Court Opinion

ID: 9555130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 21:00:34.360158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:24.969371
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4492      Doc: 29         Filed: 08/09/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4492

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARVIN MINOR, a/k/a Marvin Miner,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00028-MR-1)

        Submitted: July 21, 2023                                          Decided: August 9, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eric J. Foster, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United
        States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4492      Doc: 29          Filed: 08/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Marvin Minor was convicted, following a bench trial before a magistrate judge, of

        failing to obey a lawful order, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(2), and fighting with an

        officer, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1). * Minor’s charges arose from a traffic stop

        and subsequent altercation with a park ranger in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

        On appeal, Minor contends that the magistrate judge erred by admitting evidence of the

        encounter because the ranger allegedly exceeded his constitutional authority during the

        stop. In response, the Government contends that Minor waived this challenge by failing to

        file a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence. We affirm.

               As an initial matter, the Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on

        Minor’s failure to preserve his evidentiary challenge. However, the Government cites no

        authority for its position that, if Minor’s evidentiary challenge is waived, then the entire

        appeal must be dismissed.      Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that Minor

        somehow waived his appellate rights. We therefore deny the Government’s motion to

        dismiss.

               Turning to the waiver issue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

        12(b)(3)(C), “[a] defendant must generally raise a motion to suppress before trial.” United

        States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1113 (4th Cir. 2021). Consistent with this rule, we have

        held that the failure to make a pretrial motion to suppress precludes a defendant from

               *
                 Minor was also convicted of possessing an open container of alcohol in a motor
        vehicle, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.14(b); he does not challenge this conviction on appeal.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4492      Doc: 29          Filed: 08/09/2023    Pg: 3 of 4

        raising on appeal a constitutional challenge to the admission of that evidence. See United

        States v. Moore, 769 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3)

        (permitting court to consider untimely motion only for “good cause” shown). “If the

        defendant is unable to show good cause, the untimely motion to suppress is waived.”

        Ojedokun, 16 F.4th at 1113.

               Except for the unpersuasive observation that “criminal practice is more informal”

        for petty offenses, Minor does not explain his failure to file a timely motion to suppress.

        Instead, he “urges [us] not to be distracted” by the Government’s “procedural arguments”

        and asserts that the importance of the issue he seeks to raise on appeal provides the good

        cause necessary to consider his untimely argument. But the gravity of the alleged error

        does not bear on the good cause inquiry; rather, the question is whether Minor’s failure to

        preserve his argument is excusable. See, e.g., United States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259, 263-

        64 (4th Cir. 1990) (finding good cause where untimely suppression motion “was due not

        to negligence, oversight, or laziness but rather to” government’s failure to timely produce

        evidence sought to be suppressed). And as the Government emphasizes, “[t]he rule that

        motions to suppress are waived unless raised before trial or delayed for good cause” plays

        an important role in the administration of criminal cases and “is not just some procedural

        tripwire set to ensnare unwary defendants.” Moore, 769 F.3d at 267. Because Minor has

        failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause, we will not consider his evidentiary

        challenge for the first time on appeal.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4492      Doc: 29        Filed: 08/09/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm Minor’s 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

                                                    4