United States v. Wilson ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-4767
GREG LEO WILSON, a/k/a Shorty,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-96-41)
Submitted: July 31, 1998
Decided: August 14, 1998
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Roger A. Inger, MASSIE, INGER & IDEN, P.C., Winchester, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,
Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Patricia Tol-
liver, Third-Year Practice Intern, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appel-
lee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Greg Leo Wilson appeals from the district court's judgment con-
victing him of three counts of distributing crack cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b) (1994). Wilson's attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying
that the appeal does not present any meritorious issues but raising one
issue: whether the court erred in denying a motion for judgment of
acquittal. Wilson has filed a pro se supplemental brief contending that
the Government coerced his wife into giving false testimony at trial.
Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.
At trial, a paid informant testified for the Government stating that
he had purchased crack cocaine from Wilson on three separate occa-
sions at Wilson's home. Government law enforcement officials moni-
tored all three controlled buys, having searched the informant and his
girlfriend prior to each buy, wiring him for sound, providing him
money, and observing the location during the transactions. Wilson's
wife testified that she observed Wilson sell crack cocaine out of the
home and at other locations on numerous occasions. At the end of the
Government's evidence, Wilson moved for a judgment of acquittal,
which was denied.
A motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the evi-
dence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
29(a). We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in deny-
ing Wilson's motion. The inferences that may be drawn from the evi-
dence were more than sufficient to support a finding that Wilson sold
crack cocaine on three separate occasions. See United States v.
Greene, 834 F.2d 86, 89 (4th Cir. 1987).
In his pro se supplemental brief, Wilson asserts that the Govern-
ment coerced his wife by offering not to prosecute her in exchange
2
for her testimony. Wilson contends that as a result of the offer, his
wife falsely testified that he threatened her upon hearing that she
would testify.* We find this claim without merit. If the prosecutor
knew or should have known that his case contained perjured testi-
mony, then the conviction "must be set aside if there is any reasonable
likelihood that this evidence could have affected the judgment of the
jury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). Wilson offers
no evidence that the Government was aware that his wife was giving
false testimony.
Pursuant to the requirements of Anders, this court has reviewed the
record for potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm
Wilson's conviction and sentence. We deny counsel's motion to with-
draw at this time. This court requires that counsel inform his client,
in writing, of his 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 again move this court for leave to withdraw from repre-
sentation. 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
_________________________________________________________________
*He does not allege that his wife's testimony regarding his drug sales
was false.
3