US v. Charles Haines, III, No. 13-4612 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4612 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES PAGE HAINES, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00057-GMG-DJJ-3) Submitted: August 27, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Page Haines was sentenced to ninety-two months of imprisonment following his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to distribute twenty-eight grams or less of cocaine base, three counts of distributing cocaine base, distributing heroin, and maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846, 856 (2012). district court erred in On appeal, Haines claims that the admitting evidence of his prior narcotics distribution under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and improperly enhanced his offense level under U.S. Manual ( USSG ) § 2D1.1(b)(12) (2012). Sentencing Guidelines We affirm. Evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted as proof of motive, opportunity, identity, absence of intent, mistake, preparation, or lack of plan, accident knowledge, but not . . . to prove a person s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with [his] character. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); see United States v. Wilson, 624 F.3d 640, 651 (4th Cir. 2010). To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence must be (1) relevant to an issue other than character; (2) necessary; and (3) reliable. United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Potential Rule 404(b) evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by 2 its unfair prejudice to the defendant. United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, there was an adequate connection between Haines June 2012 narcotics distribution, which supported his present convictions, and the challenged Rule 404(b) evidence namely Haines participation in several controlled buys in early 2010. See id. Those earlier controlled buys involved Haines facilitating the sale of substantially the same varieties of drugs to the same confidential informants in the same geographic area as his instant offenses. were relevant. Thus, the 2010 controlled buys See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 341- 42 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312 (4th Cir. 2004) (reaching same result under analogous facts). The evidence of the 2010 controlled buys was also necessary to the Government s case. Because Haines squarely placed issue, his knowledge and intent at evidence of his repeated, analogous drug transactions was instrumental to the Government s case. See United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 398 (4th Cir. 2012). Finally, the prejudice to Haines resulting from of the admission the Rule 404(b) substantially outweigh its probative value. evidence did not Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. See United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review). 3 Next, application double Haines of USSG counting in claims that § 2D1.1(b)(12) light of his the district constituted conviction We review this claim for plain error. United States, standard). 556 U.S. 129, 134-36 impermissible under § 856. court s 21 U.S.C. See Puckett v. (2009) (discussing We conclude that the district court did not err plainly or otherwise because the Guidelines do not proscribe applying § 2D1.1(b)(12) where § 856. See USSG § 2D1.1 Hampton, 628 F.3d 654, a defendant cmt. 664 n.17; (4th is see Cir. convicted United 2010) under States ( [T]here v. is a presumption that double counting is proper where not expressly prohibited by the guidelines. ). Finally, clearly erred primary purpose in Haines contends finding that for which he that narcotics maintained the district distribution his court was residence. a See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). However, [m]anufacturing or distributing a controlled substance need not be the sole purpose for which the premises was maintained, but must be one of the defendant s primary or principal uses for the premises. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. USSG We conclude that the evidence before the district court was clearly sufficient to support its application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) despite the fact that Haines had lived in his 4 home his entire life. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 706-07 (8th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense conclusions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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.