United States of America v. Ronald St. Phard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4551
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD ST. PHARD,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00866-RBH-2)
Submitted: May 27, 2010 Decided: June 17, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald St. Phard was indicted, along with three
co-defendants, and charged with conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006) (“Count One”) and possession with intent to distribute
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006) (“Count Two”).
Following a jury trial of St. Phard and co-defendant
Kastler Cherisme, the men were convicted of both counts in the
indictment. Thereafter, St. Phard filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 33
motion for a new trial, arguing that the Government had used his
post-Miranda*
On appeal, St. Phard argues that the district court
erred in denying his Rule 33 motion. We conclude the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 33
motion. See United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244, 249 (4th
Cir. 2001) (providing review standard). To the extent the
prosecution committed Doyle error, we find that any error was
harmless. See Williams v. Zahradnick, 632 F.2d 353, 360-62 (4th
silence against him, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio,
426 U.S. 610 (1975). The district court denied St. Phard’s
motion and subsequently sentenced St. Phard to forty-one months
of imprisonment on Counts One and Two. St. Phard timely noted
his appeal.
* Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. 1980) (stating five-factor test to determine if
prosecutor’s comments constitute reversible error).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials on appeal
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --