United States v. Denton

Citation944 F.3d 170
Decision Date25 November 2019
Docket NumberNo. 18-4404,18-4404
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. James Curtis DENTON, Defendant – Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

ARGUED: Kelly Margolis Dagger, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Evan M. Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Paul K. Sun, Jr., ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Wynn joined. Judge Wynn wrote a separate concurring opinion.

KING, Circuit Judge:

Following a jury trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, defendant James Curtis Denton was convicted of conspiring to distribute fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in contravention of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (the "drug conspiracy offense"). Denton was also convicted of possessing an unregistered destructive device, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), transporting an explosive while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(3), and transporting an explosive with knowledge and intent to kill, injure, or intimidate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(d) (collectively, the "explosive offenses"). On appeal, Denton primarily challenges his conviction on the drug conspiracy offense, arguing that the evidence fails to establish that he conspired to distribute fifty grams of methamphetamine and that the jury instructions were fatally defective.1 Denton also pursues other contentions of evidentiary error with respect to the drug conspiracy and explosive offenses. As explained below, we reject each of Denton’s contentions and affirm the judgment.

I.
A.

Denton, who grew up in and around Johnson and Wake Counties in North Carolina, first met Kristi Hicks in 2006. They were married in 2008. Shortly thereafter, they had two children together. But starting in 2010, Denton and Hicks separated several times because of Denton’s "temper and his drinking." See J.A. 169.2 Denton and Hicks’s longest period of separation lasted for almost a year, from 2012 to 2013. In March 2014, after attempting to reconcile, Hicks — frightened by Denton’s worsening temper and suspected drug use — left Denton for good. By July 2015, Denton and Hicks were divorced.

While they were separated — first, from 2012 to 2013 and, later, in 2014 — Denton and Hicks both dated other people. But Denton did not like it when Hicks dated other men. He threatened Hicks and the men that she dated, often becoming violent. On one occasion — during their 2012 to 2013 separation — Denton drove from Charlotte to Raleigh, North Carolina, to disrupt a dinner date between Hicks and Nathan Baker. At the restaurant, Denton placed Baker in a chokehold and warned him never to see Hicks again. Another time, Denton waited at Baker’s apartment for Hicks and Baker to return from attending New Year’s Eve festivities. When the couple arrived at Baker’s apartment, Denton tackled Baker, causing him to tumble down a flight of stairs. Baker’s injuries from the fall required stitches.

In October 2014, after separating from Denton permanently, Hicks began dating Curtis Chase Farmer. And as he had with Baker, Denton threatened and ultimately became violent with Farmer. At first, Denton would send threatening text messages to Farmer through Facebook Messenger. In one message, Denton warned Farmer: "You have spent 2 weekend with a man wife who he still cares about so if I was you and in joyed waking up everyday I would walk away and never go back and just for my health I wouldn’t even tell her about this text and if you are as smart as I think you are you well do the right thing." See J.A. 214-15.

Additionally, Denton stalked and threatened Hicks. He made threatening phone calls and sent threatening text messages "all the time." See J.A. 184. And on the night of October 11, 2014, Denton attempted to force his way into Hicks’s home. Hicks continued to receive threatening phone calls and text messages thereafter. On October 27, 2014, based on Denton’s incessant abuse, Hicks obtained a domestic violence protection order against Denton. The order remained effective for two years and, among other things, prohibited Denton from contacting Hicks in-person, by phone, or by e-mail. Denton, however, was undeterred. Especially pertinent here, in early May 2015, Denton violated the protection order by calling Hicks from an unknown number. Hicks told Denton to stop attempting to contact her and ended the call.

Later that month, on May 28, 2015, Farmer — who was then living with Hicks — left their home on Moneta Lane in Cary, North Carolina, to get gas and cigarettes. Because Denton had previously damaged cars belonging to men that Hicks dated, Farmer inspected his Ford Explorer before getting into it. Once satisfied that the Explorer was safe to drive, Farmer climbed in and drove out of the neighborhood. He did not get far. When Farmer was "30 or 40 yards from the end of the neighborhood," he "felt and noticed a big boom" that "lifted [his] car off the ground." See J.A. 158. A neighbor, David Riggs, who was driving behind Farmer, observed a nearby object that he believed had been lodged in the Explorer’s tailpipe. Riggs picked up the object — "an inch and a half diameter PVC pipe" with "gunpowder granules in the bottom of the pipe" — and immediately knew that it was a pipe bomb. Id. at 165-66. In the ensuing investigation, law enforcement identified Denton as the primary suspect.

B.

One day after the pipe-bomb explosion, on May 29, 2015, Denton was arrested for violating Hicks’s domestic violence protection order. Incident to Denton’s arrest, a cell phone belonging to him was located on his person. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers applied for and received a warrant to search his cell phone. The results of that search suggested that Denton had been involved in drug trafficking activity. More specifically, investigators uncovered Facebook messages in which Denton discussed trafficking methamphetamine and other drugs with numerous individuals.

