Court Opinion

ID: 9411501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:00:46.504119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.119051
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4475      Doc: 30         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4475

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff – Appellee,

                     v.

        RONNELL KAREEM LEVON JOHNSON,

                            Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00133-REP-1)

        Submitted: October 5, 2022                                        Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Laura P. Tayman, LAURA P. TAYMAN, PLLC, Newport News, Virginia,
        for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Kenneth R. Simon, Jr., Assistant
        United States Attorney, Michael R. Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4475      Doc: 30          Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronnell Kareem Levon Johnson was convicted by a jury of one count of Hobbs Act

        Robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), for robbing a Sprint Store in 2019. He appeals his

        conviction and sentence, challenging (1) the jury’s consideration of an unadmitted exhibit,

        (2) certain testimony elicited at trial, and (3) the application of a sentencing enhancement

        based on acquitted conduct. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

               To begin, when the jury views an exhibit that was not admitted into evidence, error

        has occurred. United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191, 219 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v.

        Barnes, 747 F.2d 246, 250–51 (4th Cir. 1984). But that error is harmless if the government

        establishes that there is no “reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was influenced by

        the material that improperly came before it.” See Lentz, 383 F.3d at 219 (quoting Barnes,

        747 F.2d at 250). The government has satisfied this standard. The unadmitted exhibit was

        irrelevant to the charges against Johnson and the court instructed the jury to disregard it.

        In these circumstances, the jury’s consideration of the unadmitted exhibit was harmless.

        Cf. United States v. Rafiekian, 991 F.3d 529, 550 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[S]ave for extraordinary

        situations, we adhere to the crucial assumption that jurors carefully follow instructions.”

        (cleaned up)).

               Next, Johnson argues that certain testimony at trial by Tajh Rogers and an ATF

        Agent violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). But none of Rogers’s challenged

        testimony about planning the robbery with Johnson violates Rule 404(b), as it was intrinsic

        evidence necessary to complete the story of the charged offense. See United States v.

        Brizuela, 962 F.3d 784, 795 (4th Cir. 2020). As for the Agent’s testimony about Johnson’s

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4475      Doc: 30         Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        prior jail stint, the district court immediately interjected, admonished the prosecution, and

        instructed the jury that the testimony was irrelevant. Cf. Rafiekian, 991 F.3d at 550. So

        there was no Rule 404(b) violation.

               Finally, Johnson argues that he was sentenced based on acquitted conduct in

        violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. But he admits that this argument is

        foreclosed by our precedent, and so we must reject it. See Payne v. Taslimi, 998 F.3d 648,

        654–55 (4th Cir. 2021).

               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. Johnson’s conviction and sentence are

                                                                                       AFFIRMED.

                                                     3