US v. Clifton Mosley - Criminal Appeal Affirmed

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21- 4541 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CLIFTON MOSLEY, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the District of Ma ryland, at Baltim ore. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (1: 17 -cr- 00 667 - GJH -2) Argued: December 1 2, 2025 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, an d AGEE, Circuit Judg es. Affirmed by publishe d opinion. J udge Gregor y wrote t he opinion, in which Jud ge Niemeyer and Judge Agee jo ined. ARGUED: Richard S. Stolker, LAW OFFIC ES OF RICHAR D S. STOLKER, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellant. Jason Daniel Medinger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Marylan d, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kelly O. Hayes, United S tates Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITE D STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for App ellee.

2 GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Clifton Mosley appeals his conviction by a jury of witness - murder and marijuana trafficking. During trial, the Government presented eviden ce that Mosley was friends and drug - trafficking partners with Dav on Carter and Matthew Hightower. Hightower had been indicted for healthcare fraud and extortion, due to information provided to th e authorities by his co - worker Lisa Edmonds. Edmonds was to be a key witness in Hightower’s upcoming t rial. The Government alleges that while Hightower was detained pretrial, Mosley and Carter conspired with Hightower to murder Lisa Edmonds. Witness testimony and phone records show that Mosley and C arler were in communication with Hightower and each other, especially in the days and hou rs leading up to the murder at issue. On May 27, 2016, two hours befo re Lisa Edmonds was due to attend a court hearing, a man chased, shot, and k illed her next - door neighbor, Latrina Ash burne. The Government alleges that the shooter, Davon Carter, had mistaken Ashburne for Edmonds. Police found surveillance footage of two cars circling the neighborhood in the hour before the shooting, and eventually traced the cars as being associated with Carter and Mosley. Carter and Mosley were convicted after a 13 - day trial of witness - murd er and marijuana trafficking. Mosley now appeals his conviction on three grounds: (1) that his witness - murder charges should h ave been severed from his marijuana traf ficking charges; (2) that cell evidence found on Carter should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment; and (3) that there was insufficien t evidence for a jury conv iction.

3 Mosley fails to present sufficient gro unds to reverse the d istrict c o urt and vacate the conviction. First, the marijuana trafficking is deeply intertwined with the murder charges, because the marijuana trafficking is what connects Carter, Mo sley, and Hightower and establishes their relationship as both friends and business partners. Without the marijuana trafficking, the Government could not have proven that Carter and Mosley had motive to kill Hightower’s opposing witness. Second, Mos ley lacks standing t o bring F ourth Amendment claims for items found on Carter. And third, the evidence at trial w as cer tainly substantial enough for a conviction. For these rea sons, we affirm the d istrict c ourt and sustain the jury conviction. I. A. Clifton Mosley was a long - time friend of Matthew Hightower and Davon Carter. Before and after Hightower’s arr est, the three men sold mariju ana together, with some witnesses identifying Mosley as Hig htower’s “right - hand man,” “home boy,” and “wingman.” On June 3, 2015, Hightower was ind icted on charges of health care fraud. Hightower had been work ing as a delivery driver at RX Resources a nd Solutions (“RXRS”), a medical equipment company. In 2013, it came to light that RXRS was billing customers for supplies that were never delivered. Lisa Edmonds, Hightower’s coworker, reported this to the U.S. Department of H ealth and Human Services, eventually leading to Hightower’s indictment.

4 After the in dictment, witn esses and Hig htower began to speculate th at Lisa Edm onds was the informant. H ightower speculated that Edmonds might even have been recording them. In a recorded jail call on March 15, 2014, Hightower told Carter that the investigation into RXRS “probably all stem[med] from that lady [Edmonds]” who reported some “illegal shit going on.” JA 2387. On June 17, 2015, Hightower was granted pretrial release subject to certain restrictions, including that he should not have any contact with potential government witnesses. Nonetheless, on July 25, 2015, Hightower emailed Edmonds asking to speak, to which she declined to respond. In October 2015, Ed monds noti ced a BM W routinel y sitting outside of her house at night. Meanwhile, Hightower also spoke regularly with Mosley and Carter, as evidenced by texts and call history from his cellphone and testimony fr om witnesses. On April 19, 2016, a f ederal grand jury returned a su perseding indictment against Hightower, adding charges about extortion that ultimately led to High tower’s pretrial detention. Hightower was again instructed not to contact gov ernment witnesses, specifically includ ing Edmonds. Hightower did maintain contact with Mosley and Carter. A search of H ightower’s cell later revealed a scrap of p aper containing Mosley and Carter’s pho ne numbers under the names “Cliff” and “Davon.” Witnesses testified that in H ightower’s absence, Carter asserted that he had taken o ver the drug trafficking business. Witnesses also testified tha t after Hightower’s imprisonment, they began to buy marijuana through Mosley instead.

5 Altogether, Mosley and C arter had 148 calls, messages, an d other phone communications in May 2016, which were mostly phone calls w ith several messages coordinating meetups. On May 16, 2016, Carter and Mosley met in person. They went to breakfast together at IHOP, at which time they received a call from Hightower. During this call, Mosley assured Hightower that he was going to “beat” the charges. He also p romised Hightower, “[E]veryt hing g oing to be good, yo .. .. You know what I mean? I’m gonna hold you down. You know what I mean? On my end.” JA 2407. Importantly, while Mosley w as traveling with Carter that mo rning, Carter got a speeding ticket while drivin g a 2008 s ilver Audi with a rear Maryland tag, b ut was missing a front license plate and instead had a Europea n - style tag. Mosley and Carter met agai n on May 17, 2016. This time they included Shayne Bi rd, who knew Hightower from wh en they were incarcerated. Bird owned a towing company. Bird testified that during the meeting, Mosley and Carter asked Bird whether he cou ld tow one of Hightower’s Audi’s to B ird’s shop. Bird also testified that he did not agree to do that job because he “didn’t feel comfortable dealing w ith them anymore.” JA 1329. Around this time, Carter spoke to his friend Clarence Sampson. Sampson testified that Carter said that “somebody was telling o n him [Hightower] and he [Carter] has to handle it.” JA 1031. Then on May 25, 2016, Carter obtain ed and activated a new burner phone. Using the burner, Carter messaged Mosley and said, “This is Davo, lock me in.” JA 694, 2273. Late in the evening on May 26, 2016, Mosley woke up his girlfriend and asked her to teach him how to look up cases on the Maryland judiciary’s website. Th e G overnment

6 contends that Mosley was trying to check for Edmond’s addres s through the stat e court case information available online. Edmonds was in fact scheduled to appear in court on the next day, May 27, 2016, at 9:30 AM in an unrelated matter. Her ho me address was fully visible. On the ni ght of Ma y 26, 201 6, at 9: 13 PM and 10:04 P M, Mosle y and Ca rter had two brief calls. On May 27, 2016, Mosley left his apartmen t at some time before 6:15 AM, according to testimony from his girlfriend. His girlfriend indicated that it was unu sually early. Mosley said that he had to drop his daughter off at school, although he later admitted to his girlfriend that this was a lie and that he was out to restock his drug supply. Carter also left his apartment at abou t 6:00 AM, according to his own girlfriend’s testim ony. Shortly after the men left their hom es, their respective girlfriends beg an to call and text their phones to confirm where th ey were. N either man answered. Instead they were communicating with each other, at 6:13 AM and 6:15 AM. Lisa Edmo nds lives ne xt door t o Latrina As hburne. At around 7:00 AM, Aquana Murray, a neighbor of Latrina Ashburne, saw a man chasing M s. Ashburne before pulling out a gun and shooti ng her. Murray reported the shooter as a Black man dressed in a hoodie and jeans. The Government states that the shooter was Davon Carter, who mistook As hburne for Edmo nds and s hot her. By the time the police arrived at 7:20 AM, Ashburne was lying f ace down i n a pool of blood. She was pronounced dead at the hospital. The police obtained security cam eras from a nearby apartment comp lex. T he footage showed the suspected shooter ru nning away from the scene, and that the sh ooter had an awkward gait. Text messages and witn ess testimony later revealed that Carter h ad

7 injured his back at work several months prior to the shooting, and that he was still experiencing pain around the time of the shooting. T he footage also showed two v ehicles driving around and circling th e area between 6:16 AM and 7:28 AM. T hese two vehicles were a Pontiac Grand Am and an Audi. Although the Audi’s plate could not be identified, the license plate on the Pontiac was registered to Antoinette King, who was the mother of Carter’s girlfriend. The girlfriend an d her mother confirmed that Carter drove th e Pontiac at times. Meanwhile, Edmo nds learned that h er neighbor had been murdered and called law enforcement, st ating that she believ ed the shot was meant for h er. Police th en investig ated whether High tower, who had previo usly contacted Ed monds and expressed that she was the informant fo r his indict ment, was in volved with th e shooting. A search of his cell revealed the paper contain ing Carter and M osley’s numb ers, and a search of h is jail calls revea led that Hightow er had spok en with Carter several times in the day s leading u p to the s hooting. Police then obtained a search warrant for Carter’s Pontiac. As the officers were waiting to execute the warrant at Carter’s home, th ey saw a man leave the house and enter a black BMW SUV. Police stopped the BMW, smelled marijuana, and asked Carter about it. According to police testimony, Carter admitted he had marijuana, which led to the police searching the vehicle, finding large amounts of marijuana and cash. Po lice also found a license plate that was later traced back to an Audi that belonged to Hightower. Witnesses testified that Mosley and Carter had driven th is Audi at times. Police took Carter to the Baltimore City Police department fo r questioning. They recovered three cellphones from Carter that d ay.

8 On August 10, 2016, police found the Audi from the surveillance at an automobile repair shop. It was missing the front license plate and instead h ad a European - style plate on the front. On December 23, 2016, police interviewed Mosley. Mosley agreed to the interview, which took place at the Baltimore Co unty Police Department. Mosley also consented to law enforcement searches of h is phone. Using cell - site analysis, law en forcement determined that Carter and Mosley had been in the area of Rosalind Avenue on the morning of the shoot ing. Carter was charged with Ashbu rne’s murder in 2017. When Mosley’s girlfriend learned of the news, she asked Mosley if he had an ything to do with the mu rder. M osley only said, “You just never k now ... it might not be over.” JA 1241. B. On March 5, 2019, Mo sley was charged in a superseding in dictment with (1) conspiracy to murder a witness to retaliate against a person for providing information to law enforcement; (2) murder of a witness to retaliate against a person for pro viding informa tion to law enforcemen t; (3) conspiracy to murder a w itness to tamper with an official proceeding; (4) murd er of a witness to tamper with an official proceeding; and (5) distribution of marijuana. Carter filed several pretri al motions, in cluding a motion to su ppress the evid ence from the seizu re of his p hones. Mosley filed a mo tion to sever, se eking a sep arate trial fro m Carter and a sepa rate trial betw een the witn ess - murder coun ts and the mariju ana coun ts.

9 The d istrict c ourt denied Carter’s motion to suppress. The C ourt noted th at police had a search warrant for the Pontiac and saw Carter enter the P ontiac before getting into the BMW and driv ing away. The C ourt held that this was enough to create a reasonable articulable suspicion to allow for a stop of the BMW. And after the o fficers smelled the marijuana, there was probable cause to arr est Carter and search the v ehicle. The d istrict c ourt likewise denied the severance motions, finding that the evidence of m arijuana - trafficking would be admissible as important contex t for the witness - murder charges, even if the counts were severed. On September 17, 2019, Carter filed another motion to suppress, argu ing that the Baltimore City Police Department lacked jurisd iction to place him in custody while h e was in Baltimore County. The C ourt denied this motion, holding th at state statutory concerns about the jurisdiction of BPD officers did not imp act Carter’s constitutional rights. T he C ourt also held that the officers were involved in a joint federal - state law enforcement investigation, and the cross - border activity w as thus permissible. The matter proceeded to trial. After 13 days, th e jury returned a guilty v erdict against both Mosley and Carter on all coun ts. Mosley was sentenced to life in prison as to the witness - murder counts and 60 months concurrent on the marijuana distribu tion counts. H e now brings this appeal. II. Mosley makes three arguments on appeal: (1) T he witness - murder charges should have been severed from the marijuana d istribution charges; (2) e vidence from the search

10 of Carter’s phones and car should have been suppressed; and (3) t here was insufficient evidence for convict ion. For the reasons stated h erein, these arguments are without m erit. A. Mosley appeals the d istrict c ourt’s denial of the motions to sever the defendants and to sever the witness - murder charges from the mariju ana distribution charges. We review “de novo the district court’s refusal to grant defendants’ misjoind er motion to determine if the in itial joinder of the offen ses and defendants was pr oper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) a nd 8(b) respectively.” United States v. Can nady, 924 F.3d 94, 102 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). If the initial jo inder was not proper, the Court reviews for harmlessness and will reverse unless the misjo inder resulted in no actual prejudice to the defendants. Id. If the initial join der was proper, this Court rev iews denials of pre - trial motions to sever for abuse of discretion. Id. The Federal Rules favo r “very broad joinder.” United Sta tes v. Mackins, 315 F.3 d 299, 412 (4th Cir. 2003). Two o r more offenses can be joined if they “are of th e same or similar character, or are based on th e same act or transaction, or are conn ected with or constitute parts of a com mon scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Two or more defendants can be joined if those defendants “are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or tran sactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b). Here, it is evident that the allegation s connect Carter and Mosley to the same conspiracy to murder Edmonds. Moreov er, the underlying marijuana offenses are essential to establishing the connection between Carter, Mosley, and Hightower, giving no t only

11 background information about their relation ship but also providing a motive — because of the trafficking activity, Carter and Mosley were not just connected to Hightower through friendship but through financial ben efits. See United States v. Contreras, 149 F.4th 349, 370 (4th Cir. 2025) (findin g initial joinder proper w here “Appellants committed the charged crimes with the same purp ose of furthering the ‘mission’ of MS - 13 and getti ng promoted in the gang”). Although M osley attempts to argue that the marijuan a offenses and the murder offenses ought to be severed because they are “n ot of the same or similar character,” Rule 8 clea rly permit s joinder when acts “are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Because in itial joinder comport ed with Rule 8, it was proper. For the same reasons, w e discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s den ial of Mosley’s motions to sever. See United States v. Oloyede, 933 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[T]his is not one of the ‘rare’ cases where a defendant properly joined under Rule 8(b) with others has established that a severa nce was required to preserve his or h er right to a fair trial.” (citation o mitted)). E ven if the charges were improperly joined, th at error was harmless. Th e district court instructed the jury to separately evaluate each defendant’s g uilt. J.A. 1758 – 59; United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 450 (1986) (“When there are few defendants and the trial court is aware of the potential for prejudice, the risk of transference of guilt over the border of admissibility may b e reduced to a minimum by carefully crafted limiting instruction with a strict charge to consider the guilt or innocence of each defendant independently.”). Further, the evid ence of the marijuana trafficking wou ld have been admissible to provide critical context for the conspiracy. S ee Fed. R. E videnc e 404(b)(2)

12 (“[Character] evidence may be adm issible for another purpose, such as p roving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, id entity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”); cf. U nited States v. Ha wkins, 76 F.3d 200, 211 (finding improper joinder was not harmless where, inter alia, the evidence of one ch arge would not have been admissible in a trial related to the other ch arge). Joinder was proper, the d istrict c ourt d id not abuse its discretion when denying the motions to sever, and even if there was error, it was harmless. W e therefore affirm the d istrict c ourt’s decision. B. Mosley contends that the d istrict c ourt wro ngfully denied Carter’s motion to suppress marijuana and phone ev idence for two reasons: (1) The Terry stop - search on his BMW lacked reasonable suspicion and (2) the Baltimore City Police did not have jurisdiction to detain Carter in Baltimo re County. We review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.” United States v. Perkins, 363 F. 3d 317, 320 (4th Cir. 200 4). Where the district court has denied the motion to suppress, we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the g overnment. Id. Here, we do not reach the merits of Mosley’s argumen ts because Mosley lacks standing to raise either argument. He cannot claim Fourth Amendment rights in the evidence collected from Carter. The Supreme Court has held that Fourth Amendment rights “are personal” and cannot be asserted vicariously. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133 – 34 (1978). It is not enough that Mosley was “ ‘ aggrieved ... by the introduction of

13 damaging evidence.’” United States v. Castellanos, 716 F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 1 71 – 72 (196 9)). Instead, Mosley must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place the officer searched — but the Supreme Court ha s held that in general, one cannot have such an expectation in the belongings of another person. See United S tates v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 82 (1 993). Mosley fails to show that he is an ex ception to this principle. For this reason, we cannot consider the d istrict c ourt’s denial of the supp ression motion. C. Mosley finally attempts to argu e insufficiency of the evidence. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judg ment of acquittal. United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 4 64, 473 (4t h Cir. 201 8). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the relevant question is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 31 9 (1979). A jury verdict should be affirmed wh en it is supported by “substantial evidence” viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 12 5, 140 (4t h Cir. 200 9). Here, the facts obtained from witness testimony and physical evidence overwhelmingly connect Hightower, Carter, and Mosley — and specifically tie Carter and Mosley to the scene of the shoo ting at the time of the shooting. The Governme nt has presented a complete and cohesive story for why and how the murder was committed, explaini ng each piece from motive to the interplay of the three cars. The jury verdict was no doubt supported by substantial evid ence.

14 III. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the d istrict c ourt’s jud gment and u phold the jury’s verdicts. AFFIRMED