United States v. McCoy , 348 F. App'x 900 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-5110
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    STANAUS MCCOY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:06-cr-00208-GBL-1)
    Argued:   September 23, 2009                 Decided:   October 27, 2009
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Todd M. Richman, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jenny C. Ellickson, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.    ON BRIEF: Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public
    Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.  Dana J. Boente,
    Acting United States Attorney, Jonathan L. Fahey, Assistant
    United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    The Defendant, Stanaus McCoy, appeals the district court’s
    denial of a motion to reopen a suppression hearing in light of
    new evidence that he claims the Government withheld in violation
    of Brady v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963).              Because McCoy cannot
    show that the evidence was material to the suppression hearing’s
    outcome, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to
    reopen the hearing and affirm McCoy’s conviction.
    I.
    McCoy    was   charged    with   three   counts   of    possession   with
    intent   to   distribute      crack   cocaine,   pursuant     to   
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2006), and two counts of being a convicted felon in
    possession of a firearm, pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and
    924(e) (2006).      The charges arose from an incident in a Loudon
    County, Virginia parking lot in which a police officer observed
    a drug deal between McCoy and another individual in a tow truck.
    Prior to trial, McCoy moved to suppress guns and drugs that the
    police found in his possession on the grounds that the officer
    lacked reasonable suspicion to search and detain him under the
    Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
     (1968).
    The district court initially granted McCoy’s motion, but was
    reversed by a divided panel of this Court.                  United States v.
    McCoy, 
    513 F.3d 405
    , 407 (4th Cir. 2008).
    2
    In that opinion, we held that several factors leading up to
    the police stopping and then arresting McCoy gave rise to the
    requisite, reasonable suspicion:                        (1) the observing-officer knew
    that almost half of drug deals in Loudon County occur in public
    parking lots, like the one in which McCoy was arrested; (2) the
    specific parking lots in which the officer observed McCoy were
    frequent         meeting       places      for      drug    deals;       (3)    drug     dealers
    frequently change transaction locations at the last minute, just
    as   McCoy        did;     (4)     the    officer         saw    McCoy    arrive       with   his
    girlfriend at the parking lot and wait in his car for several
    minutes;         (5)     the     officer      saw       McCoy    point    in     “a    southerly
    direction” when the tow-truck driver asked him where he wanted
    to meet; (6) both McCoy and the tow-truck driver went to another
    supermarket parking lot and neither went inside; (7) the officer
    saw McCoy enter the tow-truck for less than a minute; (8) the
    tow-truck driver “performed no towing services” and then left
    after McCoy exited the truck; and finally, the factor relevant
    to this appeal, (9) that when the officer ordered the tow-truck
    driver to pull over, he “responded by driving away at a high
    rate   of    speed.”             
    Id. at 412-13
    .            One   panel     member    wrote
    separately to emphasize that he found “the tow-truck driver’s
    flight      to     be     highly       suspicious”         and    a    key     factor    in   the
    reasonable-suspicion               calculus.              
    Id. at 416
        (Wilson,      J.,
    concurring).
    3
    Before trial, the Government disclosed to McCoy’s counsel
    grand jury testimony by the tow-truck driver to whom McCoy sold
    the   drugs.      The   tow-truck       driver     testified     that    rather    than
    speed away from the parking lot, he merely “eased on out the
    road.     [He] didn’t speed away or nothing like that, just—the
    lights were green.          [He] just eased on out like nothing ever
    happened.”       (J.A. 786.)       Defense counsel moved to reopen the
    suppression      hearing    on    the    grounds      that      it   undermined        and
    impeached the officer’s claim that when he told the tow-truck
    driver to pull over, the tow-truck driver “responded by driving
    away at a high rate of speed.”                  The district court denied the
    motion, because it found that even if the tow-truck driver eased
    away,    he    still    drove    away    to   elude    police.          The    officer,
    therefore, would still have had reasonable suspicion to stop
    McCoy.
    A jury subsequently convicted McCoy of all-but one count in
    the   indictment:        three    counts      of    possession       with     intent    to
    distribute     crack    cocaine    and    one      count   of   being    a    convicted
    felon in possession of a firearm.                  The district court sentenced
    him to 216 months in prison, and McCoy timely appealed.                         We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006).
