US v. Maurice Colbert, No. 14-4112 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURICE COLBERT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00268-CCB-1) Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 8, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Murtha, MURTHA, PSORAS & LANASA LLC, Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Maurice Colbert of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), (f), 2 (2012), forced accompaniment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(e), 2 (2012), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), 2 (2012). On appeal, Colbert challenges his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that the district court erred when it instructed the jury, both initially and in response to a jury question, that eyewitness testimony and photographic conviction evidence under § 924(c) “credible and reliable.” “is if sufficient” the jury to finds sustain the a evidence We affirm. “We review the district court’s jury instructions in their entirety and as part of the whole trial, and focus on whether the district court adequately instructed the jury regarding the elements of the offense and the defendant’s defenses.” United States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 469 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Colbert acknowledges that his failure to object to any part of the instructions on the § 924(c) charge subjects this issue to plain error review. 627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010). Colbert must show: United States v. Robinson, To establish plain error, (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 735-36 2 (1993). United States v. Further, we will exercise plain our error fairness, discretion only where integrity proceedings.” and reverse the or a error public conviction “seriously reputation based on affects of a the judicial Id. at 732, 736 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “The purpose of jury instructions is to instruct the jury clearly regarding the law to be applied in the case.” States v. reviewed Lewis, these 53 F.3d 29, instructions 34 in (4th the Cir. context 1995). of United We the have overall charge, and conclude that they fairly and accurately set forth the controlling law. United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 207 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th Cir. 1998) (“Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove that a person used a firearm.”). Colbert has not demonstrated that the challenged instruction usurped the jury’s role in weighing the evidence against the burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm Colbert’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material 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.
