Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-5116
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00013-JFM-1)
Submitted:
THACKER,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Barry Murel (Murel) was convicted
on
two
counts
of
possession
with
the
intent
to
distribute
I.
A controlled purchase of cocaine base on June 10, 2009,
from
Murel
by
confidential
informant
in
front
of
Murels
containing
heroin.
warrant
the
recovery
cocaine
base
of,
and
inter
three
alia,
two
plastic
plastic
bags
bags
containing
issued
for
Murels
residence
on
June
12,
2009.
of
cocaine
base
from
his
- 2 -
person
during
the
search
incident
to
his
arrest
on
June
13,
possession-with-the-intent-to-distribute
2009.
Murels
offense
other
stemmed
from
the seizure of heroin from Murels person during the same search
incident to his arrest.
II.
Murel seeks reversal of all three of his convictions based
upon his argument that the district court erred by denying his
pretrial
motion
identity
of
controlled
to
the
require
the
confidential
purchase
on
June
government
informant
10,
2009.
to
who
disclose
the
conducted
the
Murels
argument
is
without merit.
A district courts decision to deny a defendants motion
for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant is
reviewed for abuse of discretion.
identity
of
persons
who
furnish
- 3 -
information
of
illegal
of
an
informers
identity
. . . is
relevant
and
Roviaro v. United
Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1107 (4th Cir. 1985) (publics interest in
encouraging persons to come forward with information that can
aid effective law enforcement and interest in maintaining the
safety and security of such persons must be balanced against
defendants right to present his defense).
United
148-49)
(Murels
Motion
to
Compel
Disclosure
of
reviewing
Murels
arguments,
the
record,
and
the
of
the
confidential
informant
who
conducted
district
Murels
court
motion
informants
did
to
not
compel
identity.
abuse
its
disclosure
Of
Accordingly,
discretion
of
significant
such
the
in
denying
confidential
importance
to
our
in
arrest
the
and
controlled
issuance
purchase
of
the
which
search
resulted
warrant
for
in
his
entitlement
to
disclosure
of
identity
of
considered
defendants
is
the
particular
materiality
defense).
of
the
Rather,
evidence
Murel
was
to
the
charged
In sum,
his
burden
on
this
issue.
See
id.
(disclosure
of
III.
Murel next challenges the district courts conclusion that
he qualified for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1).
or
serious
drug
offense,
or
both,
committed
on
Id. 924(e)(1).
the
district
court
determined
the
government
2001).
Murel
concedes
that
his
2003
Maryland
state
court
in
4A1.2(e)(2)
Guidelines
(USSG
4A1.2(e)(2),
of
or
when
the
United
Guidelines).
computing
States
Sentencing
Pursuant
defendants
to
prior
USSG
criminal
is
that
restriction
on
4A1.2(e)(2).
the
ACCA
prior
does
not
convictions
the
forth
temporal
in
USSG
is
subject
to
enhanced
sentence
under
924(e)).
brings
for
us
to
resisting
Murels
1998
arrest.
Maryland
state
Resisting
court
arrest
is
United States
v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680, 682-85 (4th Cir. 2011); United States
v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446, 455 (4th Cir. 2003).
resisting
already
arrest
rejected
conviction
Murels
on
appeal.
timed-out
Because
argument
and
we
have
Murels
IV.
Murel contends the district court failed to explain the
extent to which the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors supported its
sentencing
him
to
192month
term
of
imprisonment,
and
discloses
the
district
court
met
obligations
of
explaining
the
extent
to
which
the
3553(a)
factors
supported its chosen sentence below his advisory range under the
Guidelines
in
manner
sufficient
to
permit
us
to
conduct
F.3d
2009)
325,
robotically
32930
(4th
tick
through
Cir.
every
- 8 -
(district
3553(a)
court
factor;
need
not
conversely,
talismanic
recitation
of
every
3553(a)
factor
without
rather,
district
court
must
place
on
record
rationale
tailored
to
particular
case
at
hand
and
V.
Having
concluded
Murels
sentence
is
procedurally
We
review
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
circumstances,
including
the
extent
of
the
district
range
of
235
to
293
months
imprisonment
under
the
Guidelines.
(4th
2010)
Cir.
(in
reviewing
sentence
for
substantive
the
circumstances,
defendants
reviewed
advisory
the
record
including
extent
range
under
and
conclude
the
of
any
variance
Guidelines).
that
the
We
district
from
have
court
him
from
the
conduct
convictions.
Murel
has
discretion.
Accordingly,
which
failed
we
to
resulted
in
demonstrate
uphold
Murels
his
an
instant
abuse
sentence
of
as
substantively reasonable.
VI.
For
the
convictions
and
reasons
stated
sentence.
We
herein,
we
dispense
with
affirm
Murels
oral
argument
- 10 -