Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Edward Crow, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Edward Crow, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4815
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00038-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Edward
Crow
was
convicted
of
assaulting
federal
of imprisonment.
We affirm.
Id. (internal
show
that
on
particular
occasion
may
offer
the
person
otherwise
inadmissible
acted
in
But the
evidence
to
the
Government
to
district
introduce
court
the
appropriately
challenged
the
door
as
to
evidence
permitted
the
because
Crow
testimony
from
one
witness,
but
not
evidence
accused
presented
prison).
of
accuseds
testimony
disciplinary
that
he
was
infractions
avoiding
where
trouble
in
754
(4th
demonstrate
Our review is
Cir.
that
an
2011).
error
To
(1)
show
plain
occurred,
error,
(2)
was
Crow
must
plain,
and
seriously
affects
the
fairness,
F.3d
247,
249
(4th
Cir.
2007)
integrity
or
public
alteration
and
Fed. R.
psychological
knowledge
regarding
the
defendants
mental
clouded
from wrong.
the
defendants
ability
to
distinguish
right
Cir. 2008).
In this case, while we agree that the experts opinion ran
afoul of Rule 704(b), we find no evidence that the district
court
erred,
mistrial.
plainly
The
or
district
otherwise,
court
by
failing
immediately
to
order
sustained
Crows
See
In reviewing a
court
committed
insufficient
factors
United
no
significant
consideration
or
inadequate
States
v.
of
procedural
the
18
explanation
Lynn,
592
F.3d
error,
U.S.C.
of
the
572,
including
3553(a)
sentence
575
(4th
(2012)
imposed.
Cir.
2010)
its
explanation,
the
district
court
must
make
an
Gall,
Cir.
review,
2009)
we
conclude
that
quotation
the
marks
district
omitted).
court
Upon
committed
no
procedural error.
We must also examine the substantive reasonableness of the
sentences,
considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
but
necessary,
not
greater
sentencing.
18
than
U.S.C.
to
3553(a).
satisfy
A
the
properly
purposes
of
calculated,
appellant
bears
the
burden
to
rebut
the
presumption
by
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
2006)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Crows
ranges.
the
fell
within
their
respective
Guidelines
need
Crows
sentences
to
ensure
personal
order
in
history
of
correctional
isolation,
facilities
mental
against
illness,
and
institutionalization.
That the district court later sentenced Crow in a different
case, stemming from a wholly unrelated crime, to a sentence to
run consecutive to this sentence, does not make this sentence
substantively unreasonable.
the
case.
We
thus
conclude
that
the
district
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED