United States v. DeCarlo

88 F. App'x 707
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 13, 2004
Docket03-60315
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 F. App'x 707 (United States v. DeCarlo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. DeCarlo, 88 F. App'x 707 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Charles Angelo DeCarlo, convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) by possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial based upon newly-discovered evidence pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 33. DeCarlo also appeals the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4.

DeCarlo has failed to prove that the Government either withheld the newly-discovered impeachment material from him *708 prior to his trial or knowingly used perjured testimony at his trial. See East v. Scott, 55 F.3d 996, 1003-05 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, DeCarlo’s own testimony before the jury was sufficient to establish that he constructively possessed the firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348-49 (5th Cir.1993). Thus, DeCarlo has failed to show that the newly-discovered evidence is material. See United States v. MMR Corp., 954 F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir.1992). In addition, because the new evidence is cumulative and impeaching, its discovery does not warrant a new trial. See id.

The crime of burglary for which DeCarlo was convicted under Utah Criminal Code § 76-6-202 substantially corresponds to the definition of generic burglary as required by Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), for sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 599. Thus, the Government’s submission of proof of the text of the Utah state statute is sufficient proof that DeCarlo’s prior burglary offense meets the definition of the violent felony of burglary for enhancement purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See id.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Allred
218 F. App'x 784 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 F. App'x 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-decarlo-ca5-2004.