US v. Roberto Texidore, No. 11-5081 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5081 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERTO TEXIDORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00179-MOC-1) Submitted: August 30, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roberto Texidore was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2006), imprisonment. On and sentenced appeal, to Texidore thirty-seven argues that months the district court erred in overruling his objection to the government s use of its peremptory challenges to strike an African-American woman and a woman statements of made Asian by the extraction. He government also during contends closing that argument shifted the burden of proof and violated his due process rights. We conclude there is no error and affirm the judgment. Texidore deny his contests challenge, under the district Batson v. court s Kentucky, decision 476 U.S. (1986), to the Government s use of its peremptory strikes. use of a peremptory challenge for a racially purpose offends the Equal Protection Clause. trial court s resolution of a Batson 79 The discriminatory Id. at 84-90. challenge to is The largely a credibility determination, to which we give great deference, reviewing the district court s findings for clear error. United States United v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 377 (4th Cir. 2010); States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 221 (4th Cir. 2008). Courts employ a three-step process to determine whether a peremptory strike was racially motivated. First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that the government 2 exercised the strike on the basis of race. 96-97. Batson, 476 U.S. at Second, the burden shifts to the government to offer a racially neutral question. explanation Id. at for 97-98. removing Third, once the jurors the in race-neutral explanation is offered, the district court must decide whether, in light of all relevant purposeful discrimination. purposeful discrimination evidence, Id. by at the defendant 98. A demonstrating has proved movant that the may show opposing party s explanation is a mere pretext for racial discrimination. Farrior, 535 F.3d at 221. Our review of the record reveals that the district court did proffered not clearly reasons for err in striking crediting the the jurors in government s question finding those reasons legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Texidore failed in his burden to prove and Thus, intentional discrimination, and the district court did not err in denying Texidore s Batson challenge. Texidore next asserts that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct during closing argument when he speculated to the jury as to why Texidore did not test certain evidence for DNA. Whether a statement made in closing argument has unconstitutionally tainted the outcome of the case is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 2005). Improper remarks 3 during the government s closing argument constitute a reversible due-process violation only if the remarks so prejudiced the defendant s substantial rights that the defendant was denied a fair trial. United States v. Wilson, 624 F.3d 640, 656 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 451 (2011). To obtain a new trial, Texidore must demonstrate both that a statement was improper and that it caused prejudice. United States v. Smith, 441 F.3d 254, 264 (4th Cir. 2006). With these standards in mind, we examined Texidore s assertions of misconduct. have thoroughly We conclude that, even assuming that the prosecutor s comments were improper, they did not deprive Texidore of a fair trial, given their relatively isolated nature, the relative strength of the other evidence in the case, and the court s instructions to the jury. Wilson, 624 F.3d at 656-57; Collins, 415 F.3d at 309 (discussing factors courts consider in evaluation of prejudice). 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.
