United States v. Don Nixon, Jr.

── United States v. Don Nixon, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 23-4686 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DON EUGENE NIXON, JR., a/k/a Storm, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Red Storm, a/k/a Big Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00071-D-1) Submitted: April 3, 2026 Decided: April 16, 2026 Before QUATTLEBAUM and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Christopher M. Young, YOUNG LAW FIRM, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4686 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Don Nixon, Jr., of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; six counts of distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, in violation of § 841(a); and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of § 841(a). The district court sentenced Nixon below his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 720 months’ imprisonment. Nixon appeals, arguing that the district court erred during voir dire by failing to ask potential jurors a question about bias based on gang affiliation and that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the following reasons, 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, 389 F.3d 111, 117 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Yet the Constitution does not dictate the necessary depth or breadth of questions” a district court must ask prospective jurors to assess impartiality. United States v. Bowman, 106 F.4th 293, 302 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “district courts have broad discretion to determine what questioning is sufficient,” with the exception of questions about racial prejudice in a case “where racial issues are inextricably bound up with the conduct of a trial and the defendant has requested such questioning.” Id. at 303 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “a specific objection or request during the voir dire process is required to preserve the objection for appeal,” and a list of proposed questions supplied to the court, 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4686 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 without more, will not suffice. United States v. LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815, 829 (4th Cir. 1990). Unpreserved arguments are reviewed for plain error, and “[s]atisfying that standard requires: (1) an error; (2) that is clear or obvious under the law at the time of review; (3) that