United States v. Horsley

105 F.4th 193

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Quentin Lowell HORSLEY, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-4671

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Argued: May 10, 2024

Decided: June 24, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:19-cr-00012-NKM-JCH-1)

ARGUED: Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before THACKER, BENJAMIN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Judge Benjamin and Judge Berner joined.

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

Following a jury trial, Quentin Lowell Horsely ("Appellant") was convicted of conspiring to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine base, as well as three counts of distributing cocaine. At trial, the evidence against Appellant included witness testimony from his co-conspirators, Kenneth Adgerson and Travis Smiley; text messages extracted from cellphones; evidence of controlled buys conducted by Government informants; and drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large sums of cash seized during the searches of three houses and a vehicle.

Appellant challenges the admission of several items of evidence. This includes a cellphone that was seized without a warrant at the time of Appellant's arrest. Appellant argues this warrantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. It also includes the search of a Jaguar car tied to Appellant. Appellant argues the search of the Jaguar and seizure of its contents was improper because the car was searched without a warrant or probable cause. Appellant moved to suppress the cellphone and the fruits of the Jaguar search, but the district court denied the motion.

Appellant also challenges the testimony of Officer Daniel Bailey, who testified at Appellant's trial as to the meaning of text messages that were extracted from the seized cellphone. Appellant contends that Officer Bailey's interpretation of the texts was improper lay witness testimony, which the district court should have excluded.

Separately, Appellant contends that the district court erred in its handling of the verdict form. When the jury first completed the verdict form, the district judge perceived a clerical error and instructed the jury to return to the jury room to correct the error. When the jury returned, it had not only corrected the identified error, but also marked a previously unmarked portion of the verdict form, thus attributing to Appellant a new drug, cocaine base, as part of the distribution conspiracy. Appellant argues that judgment should not have been entered as to cocaine base because the jury did not mark it on their first execution of the verdict form.

We hold that (1) the district court erred in its failure to suppress the evidence from the cellphone seized at the time of Appellant's arrest, but that, given the weight of the evidence against Appellant, the error was harmless; (2) that the search of the Jaguar and its contents was proper; (3) that Officer Bailey's testimony was improper testimony by a lay witness, but that the district court did not plainly err in allowing it; and that (4) there was no error in connection with the district court's handling of the verdict form.

Thus, while we address the issues on the merits, and agree with some of Appellant's arguments, the unchallenged evidence of guilt was nevertheless sufficient for the jury to have rendered a verdict of guilty on all counts.

Therefore, we affirm.

I.

A.Background

Between 2016 and 2019, Appellant distributed narcotics in the Lynchburg, Virginia area. He worked as both a dealer and a mid-level distributor, selling narcotics directly and buying large quantities to distribute to smaller quantity dealers. Two of Appellant's associates who are relevant to this appeal, Kenneth Adgerson and Travis Smiley, were smaller quantity dealers.

The Government presented evidence at trial to prove that Appellant was involved in distributing cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine base. That evidence included the testimony of Adgerson and Smiley; testimony regarding controlled buys conducted by Government informants; and text messages extracted from cellphones seized during the investigation into Appellant's activities.

The evidence further indicated that Appellant utilized three properties in the Lynchburg area to store drugs, including his own home and two stash houses. On February 11, 2019, law enforcement executed search warrants at each of these three properties. They seized large quantities of drugs, cash, and paraphernalia such as vacuum seal bags and scales. The drugs seized, which included cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, amounted to over $1,000,000 in street value if cut and nearly $650,000 in street value if sold undiluted.¹ The same day, Appellant was arrested at a hotel in Maryland.

Appellant was indicted in the Western District of Virginia on May 8, 2019. A ten count superseding indictment was filed on September 11, 2019. The only counts that were ultimately submitted to the jury, and which are at issue here, were:

1. Count 1 - a multi-object drug conspiracy for agreeing to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute: more than 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine; more than 500 grams of a mixture containing cocaine hydrochloride; more than 100 grams of a mixture containing heroin; and cocaine base;

2. Count 5 - distributing a detectable amount of cocaine on December 7, 2017;

3. Count 6 - distributing a detectable amount of cocaine on December 29, 2017;

4. Count 8 - distributing a detectable amount of cocaine on November 1, 2018.

J.A. 31-32.²

Prior to trial, Appellant moved to suppress two groups of evidence now at issue in this appeal. First, Appellant moved to suppress evidence gathered from two cellphones -- only one of which was ultimately introduced at trial -- which were seized from the hotel room where Appellant was arrested. Appellant argued that law enforcement did not have a warrant to seize these cellphones and that the seizure did not fall under the warrant exception for a search incident to arrest. Second, Appellant moved to suppress evidence, including cash, cellphones, and expensive jewelry, collected during the post-arrest search of a Jaguar parked in the hotel parking garage. Appellant argued that there was not probable cause to search the Jaguar.

For reasons detailed below, the district court judge denied Appellant's motions to suppress.

B.Uncontested Evidence Introduced at Trial

At trial, Appellant's defense was that, while there was evidence of his having distributed cocaine, he was not guilty of possession with intent to distribute or conspiring to distribute the other drugs, namely, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine base. But the Government introduced considerable evidence to the contrary. That evidence included witness testimony of Appellant's drug distribution associates, recordings of undercover drug transactions, and incriminating text messages. The Government also introduced physical evidence -- including kilograms of methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin, tens of thousands of dollars of cash, and a ledger memorializing drug transactions.

1.Controlled Buys

Law enforcement monitored seven controlled buys of cocaine from Appellant between August 2017 and January 2019. An informant named Brandon Hubbard was used for five of the controlled buys, and he testified to obtaining cocaine from Appellant. For the November 1, 2018 and January 2019 controlled buys, the Government used an informant named Jaimz Bowman, sometimes referred to as "Biggs," who also testified at trial regarding his transactions with Appellant. An investigator with the Lynchburg Police Department, Christopher Booth, also testified at trial regarding these controlled buys.

2.Expert Testimony

Detective Matthew Knabb was qualified as an expert in drug trafficking. He testified as to the quantities and prices of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine typically sold at the user and distributor levels. He explained the mechanics of drug trafficking and sale, the process of cutting drugs with other substances in order to multiply their gross weights for distribution, and the use of stash houses to avoid detection by other dealers and law enforcement. Detective Knabb also testified that drug dealing is a cash business and that drug dealers typically communicate via cellphones, often in coded language. He further testified that drugs are sometimes sold on consignment, which means the dealer provides drugs to the buyer with the understanding that they will be paid at a later date. And Detective Knabb testified as to the definitions of common slang in the drug trade. That slang included "zip" (ounce), "half" (half ounce), "quarter" (quarter ounce), "brick" (kilogram), "powder, soft, blow" (cocaine), "food or dog food" (heroin), "cream or ice cream or fast" (methamphetamine), "work" (drugs), "ticket" (price of drugs), "band" (stack of a thousand dollars), "fire" (high purity drugs), and "plug" (source of supply). J.A. 660-62.

3.Co-conspirator Testimony

a.Kenneth Adgerson

Adgerson testified regarding the history of his and Appellant's partnership in the drug trade. Their partnership began in 2016, when Appellant told Adgerson that Appellant could supply him drugs. During their initial meeting, Adgerson bought an ounce of cocaine from Appellant, and Appellant also sold Adgerson two ounces of cocaine on consignment. Adgerson testified that he knew the substance Appellant sold was cocaine because he was an experienced user, tried the drugs, and deemed them high quality. Adgerson also testified that he sold the cocaine...