United States v. Harris , 221 F. App'x 230 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4659
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMEL RASHEED HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00009-jlk)
Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 21, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Court.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
I. D. Walton Caudill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamel Rasheed Harris was found guilty of aiding and
abetting (1) the possession with intent to distribute more than
five grams of cocaine base (crack) (Count 1) and (2) the possession
of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense (Count 2). On
appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions for aiding and abetting, and that the district court
erred by allowing a police officer to testify as an expert in drugs
and drug distribution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Harris alleges that there was insufficient evidence that
he aided and abetted the distribution of crack or possessed the
firearm in relationship to drug trafficking. Thus, he argues, the
district court should have granted his motions for acquittal. This
court reviews the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo. See
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006) (stating standard). Viewing the
evidence as required, we find there was substantial evidence to
support Harris’ convictions of aiding and abetting. Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to allow the police officer to testify as an
expert in drugs and drug trafficking. See Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (stating review standard for
expert testimony); United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 589
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 1994) (noting we have “repeatedly upheld the admission of
law enforcement officers’ expert opinion testimony in drug
trafficking cases”).
Accordingly, we affirm Harris’ convictions. 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 -