    4
    II.
    A.
    We review a district court’s denial of a motion to reopen a
    suppression hearing for abuse of discretion.                      United States v.
    Dickerson, 
    166 F.3d 667
    , 678 (4th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other
    grounds, 
    530 U.S. 428
     (2000).
    B.
    To show that the district court abused its discretion when
    it   refused    to    reopen    the    suppression       hearing,      McCoy    must
    establish that the Government violated Brady by withholding the
    tow-truck driver’s testimony.           See United States v. Stokes, 
    261 F.3d 496
    , 502 (4th Cir. 2001).              To establish a Brady violation,
    a defendant must show that the new evidence was (1) favorable to
    him for exculpatory or impeachment purposes; (2) that it was
    intentionally or unintentionally withheld by the Government; and
    (3) that the evidence was material.                  Strickler v. Greene, 
    527 U.S. 263
    , 282 (1999); Moseley v. Branker, 
    550 F.3d 312
    , 318 (4th
    Cir. 2008).     McCoy cannot do so here.
    Assuming,       without    deciding,     that    the   tow-truck     driver’s
    grand    jury   testimony      was   both    favorable      and    withheld    under
    Brady, McCoy failed to prove that the new evidence was material.
    For new evidence to be material, a defendant must show that
    “there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been
    disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would
    5
    have been different.”                 United States v. Bagley, 
    473 U.S. 667
    ,
    682 (1985); Stokes, 
    261 F.3d at 502
    .                       It is quite clear that
    evidence that merely contradicts a legally-insignificant witness
    statement or fact offered by the Government is, by definition,
    immaterial.         See Hoke v. Netherland, 
    92 F.3d 1350
    , 1356-57 (4th
    Cir.       1996)     (evidence        of    victim’s     past    consensual,       sexual
    activity, which contradicted prosecution’s portrayal of victim
    as     a    virtuous       woman      not    material     to    determining       whether
    defendant raped the victim); United States v. Williams, 
    10 F.3d 1070
    ,      1078     (4th       Cir.   1993)    (evidence        that    contradicted    a
    witness’s testimony that she had seen the defendant’s car twice
    was not material because whether the witness personally saw the
    car    twice       was   not    relevant      to   the   court’s       finding   probable
    cause).
    The     tow-truck         driver’s      testimony       here     contradicts    an
    irrelevant factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis:                           whether
    the tow-truck driver sped or simply “eased away” when he refused
    a police officer’s order for him to stop.                          Nothing in any of
    this Court or the district court’s prior analyses of reasonable
    suspicion in this case identify the speed at which the tow-truck
    driver eluded police as a relevant factor.                            And in our view,
    whether a subject speeds or eases away from a police officer’s
    order to stop does little to mitigate the individual’s flight in
    the first instance.
    6
    Contrary to McCoy’s contention, the testimony also does not
    rebut the officer’s testimony that the tow-truck driver fled
    after the officer told him to stop — a fact corroborated by
    other    witnesses,      including     McCoy       when    he    testified     at    the
    suppression       hearing.      Defense       counsel’s         argument    that    the
    testimony - in light of McCoy’s own statement that the tow-truck
    driver did not look at the officer as he left the parking lot -
    shows that the tow-truck driver did not respond to the officer’s
    command is overly-speculative and is not proof of materiality.
    In any event, whether or not the tow-truck driver subjectively
    responded to the officer’s command is unavailing, because Terry
    requires the court to look only at what an objective officer
    would    believe    an   individual     to    be    doing,      not   to    what    that
    individual secretly intended.             
    392 U.S. 1
    , 27 (1968).                   McCoy
    cannot show that the new evidence contradicts the district court
    and this Court’s finding that he refused to stop.
    III.
    For the above reasons, the district court did not clearly
    err   when   it    denied    McCoy’s   motion      to     reopen   the     suppression
    hearing.     We therefore affirm McCoy’s conviction.
    AFFIRMED
    7