United States v. Junkins
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-4380 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT MICHAEL JUNKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 21, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey District Judge. (2:18-cr-00030-JPB-MJA-1)
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia for Appellant.
Randolph J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Brandon S. Flower, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ, MOTZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Robert Junkins was arrested, convicted, and sentenced for drug-related crimes in West Virginia. This appeal arises from the district court's denial of Junkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during two traffic stops, which he claims were unlawful. Junkins also challenges his sentence, claiming that the district court erred in calculating his converted drug weight. We reject these arguments and affirm the district court's judgment.
On August 1, 2017, officers Jason Carlson and Lee Goad received a call requesting a welfare check on two people in a red Mustang parked at a restaurant. They'd been unconscious for a spell but then got up and began taking pictures of themselves and other people. The officers arrived in time to watch the Mustang pull onto a public road, so they followed it to check on the driver. While trailing after the Mustang, the officers saw what looked like a straw fly out of the passenger window and observed that the car's license plate was obstructed. They then initiated a traffic stop.
Carlson approached the driver, Junkins, informed him of the nature of the stop, and asked for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. Junkins was agitated and belligerent, but handed over his license and a receipt that showed he had traded another car for the Mustang. Junkins didn't have proof of insurance, but Carlson allowed him to call his wife, who Junkins claimed could text him a picture of the insurance card. While Junkins was trying to contact his wife, Carlson ran the Mustang's registration and, after some trouble, confirmed it was valid.
Carlson returned to the Mustang and informed Junkins of the initial welfare complaint. Junkins again became belligerent and uncooperative. Junkins didn't answer when Carlson asked if there was anything in the Mustang he should be worried about and if he could search the car. At this point, Carlson requested a canine unit, which had to complete a stop nearby before it could report to the scene.
"[A] couple minutes" later, Junkins received a picture of the insurance card from his wife. J.A. 122. But the insurance card was for a different vehicle, so Carlson called the insurance company to verify that the Mustang was insured under the same policy. During what was a "lengthy telephone call" with the insurance company, the canine unit arrived at the scene. J.A. 125. While the dog was sniffing the car for drugs, Carlson received verification that the Mustang was insured. Carlson was still in his vehicle writing citations for obstructed registration and littering when the dog alerted to the driver's side door. 1[] The officers then searched the Mustang and found narcotics, a gun, and drug paraphernalia.[2] On direct examination, Carlson confirmed that he "[did] everything [he] could to speed things along" during the traffic stop. J.A. 131.
More than a year later, on November 30, 2018, officers Daniel Sayre and Ryan Summerfield noticed a black Mercury parked in front of a convenience store with its engine running and expired registration tags. The only entrance and exit to the store parking lot connected to a public roadway. The officers ran the license plate number and confirmed with dispatch that the tags were expired. The officers then initiated a traffic stop.
As the officers approached the Mercury, they saw its occupants making furtive movements "towards the front of themselves, around the floorboards of the vehicle." J.A. 302. Sayre asked the driver, Junkins, for identification, but he couldn't find it after erratically searching. Because "he appeared to be nervous," Sayre asked Junkins to step out of the car. J.A. 303. Junkins complied, and Sayre saw drug paraphernalia on the floorboard as the car door opened.
Following a scuffle, the officers detained Junkins and his passenger, and then they searched the car. They found a gun, drug paraphernalia, and a small amount of meth. In an interview at the police station following the search and arrest, Junkins made incriminating statements about there being some meth in his car, owning the gun, and his "involvement in the drug trade." J.A. 290.
A grand jury indicted Junkins on seven counts: counts one, four, and six charged Junkins with possession with intent to distribute meth in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); count two charged him with possession of a gun during and in relation to a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and counts three, five, and seven charged him with unlawful possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
Junkins moved to suppress the evidence seized during the November 30 traffic stop (which led to counts one, two, and three) and the August 1 traffic stop (which led to counts four and five), claiming that it was obtained "through illegal searches and subsequent questioning." J.A. 20. The district court denied the motion, concluding that both traffic stops were lawful. Junkins also moved to suppress evidence found during a search of his home (which led to counts six and seven), but the court eventually dismissed these counts on the government's motion.
After a two-day trial, a jury found Junkins guilty of the remaining five counts.
At sentencing, the government called a cooperating defendant ("CD") as a witness.[3]CD is a drug addict and felon who agreed to cooperate with the government as part of a plea agreement. CD had known Junkins "[s]ince 2003, 2002" and called him his "brother." J.A. 657. CD testified that Junkins gave him meth for free, it. J.A. 663. CD also testified that although he couldn't "say that [Junkins] ever sold [him] any drugs," he gave Junkins some money when he could. Id. CD received an eighth of an ounce of meth from Junkins every other day for "[a]t least two months." J.A. 675. This quantity increased to a quarter ounce after two months and, all in all, Junkins gave CD drugs for "[a] good year, year and a half." J.A. 664. CD testified that he once saw "a piece of meth as big as your arm" in Junkins's bedroom, which "was a pound itself, easily." J.A. 667, 673. CD also recalled two instances during which he accompanied Junkins on drug deliveries. CD estimated the quantity of one such delivery was "close to a kilo." J.A. 670.
After CD testified, the district court continued the hearing so that it could examine the effect of a recent Supreme Court ruling in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) on the gun charges. The court ultimately dismissed counts three and five on the government's motion.
At the continued sentencing hearing, the court calculated Junkins's drug weight by relying on CD's testimony (and the testimony of one other witness) and accounting for the drugs seized in the traffic stops. The court attributed 54, 127 kilograms of converted drug weight to Junkins, significantly less than the 83, 344 kilograms that the probation office attributed to him in the presentence report.[4] The court calculated Junkins's base offense level to be 36 as to counts one and four. The court also "added two levels for maintaining a drug-involved premises," bringing Junkins's total offense level to 38, which, under the Guidelines, corresponds with a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months in prison. J.A. 699. The court sentenced Junkins to 240 months for counts one and four and 60 months for count two, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of 300 months in prison.
This appeal followed.
Junkins appeals both the denial of his motions to suppress and his sentence. We address each in turn.
Junkins claims that all the evidence collected during and after the two traffic stops should have been suppressed because the stops themselves were unlawful. In reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress, "we review legal determinations de novo and the court's underlying factual findings for clear error." United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 2018). When, as here, the district court has denied the defendant's motion, we view the "facts in the light most favorable to the government." United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 644 (4th Cir. 2016). Additionally, we review de novo whether use converted drug weight to standardize the amounts of the various drugs before calculating a sentence using the Guidelines' drug weight table. See U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(c) cmt. n.8(B). The converted drug weight calculation involves multiplying the amount of a drug actually found (in grams) by the number of kilograms assigned to that specific substance, according to U.S.S.G. § 2D.1.1(c) cmt. n.8(D) (). an officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).
When an officer temporarily detains someone during a traffic stop the...
To continue reading
Request your trial