US v. Jonathan Moore, No. 14-4146 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4146 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN BENJAMIN MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00103-CCE-2) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW PORTER VERMITSKY FOWLER & TAYLOR, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Benjamin Moore was convicted after a jury trial of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), carrying and using by brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)(1), and 924(a)(2) (2012), attempted interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as an issue for review whether the district court erred in failing to rule on Moore’s pro se motion to suppress on its merits. The Government declined to file a brief. Moore was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Prior Moore - to proceeding We affirm. trial pro and se - while represented filed a by self-styled counsel, motion to suppress evidence in which he requested that the district court order a fingerprint examination 2 of firearms and exclude the admission of statements under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 408. The district any court denied the motion without prejudice to evidentiary objections counsel might make at trial. We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in failing to rule on Moore’s claims in the motion on their merits. have It is well-settled that a criminal defendant does not a constitutional See McKaskle v. right Wiggins, 465 to U.S. hybrid 168, representation. 183 (1984); United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1100-03 (4th Cir. 1997). Additionally, Moore did not suggest any reason why the district court should have exercised its discretion to allow some manner or form of hybrid representation in his case, and, on appeal, counsel does not suggest any reason why the court should have allowed such representation. (noting that a district See Singleton, 107 F.3d at 1100 court may, in its discretion, allow hybrid representation); United States v. Sacco, 571 F.2d 791, 793 (4th Cir. 1978) (holding that defendant need not be granted permission need). to serve as co-counsel absent showing of special Accordingly, the district court was under no obligation to entertain Moore’s pro se motion and thus did not reversibly err in denying the motion without ruling on the merits of the claims presented therein. Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found 3 no meritorious issues for appeal. district court’s judgment. We therefore affirm the This court requires that counsel inform Moore, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Moore 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 Moore. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4