UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONZELL W. BIGGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00025-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: August 8, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney,
David E. Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donzell W. Biggs entered a conditional guilty plea,
pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of assaulting a federal
employee with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111
(a), (b) (2000). Biggs agreed to plead guilty after the district
court granted the Government’s motion in limine that sought to
preclude Biggs from asserting at trial the defenses of necessity,
justification, or self-defense. At sentencing, the district court
denied Biggs’ request for a downward departure and sentenced him to
eighty months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release,
and a $100 special assessment. Biggs timely appealed. We affirm.
On appeal, Biggs argues that the district court erred in
granting the Government’s motion in limine because the facts
supported the affirmative defenses of necessity, justification, or
self-defense. A trial court’s refusal to allow an affirmative
defense raises a question of law, reviewable de novo. See United
States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869, 871 (4th Cir. 1995). This court has
also held that if “an affirmative defense consists of several
elements and testimony supporting one element is insufficient to
sustain it even if believed, the trial court and jury need not be
burdened with testimony supporting other elements of the defense.”
United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1994). Our
review of the record convinces us that the district court correctly
2
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to allow Biggs to
assert the requested defenses at trial.
Accordingly, we affirm Biggs’ conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3