United States v. Caldwell

Citation7 F.4th 191
Decision Date03 August 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-4019,19-4019
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Anthony Lamont CALDWELL, Defendant - Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

ARGUED: Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William T. Stetzer, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Richardson joined.

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Anthony Caldwell appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for charges related to bank robbery and firearm possession. He raises numerous challenges to his convictions, including to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and to various evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

I.

On the evening of December 9, 2016, two young men wearing dark clothing, masks, and gloves entered a Wells Fargo bank in Charlotte, North Carolina. Each was armed with a revolver. They stole nearly $5,800 in cash from the bank's tellers before fleeing in a car. The pair were later identified as Michael Cole and Rahshie Mitchell, both of whom were minors at the time. Unbeknownst to them, two GPS tracking devices were embedded in the stolen cash.

Two officers tracked the GPS signal to an address within a couple miles of the bank, where they stopped and exited their vehicle. One of the officers heard rustling in the woods and, turning to look, witnessed three individuals running away. The officers began to pursue, but for safety reasons decided to call in backup, including K-9 and helicopter units. Those additional units arrived within minutes, and the K-9 handler announced that a search with the dog would commence. The police presence was not subtle: between their flashlights, the blue lights and spotlights on their cars, the helicopter above, and the sounds of communications between the officers on site and over the radio, it would have been clear to anyone in the area that the police were there and were engaged in a manhunt.

Nevertheless, Caldwell remained hidden, shielding himself amid vines and weeds along a fence. One officer "walked right past" Caldwell in the brush, only noticing him when the police dog alerted to his presence. J.A. 1252.1 The K-9 unit ultimately apprehended Caldwell, with the dog biting his arm in the process. A black bag containing nearly all of the missing cash as well as one of the GPS trackers was found underneath Caldwell.

Caldwell told the police he had been carjacked by two men while sitting in a Chevrolet Impala near the Wells Fargo. At trial, he testified that the carjackers had pistol-whipped him several times and forced him to flee with them; that he passed out from being hit in the head; and that he only woke up when the police dog bit him.

The officers were not convinced by Caldwell's story and arrested him. They continued the search, but were unsuccessful in locating Cole and Mitchell. Arrest warrants were eventually issued for the two teenagers after DNA evidence linked each of them to the robbery.

Shortly after arresting Caldwell, officers found the Impala nearby. In plain view in the back seat were a black jacket, a North Carolina license plate, and a black revolver. The car's rear sported an invalid temporary license plate.2 Officers located a black hooded sweatshirt and glove along the fence, as well as a ski mask on the ground next to the vehicle. They also found "two loose $20 bills of U.S. currency, a cash wrapper that would go around a stack of bills, and [the other GPS] cash tracker" in the front yard of the address where the suspects had fled. J.A. 1280.

The officers sealed the vehicle at the scene before towing it to the law enforcement center, where they searched it after obtaining a warrant. A search of the passenger compartment revealed a "large black jacket, the black Rohm revolver, [a] black ski mask, [a] black toboggan, [and] black gloves." J.A. 1314. However, officers did not search the vehicle's trunk because the car battery was dead, rendering the trunk-opening mechanism inoperable.

After the initial search, police moved the vehicle to an impound lot. Nearly two weeks later, on December 22, detectives jump-started the car's battery and opened the trunk. The trunk contained a silver revolver, black gloves, and a black skullcap.

On November 14, 2017, a federal grand jury returned a four-count superseding indictment charging Caldwell with conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (Count I); bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(a) and (d) (Count II); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c) (Count III); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count IV). Caldwell pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial.

Caldwell filed a motion to suppress all the evidence found in his vehicle, alleging that the searches violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. After conducting a hearing, the district court denied the motion, and a jury trial commenced in January 2018. After deliberating, the jurors reported a split vote, leading the district court to declare a mistrial.

