United States v. Fields ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4119
JAMES REECE FIELDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-71-1)
Submitted: August 7, 2000
Decided: September 15, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
J. Douglas Fleenor, Bristol Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,
Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United
States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
James Reece Fields was convicted by a jury of five counts of pos-
session of a firearm by a convicted felon and being an armed career
criminal in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West
2000). Fields' attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he argues that the evidence was insuf-
ficient as to four of the charges, but represents that there are no argu-
able issues of merit in this appeal. Fields has filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising additional grounds for relief. We affirm.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Govern-
ment, see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. The Government prop-
erly relied on eyewitness testimony to establish that Fields possessed
the firearms. See United States v. Anderson, 78 F.3d 420, 423 (8th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Government was not obligated to admit the firearms into evi-
dence or demonstrate that the weapons were operable. See United
States v. Adams, 137 F.3d 1298, 1229 (11th Cir. 1998); United States
v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 491 n.2 (4th Cir. 1993).
Fields' pro se arguments regarding the prosecutor's performance
and the sentencing computations have no merit. His claim of ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel is not cognizable on direct appeal because
it does not plainly appear on the face of the record that counsel was
ineffective. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th
Cir. 1991). This claim should be brought in a proceeding under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the convic-
tions and sentences. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this
time. This court requires that counsel inform Fields in writing of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Fields 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 representation. Counsel's motion
2
must state that a copy thereof was served on Fields. 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
,