UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4867
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD CAPERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00056-WDQ-1)
Submitted: October 31, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Susan A. Hensler, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Benjamin M. Block, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Capers was found guilty by a jury of being a
felon in possession of a weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2006). On appeal, he contests certain statements made
by the Government in closing arguments, alleging they deprived
him of a fair trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We note that a district court possesses broad
discretion to control closing argument, and its exercise of
discretion will not be overturned absent a clear abuse. United
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2010). A
defendant, to succeed on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct,
must show that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper and that
they prejudicially affected his substantial rights so as to
deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d
175, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing review factors). In this
case all but one comment is subject to plain error, as the trial
counsel failed to object to the comments at the time. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731–32
(1993).
We find no plain error committed by the district court
during closing arguments. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments
inviting the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the
victims — the so-called “golden rule” comments — we find no
abuse of discretion. The court sustained Capers’ objection to
2
the argument, and the evidence of Capers’ guilt was
overwhelming. Thus, we do not find that this argument deprived
Capers of a fair trial. Scheetz, 293 F.3d at 185.
Accordingly, we affirm Capers’ conviction. 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