US v. Richard Hicks, No. 15-4696 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4696 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD JERRY HICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00028-JPJ-PMS-2) Submitted: December 1, 2016 Decided: December 9, 2016 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin L. Jayne, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Richard Jerry Hicks of five counts relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (c)(1)-(2), 858, 860a (2012). The district court sentenced Hicks to 180 months’ imprisonment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) when it admitted evidence of Hicks’ past conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and the circumstances underlying that conviction. We review a district court’s Rule 404(b) rulings for abuse of discretion and will affirm unless “the district court judge acted arbitrarily or irrationally.” United States v. Cabrera- Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 755 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits the admission of “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act . . . to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evidence admissible opportunity, absence of 404(b)(2). of a of for other crimes other intent, mistake, or purposes, preparation, or lack of bad acts, however, such as proving plan, knowledge, accident.” Fed. “may be motive, identity, R. Evid. In drug cases, this court generally admits evidence defendant’s prior, similar defendant’s knowledge and intent. 2 drug conduct to prove the Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d at 755. The evidence must also be relevant, necessary to prove an element of the offense, reliable, and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Under Rule 404(b), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Hicks’ past drug conduct. The evidence satisfies each of the four requirements under Rule 404(b) and shows Hicks’ knowledge of the methamphetamine conspiracy. production and intent to participate in Moreover, we can distinguish the cases Hicks cites. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with contentions the 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.