The case was retried. During the second trial, Cole and Mitchell each testified that they had known Caldwell before the robbery and that he had recruited them to commit the crime, including providing weapons and details about the bank. They also testified that Caldwell served as the getaway driver. Caldwell testified on his own behalf, claiming that he had not previously known Cole and Mitchell and repeating his story that they carjacked and pistol-whipped him.

The jury returned a guilty verdict on all four Counts. As to Count III, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, the jury found that Caldwell (or others aided and abetted by him) brandished the firearm.

The district court sentenced Caldwell to 284 months imprisonment: 60 months on Count I and 200 months on Counts II and IV, all to be served concurrently, followed by 84 months on Count III, to be served consecutively. Caldwell timely filed a notice of appeal.

II.

Caldwell raises numerous challenges to the district court's handling of his motions before, during, and after trial, as well as to its evidentiary rulings and trial-management decisions. Further, for the first time in his reply brief, Caldwell argues that two recent Supreme Court decisions require us to vacate his firearm convictions. We find none of his arguments persuasive and therefore affirm.

A.

We begin with Caldwell's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In evaluating this claim, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Vaughan , 700 F.3d 705, 709 (4th Cir. 2012).

Caldwell alleges that both searches of the vehicle were illegal: the December 9 search because the police neglected to follow proper warrant procedures, and the December 22 search of the trunk because the warrant was no longer valid and no exigent circumstances applied.3 The district court concluded that under the automobile exception, a warrantless search of the vehicle "as it sat in the woods on the night of [the] robbery" would have been justified, and that the police also could have conducted an inventory search of the vehicle at the police station or after the car was impounded. United States v. Caldwell , No. 3:17-cr-00040-MOC-DSC, 2018 WL 491782, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2018). We conclude that the automobile exception justified both searches.4

Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers are generally required to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. Maryland v. Dyson , 527 U.S. 465, 466, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (per curiam). However, the automobile exception allows police to conduct a warrantless search of a readily mobile vehicle if they have probable cause to do so. Id. at 467, 119 S.Ct. 2013. Probable cause "exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found." Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

Probable cause was present here. The officers located the Impala at the site where they had followed the GPS trackers immediately after the robbery. An officer viewed three individuals fleeing the scene. Despite the significant commotion and large police presence, Caldwell did not call out for officer assistance, and instead was only located by a police dog—which found him hidden in brush on top of a bag containing a GPS tracker and $5,614 of the $5,791.60 that had been stolen. Police observed that the vehicle had an invalid temporary license plate, with a permanent license plate on its back seat. They located a black hooded sweatshirt, a glove, loose currency, a cash wrapper, and a second GPS tracker on the ground in close proximity to the vehicle, and a ski mask on the ground next to it. They observed a revolver and black jacket in plain view on the back seat. The clothing and revolver matched the general description of that used by the robbers. Caldwell himself claimed that he had been carjacked in the Impala, by individuals the police had strong reason to believe had perpetrated the bank robbery.

These numerous observations gave the officers probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained evidence related to the bank robbery. Therefore, pursuant to the automobile exception, they were entitled to search the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • United States v. Heyward
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 3 Agosto 2022
    ...punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." 139 S. Ct. at 2197–98 (quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Caldwell , 7 F.4th 191, 213 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that "[s]uch a defendant may not have been aware of what punishments were permitted for his prior convictio......
  • Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Abril 2022
    ...2017) ("A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief ...." (citation omitted)); United States v. Caldwell , 7 F.4th 191, 212 n.16 (4th Cir. 2021) ("Any other arguments raised for the first time in [a] Reply Brief, however, we deem waived." (citation omitted)). Bu......
  • Mayor of Balt. v. BP P.L.C
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Abril 2022
    ... ... Defendants. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE ... Kelly, Jonathan Biran, BAKER DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL ... & BERKOWITZ, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants ... Chevron Corporation and ... ...
  • BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Organisation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 15 Marzo 2022
    ...of foundation, are reviewed under regional circuit law, which here is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. ; United States v. Caldwell , 7 F.4th 191, 202, 204 (4th Cir. 2021). With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court's action, taken after it made an evidentiary ruling abo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT