United States of America v. Demetrius Alvin Boyd

12-4431Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit19 apr 2013

Testo completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS ALVIN BOYD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cr-00365-AW-1)
Submitted: April 10, 2013 Decided: April 19, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, HALL & CHO, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Hollis R.
Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Paul K. Nitze,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Alvin Boyd appeals the denial of his motion
to suppress evidence and his conviction for possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006). Boyd argues that the arresting officer
lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the search incident
to arrest was therefore unlawful. Boyd also argues that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. We affirm.
We review the legal conclusions underlying a district
court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo. United
States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). “We . . .
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government.” Id. A police officer may lawfully arrest an
individual if the “officer has probable cause to believe that an
individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in
his presence.” Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354
(2001).
Here, the officer observed Boyd sleeping in his car in
a moving lane of traffic, detected an odor of alcohol, noticed
Boyd’s bloodshot and watery eyes, heard Boyd’s admission to
having a few drinks that evening, and conducted two tests for
intoxication, both of which indicated Boyd’s consumption of
alcohol. Based on the officer’s observations and Boyd’s

-- 2 of 4 --

3
behavior, we conclude that there was sufficient probable cause
to effectuate an arrest. Boyd’s challenge to the denial of his
suppression motion thus fails.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal de novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693
(4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a
claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict of a jury must be
sustained “if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the Government, to support it.” United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted). “We must consider
circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the
government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the
facts proven to those sought to be established” in determining
whether any rational trier of the facts could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
A complete review of the record confirms that there
was sufficient evidence to support Boyd’s conviction for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. See United
States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 572 (4th Cir.) (setting
forth elements of offense), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 564 (2011).
To the extent Boyd testified that the marijuana seized during
his arrest was for his personal use rather than distribution,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
“the jury decides which interpretation to believe” when “the
evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations.”
United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). We
thus conclude that Boyd’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence fails.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.