Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4083
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SELVIN DARIO NAJERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00066-GEC-2)
Submitted:
October 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.
and
MOTZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
November 14, 2014
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., P.C., Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellant.
Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, R.
Andrew Bassford, Laura Day Rottenborn, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Selvin Dario Najera was convicted, after a jury trial,
of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
sentenced
him
to
235
months
The district court
imprisonment.
He
now
appeals,
asserting that the district court erred by denying his motion

for a bill of particulars and by allowing the testimony of his
daughter, which he contends contained inadmissible hearsay.
He
also challenges his sentence, arguing that the court erred in

determining
the
weight
of
the
drugs
attributable
to
him,
enhancing his sentence based on a finding that he obstructed

justice, and denying him the safety valve sentencing reduction,
18 U.S.C. 3553(f) (2012).
Concluding that the district court
did not err, we affirm Najeras conviction and sentence.

Najera
that
the
moved
United
for
States
a
be
bill
of
particulars,
directed
to
requesting
specify
when
the
conspiracy is alleged to have begun and on what dates he was

alleged to have distributed methamphetamine.
this
information
present
any
was
alibi
necessary
defense.
to
prepare
Because
the
He asserted that
a
defense
Government
and
to
provided
Najera with full discovery and because Najera failed to show

that he suffered any unfair surprise, United States v. Jackson,
757
F.2d
1486,
1491
(4th
Cir.
1985),
we
conclude
that
the
district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

this was a discovery issue and denying the motion for a bill of
2
particulars.
See United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135,
1153 (4th Cir. 1986).

Najera challenges the testimony of his daughter as to
their relationship, contending that it was unfairly prejudicial.
We
find
no
abuse
of
discretion
by
the
district
court
in
admitting this evidence as relevant and determining that it was

not unfairly prejudicial.
See United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d
433, 436-38 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d
371, 383 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing standard).
the
district
courts
determination
that
We also uphold
Najeras
daughters
testimony concerning her discovery that he was involved in the

drug trade was admissible as a coconspirator statement.
See
United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 320 (4th
Cir.
1982)
existence
(requiring
and
preponderance
participation
in
of
the
conspiracy
in
evidence
of
order
for
coconspirator statement exception to hearsay rule to apply).

Najera next contends that the district court erred in
determining that, for sentencing purposes, he was responsible
for
more
than
methamphetamine.
in
its
Najera.
five,
but
less
than
fifteen
kilograms
of
We find no clear error by the district court
calculation
of
the
amount
of
drugs
attributable
to
See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th
Cir. 2002); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th
Cir. 1999).
3
Najera
also
challenges
the
two-level
enhancement
to
his sentence after the district court found that he obstructed

justice
by
committing
perjury
in
his
testimony.
We
have
reviewed the trial testimony and the findings by the district

court and find no clear error in the determination that Najera
obstructed justice by presenting perjured testimony.
See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 560 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing
standard); United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1993)
(upholding obstruction of justice enhancement for perjury).
Lastly, Najera asserts that the district court erred
by denying him the sentence reduction under the safety valve
provision of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f).
Because the district court
did not clearly err in finding that Najera committed perjury and
failed to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct, the
safety valve reduction was appropriately denied.
See United
States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly,
235-month sentence.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
we
affirm
Najeras
conviction
and
his
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

October 28, 2014

November 14, 2014

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, ESQ., P.C., Roanoke, Virginia,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

The district court

asserting that the district court erred by denying his motion

also challenges his sentence, arguing that the court erred in

enhancing his sentence based on a finding that he obstructed

Concluding that the district court

did not err, we affirm Najeras conviction and sentence.

conspiracy is alleged to have begun and on what dates he was

Najera with full discovery and because Najera failed to show

district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

See United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135,

1153 (4th Cir. 1986).

admitting this evidence as relevant and determining that it was

See United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d

testimony concerning her discovery that he was involved in the

coconspirator statement exception to hearsay rule to apply).

We find no clear error by the district court

See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th

his sentence after the district court found that he obstructed

reviewed the trial testimony and the findings by the district

Because the district court

States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.