted). In all events, “[i]t is the

        responsibility of the jury, not ours, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the

        evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” United

        States v. Robinson, 855 F.3d 265, 268 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        And “as a general proposition, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a guilty

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 16-4401      Doc: 117         Filed: 07/13/2023    Pg: 4 of 5

        verdict even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with

        innocence.” United States v. Barringer, 25 F.4th 239, 252 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

              “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.” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). This Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable

        to the government and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the

        essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Devine, 40

        F.4th 139, 146 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]his Court must give

        full play to the jury to resolve testimonial conflicts, weigh the evidence, and draw

        reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts[.]” United States v. Dennis, 19

        F.4th 656, 665 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

              Cannon asserts that no witness identified him as being present for the carjacking or

        participating in taking the stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. But we conclude that a

        jury could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Cannon was present for the

        carjacking, when the car’s owner was shot and severely wounded, after abandoning the

        getaway vehicle used in the armored vehicle robbery. And that he and others were in the

        stolen vehicle when it was driven into Washington, D.C. shortly after the carjacking.

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 16-4401      Doc: 117          Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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