US v. David Tisdale, No. 09-4940 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID TISDALE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00498-BEL-1) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff Attorney, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ayn B. Ducao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Tisdale appeals his conviction and 170-month sentence for five counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) (2006). appeal. Tisdale makes four arguments on For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, Tisdale argues that, given the anti-shuttling provision IAD ), in the the Interstate district court dismiss the indictment. Agreement on erred denying in Detainers his Act (the motion to We find that the district court did not err in this regard because Tisdale had waived his rights under the IAD pursuant to a broadly-worded waiver he had signed after discussing Bozeman, his 533 rights U.S. with 146, his 153-54 attorney. (2001). See We Alabama reject v. Tisdale s assertion that the waiver was limited to a particular detainer. Second, he argues that the district court erred in declining to review in camera the personnel records of two law enforcement officers who testified at Tisdale s trial. We review a district court s decision as to whether to conduct an in camera review of materials for abuse of discretion. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994). Here, the Government had represented to the district court that neither except officer that one had any officer history had been 2 of misconduct accused of in using his files excessive force; further, defense counsel had conceded that the present case did not involve allegations of excessive force. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to review in camera the personnel files of the two law enforcement officers. See id. Third, Tisdale argues that the district court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to impeach a Government witness through extrinsic evidence of a separate lawsuit. We review a district court s decision to limit cross-examination for abuse of discretion. 273 (4th Cir.), cert. United States v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256, denied, 131 S. Ct. 262 (2010). The district court had permitted defense counsel to cross-examine the law enforcement officer about the fact that there was a prior lawsuit, the general nature of the lawsuit, and that there was a judgment against the officer. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence See id. it found to be collateral. Finally, sufficient evidence Tisdale to argues find that that he the sold jury crack lacked cocaine. However, given that Tisdale himself testified that he sold crack cocaine, and that one of the law enforcement officers testified that he purchased crack cocaine from Tisdale, we find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Tisdale sold crack cocaine. 3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
