US v. Travis Arnold, No. 09-4640 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: the Middle Thomas D. May 13, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Following Arnold of (2006). bank robbery Arnold months trial, was a in jury violation sentenced imprisonment. convicted as Arnold s of a 18 Travis U.S.C. career counsel Denorris § 2113(a) offender has filed to a 230 brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in appeal, his there questioning the but opinion, are no meritorious admission of issues certain for evidence. Arnold has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing: (1) his arrest was illegal and his subsequent confession was fruit of the poisonous tree; (2) his confession was involuntary; (3) he was denied the right to a speedy trial; (4) his indictment was defective; (5) his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession; and (6) Masear and Shulenberger was not credible. elected not to file an appellate brief. Counsel erred stating (1) in that for Arnold admitting wearing ski the asserts portion masks and the testimony of The Government has We affirm. that of the district Arnold s kicking in court confession doors is not Arnold s MO ; (2) in allowing Detective Shulenberger to testify as to Shulenberger s understanding of the meaning of the term MO ; and (3) in identifying Masear as a probation officer. He contends that these evidentiary rulings violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and were unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 2 We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 325 (4th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, __ S. Ct. __, 78 U.S.L.W. 3341 (U.S. Nov. 23, 2009) (No. 09-617). Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that [e]vidence of other crimes . . . is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The evidence may, however, be admissible for purposes, such plan, knowledge. other preparation, or as proof of Basham, motive, 561 F.3d intent, at 326. Rule 404(b) is an inclusive rule, admitting all evidence of other crimes criminal marks or acts disposition. omitted). provides except that Rule Id. 403 relevant that which (internal of the tends citation Federal evidence to may be prove and Rules only quotation of Evidence excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The damage that probative evidence can inflict on a defendant s case is no basis for excluding the evidence, however; only when the evidence results in unfair prejudice, such as an appeal to the jury s emotion, and that prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence, must it be excluded. Id. at 327. given any a limiting instruction, improperly use the evidence subsides. 3 fear Where the jury is that the jury will United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 342 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 943 (2009). We discretion find in the district admitting the court disputed did not portion abuse of its Arnold s statement to police, or in allowing Detective Shulenberger to testify as to his understanding of the term MO. of Arnold s confession constituted an This portion explanation of the planning and preparation of the bank robbery, and therefore was admissible under Rule 404(b). Further, there was no inordinate prejudice from its admission under Rule 403. Shulenberger, Arnold contests his brief As to Detective explanation that the term modus operandi can be used to describe the way someone acts or evidence they leave behind when they commit a crime. This testimony was probative, in that it helped explain part of Arnold s confession, and was not unduly prejudicial. The district court gave a limiting instruction, directing the jury that it was not to assume the truth of the current charged conduct in light of any prior bad conduct. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. The testimony offense. of district Masear, The court Arnold s district also strictly probation court instructed controlled officer Masear for a the prior outside the presence of the jury that she should not indicate at any time 4 that [she is] a probation officer with respect to defendant in any way, probation although she officer. could No reveal reference was that made she worked during as a Masear s testimony to the fact that she was Arnold s probation officer. The district court instructed the jury: You must not conclude from the fact that Ms. Masear is employed as a probation officer that the defendant may have committed a crime or engaged in any bad conduct in the past. Further, the district court repeated this warning in its final instructions to the jury. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the disputed evidence. Arnold alleges in his pro se supplemental brief that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession on the bases that it was obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest and that it was involuntary. Because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel s performance in failing to file a motion to suppress Arnold s confession was deficient, this claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the other issues raised in Arnold s pro se brief and find them without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the 5 district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.