Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 88 views

    United States v. Jonte Partridge, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Jonte Partridge's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Partridge appealed his 78-month prison sentence. The Court found no merit in the issues raised in Partridge's appeal or his lawyer's Anders brief, which argued the prosecution improperly vouched for witnesses during closing arguments. The Court also rejected additional issues in Partridge's pro se brief. As there were no meritorious issues, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Jonte Partridge, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    88 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Jonte Partridge's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Partridge appealed his 78-month prison sentence. The Court found no merit in the issues raised in Partridge's appeal or his lawyer's Anders brief, which argued the prosecution improperly vouched for witnesses during closing arguments. The Court also rejected additional issues in Partridge's pro se brief. As there were no meritorious issues, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-05-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-4778

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Jonte Partridge's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Partridge appealed his 78-month prison sentence. The Court found no merit in the issues raised in Partridge's appeal or his lawyer's Anders brief, which argued the prosecution improperly vouched for witnesses during closing arguments. The Court also rejected additional issues in Partridge's pro se brief. As there were no meritorious issues, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    88 views3 pages

    United States v. Jonte Partridge, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Jonte Partridge's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Partridge appealed his 78-month prison sentence. The Court found no merit in the issues raised in Partridge's appeal or his lawyer's Anders brief, which argued the prosecution improperly vouched for witnesses during closing arguments. The Court also rejected additional issues in Partridge's pro se brief. As there were no meritorious issues, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-4778

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JONTE DERRELL PARTRIDGE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00112-HCM-LRL-1)

    Submitted:

    April 21, 2014

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    DIAZ,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    May 9, 2014

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.


    Platt, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant
    Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Timothy R.
    Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jonte

    Partridge

    was

    convicted

    of

    possession

    of

    firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2012), and


    was

    sentenced

    appeals.

    but

    appeal.
    issues.

    seventy-eight

    months

    in

    prison.

    He

    now

    Partridges attorney has filed a brief in accordance

    with Anders
    issue

    to

    v.

    California,

    stating

    that

    386

    there

    U.S.
    are

    738

    no

    (1967),

    raising

    one

    issues

    for

    meritorious

    Partridge has filed a pro se brief raising additional


    We affirm.
    In

    the

    Anders

    brief,

    Partridge

    contends

    that

    the

    prosecution improperly vouched for its witnesses during closing


    argument and on rebuttal.

    Because this matter was not raised

    below, our review is for plain error.


    Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).

    See United States v.

    We discern no error in the

    prosecutors use of the phrases I think and I submit during


    closing and rebuttal.

    See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d

    625, 632 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Adams, 70 F.3d 776,
    780 (4th Cir. 1995).

    Even if there was error, however, the

    phrases were used in isolation, and the evidence of Partridges


    guilt was strong.
    United

    States

    v.

    Accordingly, there was no plain error.


    Olivierre,

    378

    F.3d

    See

    412,

    421-22

    (4th

    Cir.

    the

    issues

    raised

    2004).
    We

    conclude

    additionally

    that

    Partridges pro se brief lack merit.


    2

    in

    Pursuant to Anders, we

    have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious


    issues for appeal.
    judgment.
    writing,

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts

    This court requires that counsel inform Partridge, in


    of

    his

    right

    to

    petition

    United States for further review.

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    the

    If Partridge 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.

    Counsels motion must

    state that a copy thereof was served on Partridge.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like