US v. Demetrius Boyd, No. 12-4431 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS ALVIN BOYD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:11-cr-00365-AW-1) Submitted: April 10, 2013 Decided: April 19, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Gregory Hall, HALL & CHO, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Hollis R. Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Paul K. Nitze, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demetrius Alvin Boyd appeals the denial of his motion to suppress intent to evidence and distribute ยง 841(a)(1) (2006). his conviction marijuana, Boyd in argues for possession violation that the of 21 arresting with U.S.C. officer lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the search incident to arrest was therefore unlawful. evidence was insufficient to Boyd also argues that the sustain his possession with intent to distribute marijuana. conviction for We affirm. We review the legal conclusions underlying a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo. States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). construe the in Id. Government. evidence police A the light most officer may United We . . . favorable lawfully to arrest the an individual if the officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001). Here, the officer observed Boyd sleeping in his car in a moving lane of traffic, detected an odor of alcohol, noticed Boyd s bloodshot and watery eyes, heard Boyd s admission to having a few drinks that evening, and conducted two tests for intoxication, alcohol. both Based of on which the indicated officer s 2 Boyd s consumption observations and of Boyd s behavior, we conclude that there was sufficient probable cause to effectuate an arrest. Boyd s challenge to the denial of his suppression motion thus fails. We review the acquittal de novo. (4th Cir. 2005). denial of a motion for judgment of United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks circumstantial and as brackets well as omitted). direct We evidence, must and consider allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established in determining whether any rational trier of the facts could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). A complete review of the record confirms that there was sufficient possession with evidence intent to to support distribute Boyd s conviction marijuana. See for United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 572 (4th Cir.) (setting forth elements of offense), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 564 (2011). To the extent Boyd testified that the marijuana seized during his arrest was for his personal use rather than distribution, 3 the jury decides which interpretation to believe when the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations. United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). We thus conclude that Boyd s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
