US v. Winard Eady, No. 14-4535 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4535 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WINARD MONTEZ EADY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00415-DCN-3) Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Winard Montez Eady appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2012), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2012). Eady’s motion proffered Sutton’s to expert Prior to trial, the district court denied exclude witness, testimony the testimony Special of the Government’s Mike Sutton. historical concerned Agent cell site Agent analysis, which involves using cellular phone records and tower locations to determine a cell phone’s general location at a given point in time. On appeal, Eady argues that the district court abused its discretion by making a clearly erroneous factual finding when it admitted the expert’s testimony. We affirm. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court incorrectly found that Agent Sutton had conducted a drive test to prepare his testimony against Eady. driving to cell towers and strength of their signals. recording A drive test involves information about the Agent Sutton sometimes uses drive testing in his analysis, but he did not in Eady’s case. Eady argues that the district court erroneously found that Agent Sutton had performed a drive test and, therefore, that admitting Sutton’s testimony was an abuse of discretion. disagree. We Although the district court’s order briefly mentioned 2 drive testing as an example of Agent Sutton’s methods, the court did not state that a drive test occurred in this case. the district court never made the factual finding Because that Eady claims is erroneous, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Agent Sutton’s testimony. United States v. Garcia, 752 F.3d 382, 390 (4th Cir. See 2014) (discussing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
