Court Opinion

ID: 9366866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-28 21:00:19.554538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.624539
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330      Doc: 73         Filed: 01/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4330

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DONTE LAMONT DINGLE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00204-DKC-1)

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: January 27, 2023

        Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, 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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Brandon K. Moore, Assistant
        United States Attorney, LaRai N. Everett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330       Doc: 73         Filed: 01/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Donte Dingle was convicted by a jury of ten offenses arising from four armed

        robberies. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c), 1951(a). The district court sentenced Dingle

        to 30 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Dingle raises

        three questions related to the search warrant of Dingle’s room: whether the warrant was

        supported by probable cause; whether the warrant affidavit contained material

        misstatements and omissions; and whether the issuing magistrate had power to authorize a

        warrant. Dingle also objects to two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings: its admission

        of witness testimony about the robbery suspect’s shirt, and its limitation of Dingle’s

        counsel’s cross-examination of an FBI witness.

               Before the district court, Dingle objected to the veracity of the warrant affidavit and

        whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. This Court thus reviews the district

        court’s factual findings on those issues for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.

        United States v. Scott, 941 F.3d 677, 683 (4th Cir. 2019); United States v. Jones, 942 F.3d

        634, 640 (4th Cir. 2019). Because Dingle objects to the issuing magistrate’s authority for

        the first time before this Court, he must establish a plain error that affected his substantial

        rights. United States v. Nelson, 37 F.4th 962, 966 (4th Cir. 2022); see also Fed. R. Crim. P.

        52(b). Finally, because Dingle made the same evidentiary objections before the district

        court and has thus preserved them, we review those rulings for abuse of discretion, mindful

        of whether any errors were harmless. See United States v. Walker, 32 F.4th 377, 394 (4th

        Cir. 2022).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330     Doc: 73        Filed: 01/27/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

              We have carefully reviewed the record and have identified no reversible error. 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

                                                  3