Based on those incriminating messages, investigators subpoenaed Facebook for the records from Denton’s Facebook account. At trial, those records and the accompanying business record certification from Facebook were admitted into evidence without objection. Investigators also subpoenaed Google and Time Warner Cable for subscriber and IP address information relating to the e-mail address youknowbetter091@gmail.com. Months after the explosion, Denton — masquerading as Farmer — had used that e-mail address to send a threatening e-mail message to Hicks that "basically [said] that [she] should let the kids see their dad, that everybody will be better off if [she] just do[es] what he wants." See J.A. 226. Google’s and Time Warner Cable’s records indicated that youknowbetter091@gmail.com was registered to "Curtis Farmer"; however, the threatening e-mail was sent from an IP address affiliated with the name "Carolina Auto Recovery Specialists" — a business owned by Denton’s brother. As with the Facebook records, those records and accompanying business record certifications were later admitted into evidence at trial without objection.

The search of Denton’s cell phone also connected him to Marcus Williams ("M. Williams"), a suspected methamphetamine cook. On November 13, 2015, investigators executed a search warrant at M. Williams’s house in Garner, North Carolina. The search uncovered various paraphernalia required to manufacture methamphetamine using the "shake-and-bake" method, plus methamphetamine residue and pseudoephedrine pills. Suspecting that Denton was involved with M. Williams’s methamphetamine manufacturing operation, the investigators obtained Denton’s and his then-girlfriend, Angela Trogdon’s records from the National Precursor Log Exchange (the "NPLEx"), which is a national pseudoephedrine tracking database.

Pseudoephedrine

is an active ingredient in certain formulations of over-the-counter cold medicine and an essential ingredient for cooking methamphetamine. Because pseudoephedrine is a precursor for methamphetamine, most of the states have limited the amount of pseudoephedrine that a single individual can purchase. In North Carolina, an individual’s pseudoephedrine purchases cannot exceed 3.6 grams per day — about one or two boxes of cold medicine — or nine grams per month, and all purchases are recorded in the NPLEx. See J.A. 290-91; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-113.52A(a), 90-113.53(a) - (b). If an individual’s NPLEx records indicate that he has already reached the daily or monthly pseudoephedrine purchase limit, North Carolina retailers are prohibited from selling additional pseudoephedrine to that individual. See J.A. 291; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-113.52A(a). Because the manufacture of methamphetamine requires a lot of pseudoephedrine, these purchase limits force methamphetamine cooks to enlist others to procure boxes of cold medicine. To that end, law enforcement agencies often use NPLEx records to identify those individuals whose pseudoephedrine purchase patterns suggest their involvement in a conspiracy to produce methamphetamine.

According to Denton’s NPLEx records, Denton successfully purchased thirteen boxes of pseudoephedrine between January 2014 and January 2015. And his records revealed that in December 2014 he was blocked from purchasing pseudoephedrine

because he had already exceeded the monthly purchase limit. The NPLEx records for Trogdon, showed that she also purchased twelve boxes of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • United States v. Medley
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 21, 2020
    ......Ct. at 1343 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Denton , 944 F.3d 170, 185 (4th Cir. 2019). Under this standard, " ‘the fact that an error is not harmless does not necessarily mean it’ affected the defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Hastings , 134 F.3d 235, 240 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. McKinney , 954 F.2d 471, ......
  • United States v. Brizuela
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 19, 2020
    ...Siegel , 536 F.3d 306, 316 (4th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Stitt , 250 F.3d 878, 887 (4th Cir. 2001) ; see also United States v. Denton , 944 F.3d 170, 186 (4th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Lipford , 203 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2000).8 Our "complete the story" decisions reflect case-by-......
  • United States v. Muslim
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 25, 2019
  • United States v. Hunt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 15, 2021
    ...directed' to be considered testimonial." Id. (quoting Ellis, 460 F.3d at 927). Other circuits have agreed. See United States v. Denton, 944 F.3d 170, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2019); United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...trial); U.S. v. Martoma, 894 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2017) (same); U.S. v. Fattah, 914 F.3d 112, 172 (3d Cir. 2019) (same); U.S. v. Denton, 944 F.3d 170, 182 (4th Cir. 2019) (same); U.S. v. Velasquez, 881 F.3d 314, 340 (5th Cir. 2018) (same); U.S. v. Steele, 919 F.3d 965, 971 (6th Cir. 2019) (......
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...therapist were nontestimonial because purpose of visits was to receive therapy, not to create record for criminal case); U.S. v. Denton, 944 F.3d 170, 184 (4th Cir. 2019) (business record certif‌ications from internet companies were nontestimonial because purpose of records was not to provi......
  • Expert Testimony and Crawford
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 34-4-2, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 at 664 (2011). [16] Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 at 660 (2011). [17] United States v. Denton, 944 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2019). [18] State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324 at 341, 751 S.E.2d 645 at 654 ( 2013) (quotation omitted). [19] Williams v. Illinois, 567 ......

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