Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-4280
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00040-JLK-1)
Submitted:
December 8, 2010
Decided:
January 3, 2011
PER CURIAM:
Carlos
Santana
Morris
appeals
his
convictions,
possession
of
firearm
in
furtherance
of,
drug-
Morris
was
sentenced
to
230
months
imprisonment,
its
subtitled
discretion
video
in
recordings
permitting
of
the
the
four
Government
controlled
to
show
buys
that
formed the basis for his indictment; (2) the evidence of his
guilt is legally insufficient; and (3) the district court abused
For the
The use of
The
conversations
in
real-time
each
testified
that
not
make
subtitles,
any
nor
objections
did
he
to
explore
specific
inaccuracies
inaccuracies
through
the
Morris
in
the
cross-
examination.
Cir. 1995).
351 F.3d 131, 140 (4th Cir. 2003) (rejecting contention of error
based
on
admission
of
transcripts
when
defendant
failed
to
jury prevented any prejudice that may have resulted from any
3
See United
States v. Brandon, 363 F.3d 341, 344-45 (4th Cir. 2004); Pratt,
351 F.3d at 140.
of
the
Governments
evidence,
attacks
the
suspect
because
he
was
an
admitted
drug
user,
he
v.
Kelly,
592
F.3d
586,
594
(4th
Cir.)
United
(internal
weight
it
considerations.
deemed
We
appropriate
simply
will
not
in
review
light
that
of
these
credibility
determination on appeal.
Finally, Morris challenges the district courts denial
of his motion for a new trial.
v.
Basham,
561
F.3d
302,
4
319
(4th
Cir.
2009),
United
cert.
jurors
guilty
attempt
concern,
to
expressed
impeach
for
the
the
first
time
verdict
after
the
asserted
affected
the
that
jurys
an
influence
deliberations,
internal
and
such
based
to
on
her
verdict
was
At best, the
the
process
allegations
are
States, 483 U.S. 107, 119-27 (1987); see also Robinson v. Polk,
438 F.3d 350, 360 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that courts
may
consider
evidence
relevant
to
whether
extraneous
the
foregoing
courts judgment.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED