USCA4 Appeal: 23-4588 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREG SNIDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00074-TSK-MJA-18)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James T. Kratovil, KRATOVIL LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4588 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In September 2023, a jury convicted Greg Snider of conspiracy to distribute

controlled substances, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846; and aiding

and abetting the maintaining of drug-involved premises, in violation of

(a)(2) and

. Snider was later sentenced to 180 months in prison. In this

court, Snider asserts that the district court erred when, during voir dire, the court failed to

excuse four potential jurors “who had family and/or employment ties to the Government.”

(Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 18) at 23). We affirm.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right to trial by an

impartial jury. A district court therefore must exclude those prospective jurors “who

cannot be impartial,” meaning those jurors who cannot “lay aside [their] opinion[s] and

render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” United States v. Turner,

(4th Cir. 2004) (citing Patton v. Yount,

, 1037 n.12 (1984)).

“Under our system[,] it is the trial judge who is best situated to determine competency to

serve impartially.” Id. at 115 (cleaned up). A district court therefore “has very broad

discretion in deciding whether to excuse a juror for cause and his decision will not be

overturned except for manifest abuse of that discretion.” Poynter by Poynter v. Ratcliff,

(4th Cir. 1989).

Upon review of the record, which we have considered in conjunction with the

parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Indeed,

all four jurors unequivocally asserted that they could render an unbiased verdict based on

the evidence presented at trial. We thus hold that the district court acted within its

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4588 Doc: 26 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

discretion to presume that each juror could render a fair and impartial verdict. See

(recognizing that “[a] juror is presumed impartial and the existence of a preconception

is insufficient to rebut this presumption if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion

and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); see also United States v. Umana,

(4th Cir. 2014) (“A juror’s

generally favorable impression of law enforcement does not necessarily amount to bias any

more than does a juror’s personal association with law enforcement.”); United States v.

LaRouche,

(4th Cir. 1990) (“[C]ase law . . . refuses to establish a per se

rule excluding any person who has had an association with an investigatory agency.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3