US v. Edward Andrews, No. 12-4156 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4156 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD MARTIN ANDREWS, a/k/a Edward Andrews, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00320-LMB-1) Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, W. Todd Watson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Martin Andrews appeals his convictions for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and possessing a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel for Andrews has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. meritorious issues 738 on (1967), appeal stating but that there questioning are whether no the district court erred when it denied Andrews s request for a new trial based on an alleged violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Andrews was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. We review a district court s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir. 2001). United States v. Stokes, 261 Material evidence tending to impeach a prosecution s witness must be disclosed to a defendant if known to the prosecution. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-55. Undisclosed evidence is material when its cumulative effect is such that evidence there been is a disclosed reasonable to the probability defense, proceeding would have been different. the that, had the result of the Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-34 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the trial transcript leads us to conclude that the 2 district court correctly determined the challenged evidence was not material and, therefore, that the court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to order a new trial based on an alleged violation of Giglio. 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 district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Andrews, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Andrews requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Andrews. 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 3
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.
