United States v. Bibb , 336 F. App'x 364 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY LAMONT BIBB, a/k/a Y-Born,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00108-REP-1)
Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William J. Dinkin, DINKIN & PURNELL, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard
D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Troy Lamont Bibb of assaulting
fellow-inmate Christopher Ray Klingenstein with a shank ∗ with the
intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3)
(2006), and possession of a prohibited object, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3) (2006). Bibb appeals his
conviction, challenging the district court’s refusal to instruct
the jury on his theory of self defense. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion “[t]he decision
to give or not to give a jury instruction.” United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 186 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The district court’s refusal to
grant a requested jury instruction is reversible error only if
the proffered instruction “(1) was correct; (2) was not
substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and
(3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that
failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the
defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.” United States v.
Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 477-78 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that “a
∗
A shank is a sharpened instrument used as a weapon in
prison.
2
district court should give the instruction that a criminal
defendant requests as to any defense as long as the instruction
. . . has an evidentiary foundation[] and . . . accurately
states the law applicable to the charged offense.” United
States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1997).
With these standards in mind, we have carefully
reviewed the record on appeal. We conclude that the district
court properly found that there was no evidence in the trial
testimony to support the self-defense instruction. Thus, we
find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to instruct
the jury on Bibb’s theory of self defense.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3