United States v. Reid , 100 F. App'x 190 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4718
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MERRIE ELLEN REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-03-12)
Submitted: April 21, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monroe Jamison, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant
United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury found Merrie Ellen Reid guilty of conspiracy to
commit bank robbery, aiding and abetting an aggravated armed bank
robbery, conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of the
robbery, aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm in
furtherance of the robbery, conspiracy to commit carjacking, aiding
and abetting in carjacking, conspiracy to possess a firearm in
furtherance of carjacking, and aiding and abetting in the
possession of a firearm in furtherance of carjacking. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 924(o), 924(c), 2113, 2113(a), 2113(d), 2113(e),
2119, 3559(c) (2000). Reid was sentenced to 572 months of
imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised
release.
Reid’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising five potential issues:
(1) whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to
strike a juror for cause; (2) whether the court abused its
discretion in denying Reid’s motion to sever; (3) whether the court
abused its discretion in denying expert testimony; (4) whether the
evidence was sufficient on counts three, four, seven and eight of
the indictment; and (5) whether the court erred in enhancing Reid’s
offense level for abduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
- 2 -
§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) (2002). Reid was advised of her right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but declined to do so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike
the juror for cause, in denying Reid’s motion to sever or in
excluding Reid’s expert’s testimony. Further, in viewing the
verdict in the light most favorable to the Government, we find
substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt on all
counts. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942);
United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in its
application of the abduction enhancement to Reid’s offense level.
United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating
standard of review). Therefore, counsel’s proposed arguments are
without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Reid’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 3 -
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
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
- 4 -