United States v. Singleton

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Singleton

13 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2001

DocketNo. 00-3099

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. App'x 4 (United States v. Singleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Singleton, 13 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

[5]*5ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be affirmed. The district court’s decision to credit the testimony of Detective Lorenzo James at the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress over that of appellant was not “clearly erroneous.” United States v. Simpson, 992 F.2d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 906, 114 S.Ct. 286, 126 L.Ed.2d 236 (1993). Therefore, the district court properly admitted the challenged statement. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to determine “Exhibit 1” was a “firearm.” See Parker v. United States, 801 F.2d 1382, 1384 (D.C.Cir.1986). Assuming the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was improper, cf. United States v. Catlett, 97 F.3d 565 (D.C.Cir.1996), Singleton did not suffer “substantial prejudice.” See Id.; United States v. Gartmon, 146 F.3d 1015 (D.C.Cir.1998).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

[5]*5ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be affirmed. The district court’s decision to credit the testimony of Detective Lorenzo James at the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress over that of appellant was not “clearly erroneous.” United States v. Simpson, 992 F.2d 1224, 1226 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 906, 114 S.Ct. 286, 126 L.Ed.2d 236 (1993). Therefore, the district court properly admitted the challenged statement. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to determine “Exhibit 1” was a “firearm.” See Parker v. United States, 801 F.2d 1382, 1384 (D.C.Cir.1986). Assuming the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument was improper, cf. United States v. Catlett, 97 F.3d 565 (D.C.Cir.1996), Singleton did not suffer “substantial prejudice.” See Id.; United States v. Gartmon, 146 F.3d 1015 (D.C.Cir.1998).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-singleton-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack