PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY KENDELL GEORGE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-4131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY KENDELL GEORGE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge (4:21-cr-00041-M-1); James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00050-D-1)

Argued: January 24, 2024 Decided: March 11, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4617 Doc: 58 Filed: 03/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 25

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined. Judge Thacker wrote a concurring opinion.

ARGUED: Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lucy Partain Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4617 Doc: 58 Filed: 03/11/2024 Pg: 3 of 25

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

Terry George (“Appellant”) was charged with being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. In the midst of

trial, Appellant learned that the Government’s key witness had changed his story two

weeks before trial, but the Government had failed to disclose that information to Appellant.

The jury convicted Appellant. In a post-trial motion to vacate his conviction or order a

new trial, Appellant argued that the Government’s failure to disclose the change in

testimony of its key witness violated Brady. 1 The district court disagreed and denied

Appellant’s motion.

At the time of his felon in possession conviction, Appellant was serving a term of

supervised release as a result of a separate criminal conviction. Based on his felon in

possession conviction, the district court revoked Appellant’s supervised release.

Appellant appeals both the denial of his post-trial motion and the revocation of his

term of supervised release. Because we determine that the Government’s failure to disclose

the changed testimony was not material to Appellant’s defense, we affirm the district court

in both cases.

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (“[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4617 Doc: 58 Filed: 03/11/2024 Pg: 4 of 25

I.

A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document