United States v. Miller

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LYNDON FACISCO MILLER

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date published: Feb 23, 2015

CRIMINAL NO. MJG-13-0342 (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2015)

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. MJG-13-0342

02-23-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LYNDON FACISCO MILLER

Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Court has before it Defendant's Motion For Judgement (sic) of Acquittal Federal (sic) of Crim. Procedure 29 [Document 196] and Defendant's Supplemental Motion Motion (sic) For Judgement (sic) Of Acquittal Federal (sic) of Crim. Procedure 29 [Document 199]. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.

Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

In the Order Re: Motion to File Motion [Document 187] the Court granted leave to Defendant Miller to file, by February 13, 2015, "any motion seeking acquittal on the ground that the Government has failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain his conviction."

Defendant Miller timely has filed the instant Motions. In each, he states that he seeks acquittal "on the grounds that the evidence presented during trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction." [Document 196] at 1; [Document 199] at 1.

Defendant Miller does not, however, address in his Motions the adequacy of the evidence presented at trial to sustain a conviction. Indeed, since the evidence included, among other things, audio and video recordings of Defendant Miller engaged in the very crimes at issue, there would appear to be little to say regarding the adequacy of the evidence to prove the charges.

Instead, Defendant Miller, in the instant Motions, asserts:

• That the Court should have suppressed evidence admitted at trial;



• That the Indictment was defective because the copies given to Defendant did not bear the signature of the grand jury foreperson;



• That he was "forced to go pro se;"



• That he was rushed to trial; and



• That the police officers stole some of the drugs found in his possession.

[Document 196] at 4-5, 12, 22-24]; [Document 199] at 9-10.

The instant Motions may not be utilized by Defendant Miller to reargue contentions considered, and rejected, by the Court, i.e. relating to the suppression of evidence. Nor may the Motions be used to present grounds for acquittal other than the alleged inadequacy of the trial evidence, i.e. his other contentions.

Defendant Miller can present all the contentions he has presented in the instant Motions, and such other contentions as he may wish to add thereto, in an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

However, the Court finds that the evidence presented at trial was adequate to enable a reasonable jury to find Defendant Miller guilty of all charges upon which he was convicted.

Accordingly:

1. Defendant's Motion For Judgement (sic) of Acquittal Federal (sic) of Crim. Procedure 29 [Document 196] is DENIED.



2. Defendant's Supplemental Motion Motion (sic) For Judgement (sic) Of Acquittal Federal (sic) of Crim. Procedure 29 [Document 199] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, on Monday, February 23, 2015.

/s/_________

Marvin J. Garbis

United States District Judge