US v. Jonte Partridge, No. 13-4778 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONTE DERRELL PARTRIDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00112-HCM-LRL-1) Submitted: April 21, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 9, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Timothy R. Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonte Partridge was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced appeals. but appeal. issues. seventy-eight months in prison. He now Partridge s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders issue to v. California, stating that 386 there U.S. are 738 no (1967), raising one issues for meritorious Partridge has filed a pro se brief raising additional We affirm. In the Anders brief, Partridge contends that the prosecution improperly vouched for its witnesses during closing argument and on rebuttal. Because this matter was not raised below, our review is for plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). See United States v. We discern no error in the prosecutor s use of the phrases I think and I submit during closing and rebuttal. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Adams, 70 F.3d 776, 780 (4th Cir. 1995). Even if there was error, however, the phrases were used in isolation, and the evidence of Partridge s guilt was strong. United States v. Accordingly, there was no plain error. Olivierre, 378 F.3d See 412, 421-22 (4th Cir. the issues raised 2004). We conclude additionally that Partridge s pro se brief lack merit. 2 in Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. judgment. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the district court s This court requires that counsel inform Partridge, in of his right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Partridge requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Partridge. 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 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.
