United States v. Campbell , 104 F. App'x 302 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4903
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID H. CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-02-13)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melissa J. Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Christopher Todd
Hagins, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David H. Campbell appeals his conviction on one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). He contends that the district court erred in refusing to
instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of justification. We
affirm.
On September 23, 2001, Campbell was awakened by Tracy
Thompson, who thought intruders were at their home. Campbell
looked through a peephole in the front door and saw two men; one
appeared to be carrying a gun. Someone shook the doorknob.
Campbell, a convicted felon, grabbed a handgun from Thompson’s
purse and ran after the intruders. He returned to the house and
told Thompson he had chased off two men but there were two others
unaccounted for. He instructed Thompson to call the police and
went back outside, again with the gun. Deputies arrived, and
Deputy Marsh found Campbell in the woods. Campbell was standing
still and smoking a cigarette, and the handgun was in his
waistband. Campbell testified that he was waiting for deputies to
arrive.
We conclude that the district court correctly denied
Campbell’s request for a justification instruction. At the time
Deputy Marsh found Campbell, Campbell was not under a present,
specific, imminent threat of death or injury. Furthermore, instead
of going back into the woods, he and Thompson could have left the
- 2 -
home or waited inside the home for deputies to arrive. At least
two of the four elements that a defendant must establish in order
for a court to instruct on justification were thus absent in this
case, see United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir.
1989), and the court did not err in refusing the requested
instruction. See United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869, 871 (4th
Cir. 1995); United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 621 (4th Cir.
1994).
We accordingly affirm. 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
- 3 -