UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAJ MAURICE PITTMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00489-TDS-1; 1:09-cr-00159-
TDS-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taj Maurice Pittman appeals a criminal judgment
challenging his conviction and 609 month custodial sentence. A
jury found Pittman guilty of two counts of bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), two counts of armed
bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006),
two counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii),
(c)(1)(C)(i) (2006), and three counts of interference with
commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006).
The charges arose from the robbery of two banks and three
General Nutrition Center stores in the Middle District of North
Carolina. We affirm.
Pittman asserts that admission of certain testimony
during his trial was unfairly prejudicial. We review a trial
court’s ruling on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir.
2011). Relevant evidence is generally admissible, but “may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste
of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.
R. Evid. 402, 403. However, “Rule 403 is a rule of inclusion,
generally favoring admissibility.” United States v. Udeozor,
2
515 F.3d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted). When assessing a Rule 403 challenge on
appeal, we “look at the evidence in a light most favorable to
its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its
prejudicial effect.” United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154,
157 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We find all of the challenged evidence to be relevant
and none of it to be unfairly prejudicial. To the extent it
related to uncharged conduct, it was properly admitted to
establish Pittman’s identity as the robber. Pittman fails to
convince us that the district court abused its discretion in
admitting the challenged testimony.
Pittman also appeals the district court’s denials of
his motions for mistrial. “[D]enial of a defendant’s motion for
a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the district court
and will be disturbed only under the most extraordinary of
circumstances.” United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 257
(4th Cir. 1997). An abuse of discretion will be found only upon
a showing of prejudice. United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327,
330 (4th Cir. 2008). Pittman fails to demonstrate that any of
the improper testimony resulted in prejudice. Thus, we find no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings.
Pittman raises a number of challenges to his
sentences. First, we find that the district court did not err
3
in imposing Pittman’s two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) sentences
consecutively to one another. The statute requires consecutive
imposition. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii); see also United
States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005).
“No matter what provides the basis for a deviation
from the Guidelines range[,] we review the resulting sentence
only for reasonableness.” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155,
164 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007)). In our reasonableness review, we apply an abuse of
discretion standard. United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d
359, 363 (4th Cir. 2011). We find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s departure; nor do we find Pittman’s cumulative
sentence of 609 months’ imprisonment to be unreasonable. The
district court provided a cogent rationale for the sentence
imposed. We will not disturb it.
We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4