United States v. Bobby Grier

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 24-4107
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4107 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY RASHAWN GRIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cr-00046-CCE-1)

Submitted: March 6, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester, III, LESTER LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4107 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury found Bobby Rashawn Grier guilty of distribution of marijuana, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(D); possession with intent to distribute marijuana,

in violation of § 841(a), (b)(1)(D); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug

trafficking, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced Grier to

96 months of imprisonment—which fell below the Sentencing Guidelines range—

followed by three years of supervised release. Grier appeals. On appeal, counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly denied

Grier’s motion in limine to exclude evidence and whether the sentence is substantively

reasonable. Grier filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues. * For the

following reasons, we affirm.

Counsel first questions whether the district court erred in denying Grier’s motion in

limine to exclude evidence. The charged offense of possession with intent to distribute

marijuana was based on a search of Grier’s residence conducted after postal inspectors

intercepted a package sent to Grier from California; that package contained marijuana.

Prior to trial, the Government sought to introduce evidence of similar packages sent to

Grier in the months prior to his receipt of the package at issue. The district court agreed

* We have reviewed the issues raised in Grier’s pro se brief and conclude that they lack merit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4107 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

with the Government that these packages were relevant to the charged offenses, and their

probative value did not outweigh their potential prejudicial effect.

“We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Banks,

29 F.4th 168, 181 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unless prohibited,

relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. “Evidence is relevant if it is

sufficiently related to the charged offense.” United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 472

(4th Cir. 2018). Under Rule 404(b), however, evidence “of any other crime, wrong, or act

is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion

the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However,

such evidence may be “admissible for a proper, non-propensity purpose, such as ‘proving

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or

lack of accident.’” United States v. Hall, 858 F.3d 254, 260 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed.

R. Evid. 404(b)(2)). Moreover, courts may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value

is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. “[U]nfair

prejudice speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder

into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.”

United States v. Tillmon, 954 F.3d 628, 643 (4th Cir. 2019).

We conclude that the district court properly admitted this evidence at trial. The

evidence was relevant to the charged offenses, and relevant for the purposes of

demonstrating Grier’s knowledge. In addition, the court properly determined that the

potential prejudicial effect of this evidence did not outweigh its probative value.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4107 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

With respect to Grier’s sentence, we “‘review[] all sentences—whether inside, just

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.’” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020)

(quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). In doing so, we first ensure that

the district court committed no significant procedural error. United States v. Fowler, 948

F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020). “If [we] find[] no significant procedural error, [we] then

consider[] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed,” United States v.

Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted), “taking

into account the totality of the circumstances,” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213,

218 (4th Cir. 2019). A sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 825, 841 n.12 (4th Cir.

2019). A defendant can only rebut the presumption “by showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed Grier’s sentence and conclude that the district court committed

no procedural error in sentencing Grier. Moreover, we presume that Grier’s

below-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable, and nothing apparent in the

record rebuts that presumption.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Grier, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Grier requests that a petition be filed, but

4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4107 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

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 Grier.

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