United States of America v. Ralph T. Byrd

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RALPH T. BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge,
sitting by designation. (1:12-cr-00365-JRG-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson,
Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mark W. Crooks, Assistant
United States Attorney, Allison C. Pearson, Student Law Clerk,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ralph T. Byrd was convicted on three counts of
contempt of court. The district court sentenced him to six
months of probation and home confinement and forty hours of
community service. He appeals, challenging the denial of his
motion for a jury trial and arguing that he was denied a fair
trial in the selection of the judge to preside over his trial.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by
the parties and we find no reversible error. Specifically, we
find that Byrd was not entitled to a jury trial under either the
Sixth Amendment or pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 402, 3691 (2012).
Additionally, we conclude that there is no merit to Byrd’s claim
of a denial of a fair trial by the assignment of the case to the
district court judge. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 531
(1927) (finding no need for recusal and no due process violation
where allegation of bias is “remote, trifling, and
insignificant”); United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th
Cir. 2003) (applying objective reasonable person standard to
determination of whether recusal is required). Accordingly, we
affirm Byrd’s conviction and sentence. 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

-- 2 of 2 --