Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHANNON CAVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:03-cr-00157-jct)
Submitted:
September 27, 2006
Decided:
October 27, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Onzlee Ware, WARE & HILL, L.L.P., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shannon
Cave
appeals
his
conviction
by
jury
for
possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of

cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000).
district court sentenced Cave to life imprisonment.
The
On appeal,
Caves attorney filed a formal brief, raising two grounds of error.

Cave then filed a pro se motion to strike the formal brief and a
motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief.
We have
considered
pro
the
claims
supplemental brief.
in
the
formal
brief
and
the
se
Finding no merit to the claims, we affirm.
First, Cave challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

against him.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden.
See United States v. Beidler, 110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
In reviewing a sufficiency
challenge, [t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is

substantial
evidence,
taking
the
view
most
favorable
to
the
Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942).
This court ha[s] defined substantial evidence, in
the context of a criminal action, as that evidence which a

reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.
1996)).
- 2 -
Cave claims the evidence was insufficient because the

evidence does not show he had knowledge that a box he dropped from
a window contained cocaine, or that he intended to distribute the
cocaine.
However, taken in the light most favorable to the
Government, there was ample evidence to convict Cave.
This court
will uphold the jurys verdict if there is substantial evidence to

support it, and will reverse only in those rare cases where the
prosecutions
failure
is
clear.
Beidler,
110
F.3d
(quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
at
1067
Trooper
Brannock saw Cave drop the box later determined to contain cocaine
base out of a bathroom window.
Sherwood Barksdale, a prisoner
subsequently incarcerated with Cave, testified that Cave admitted

that he transported the cocaine base to the residence and had
dropped it out the bathroom window.
Finally, a Government expert
testified that the amount and packaging of the cocaine base in the
box was consistent with distribution and inconsistent with personal
use.
We find that viewing all the evidence together, there was
more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to

conclude that Cave was guilty.
Cave also argues the district court erred when it denied
his motion for a new trial based on the perjured testimony of
fellow prisoner Jesse Hairston. Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure,
district
court
may
grant
defendants motion for a new trial if the interest of justice so
- 3 -
requires.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).
A district court should
exercise its discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and . . .

should do so only when the evidence weighs heavily against the
verdict.
United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 237 (4th Cir.
1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This court reviews the
denial of a Rule 33 motion for abuse of discretion.
United States
v. Adam, 70 F.3d 776, 779 (4th Cir. 1995).

Cave contends that he has met the standard for a new
trial under the Larrison rule.
See Larrison v. United States, 24
F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v.

Mitrione,
357
F.3d
probability test).
712
(7th
Cir.
2004)
(adopting
reasonable
According to that standard--which has been the
test employed in this Circuit--the district court may grant a new

trial following the recantation of a government witness testimony
if the court is reasonably well satisfied that:
(1) the
testimony given by a material witness is false, (2) without it

the jury might have reached a different conclusion, and (3) the
party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false
testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of
its falsity until after the trial.
United States v. Wallace, 528
F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir. 1976) (quoting Larrison, 24 F.2d at 87-88).
See also United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir.
2000).
- 4 -
We
find
that
the
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion in denying Caves motion for a new trial because Cave

cannot
satisfy
the
second
prong
under
Larrison.
Hairstons
testimony was simply cumulative of the testimony given by inmate

Barksdale.
Even without Hairstons testimony, the uncontroverted
evidence is that Trooper Brannock saw Cave drop the box of cocaine
base from the bathroom window, and Cave admitted his conduct to
Barksdale.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Cave alleges that the
trial court erred by failing to inquire into his prior convictions
as required by 21 U.S.C. 851 (2000).
Cave contends that the
district court incorrectly added one point to his criminal history

score by adding one point for his state conviction for conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in the fourth
degree.
Cave contends that this prior conviction does not qualify
as a felony drug offense.
Cave argues that he would have
corrected the courts alleged error had the court asked him about
the prior conviction at the sentencing hearing.
Finally, Cave
argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the
issue at trial.
Because Cave raises the 851 issue for the first time on
appeal, it is reviewed for plain error.
The procedure set forth in
851(b) provides the defendant with a full and fair opportunity

to establish that he is not the previously convicted individual or
- 5 -
that the conviction is an inappropriate basis for enhancement.

United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 593, 599 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting
United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir. 1992)).
Even if the district court does not act in strict compliance with
851, on plain error review, Cave must prove that the error
actually affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Ellis, 326
F.3d at 599 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 240
(4th Cir. 1998)).
We find Cave fails to demonstrate any error committed by
the district court that affected the outcome of the sentencing
proceeding.
Prior to the sentencing, Cave received notice of the
precise conviction that would form the basis for his enhancement.
The court asked defense counsel whether he and Cave had read the
presentence report and whether there were any objections to it.
Counsel answered that they had discussed it and there were no
objections.
In addition, we have reviewed the district courts
criminal history calculation and find the court did not err.
As a
result, Cave cannot demonstrate prejudice with respect to the 851

claim
or
an
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel
claim.
See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).

For these reasons, we deny Caves motion to strike the
formal brief filed by his attorney, grant Caves motion to file a
pro
se
supplemental
sentence.
brief,
and
affirm
Caves
conviction
and
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 6 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 7 -

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

September 27, 2006

October 27, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of

Caves attorney filed a formal brief, raising two grounds of error.

Finding no merit to the claims, we affirm.

First, Cave challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence faces a heavy burden.

See United States v. Beidler, 110

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).

challenge, [t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is

Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

This court ha[s] defined substantial evidence, in

the context of a criminal action, as that evidence which a

United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.

Cave claims the evidence was insufficient because the

However, taken in the light most favorable to the

Government, there was ample evidence to convict Cave.

will uphold the jurys verdict if there is substantial evidence to

(quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).

Sherwood Barksdale, a prisoner

subsequently incarcerated with Cave, testified that Cave admitted

Finally, a Government expert

We find that viewing all the evidence together, there was

more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable finder of fact to

defendants motion for a new trial if the interest of justice so

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).

A district court should

exercise its discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and . . .

United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.

This court reviews the

denial of a Rule 33 motion for abuse of discretion.

v. Adam, 70 F.3d 776, 779 (4th Cir. 1995).

See Larrison v. United States, 24

F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v.

According to that standard--which has been the

test employed in this Circuit--the district court may grant a new

testimony given by a material witness is false, (2) without it

United States v. Wallace, 528

discretion in denying Caves motion for a new trial because Cave

testimony was simply cumulative of the testimony given by inmate

Even without Hairstons testimony, the uncontroverted

Cave contends that the

district court incorrectly added one point to his criminal history

Cave contends that this prior conviction does not qualify

as a felony drug offense.

Cave argues that he would have

The procedure set forth in

851(b) provides the defendant with a full and fair opportunity

that the conviction is an inappropriate basis for enhancement.

Prior to the sentencing, Cave received notice of the

In addition, we have reviewed the district courts