United States of America v. Shaun Orlando Grier

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4054
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUN ORLANDO GRIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00243-AW-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2015 Decided: October 13, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marnitta L. King, KING LAW P.A., Largo Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom,
Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shaun Orlando Grier appeals his convictions on charges of
possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (“PCP”) and
cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a person
previously convicted of a felony offense. The district court
sentenced Grier to an aggregate of 350 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, he challenges a number of evidentiary rulings by the
district court, and he asserts that the district court abused
its discretion by limiting the time for his closing argument to
the jury. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Grier first contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the contents of a package he
placed in the mail intended to be sent to an address in San
Francisco, California, and his motion to suppress evidence of
the drugs and firearms recovered during the search of his
residence and vehicles. When considering the validity of a
search pursuant to a warrant, the district court must determine
whether the magistrate judge issuing the search warrant had a
“substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir. 1990).
We conclude that the district court did not err in determining
that the search warrants were valid. Accordingly, the district
court did not err in denying the motions to suppress evidence

-- 2 of 4 --

3
recovered pursuant to the warrants. See United States v. Jones,
667 F.3d 477, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing standard).
Next, Grier contends that the district court abused its
discretion with respect to a number of evidentiary rulings,
specifically, by limiting Grier’s cross-examination of the
postal inspector as to the legality of the seizure of a package
that he intended to mail to California, allowing the Government
to introduce evidence of his prior conviction for possession
with intent to distribute PCP, overruling his objection to the
Government’s use of leading questions during its questioning of
Grier’s mother who was called as a Government witness, allowing
the Government to introduce hearsay evidence of his bank
balances, excluding the testimony and report of the Government’s
forensic chemist, and denying Grier’s request to call his own
expert to testify as to the contents of the Government’s
expert’s report. We have reviewed the arguments presented by
the parties and find no abuse of discretion by the district
court’s rulings. See United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153
(4th Cir. 2011) (reviewing court will only overturn an
evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational); United
States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (district
court has discretion to admit or exclude evidence).
Lastly, Grier contends that the district court abused its
discretion and prejudiced his defense by cutting short counsel’s

-- 3 of 4 --

4
closing argument. The court agreed to the parties’ request for
45 minutes each for closing arguments. Prior to closing
arguments, the court reminded the parties of the time limit.
During the closing arguments, the court advised both the
Government attorney and Grier’s attorney when they had ten
minutes remaining and also when five minutes remained. At the
end of the 45 minutes, Grier’s counsel requested an additional
five minutes. The court acquiesced, and then allowed Grier’s
counsel to continue her summation for ten minutes. At that
time, Grier’s summation was 55 minutes, and the court informed
counsel that her time was up. We find no abuse of discretion by
the district court in imposing and enforcing this time limit.
See United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 1998)
(providing standard); United States v. Moye, 951 F.2d 59, 63
(5th Cir. 1992) (same); see also United States v. Collins, 372
F.3d 629, 634 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding defendant’s challenge
to 45-minute limitation on closing argument “unpersuasive”).
Having found no error and no abuse of discretion by the
district court, we affirm Grier’s convictions. 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 of 4 --