UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KELI DUNNICAN - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KELI DUNNICAN

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jun 9, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Kevin M. Cafferkey, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Keli Dunnican, Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, pro se.

Judge(s): SUTTON, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Keli Dunnican appeals a judgment of conviction for the charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Count I); possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) (Count II); and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count III). Dunnican argues that the district court plainly erred in allowing the government to introduce under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(14) certain data extracted from his cellular telephone. He also contends that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to introduce under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) certain text messages from his cellular telephone, allowing Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Shaun Moses to offer expert opinion testimony that the marijuana found in Dunnican’s car appeared to be packaged for distribution, denying Dunnican’s motion for judgment of acquittal, denying his motion for a new trial following the dismissal of a jury member, and imposing a 21-month upward variance on Dunnican’s sentence.

Because we find no error in the district court’s rejection of Dunnican’s Rule 902(14) argument, and we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings related to his other arguments, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in full.

Attachments: