eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2008-02

United States v. Galloway , 264 F. App'x 266 ( 2008 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTONIO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Yoda,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00309-WLO)
Submitted:   January 24, 2008           Decided:    February 12, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Michael Galloway of three counts of
distribution of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000).           The district court sentenced
Galloway   to   concurrent   240-month   sentences.   Galloway   timely
appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to one
conviction and the admission of evidence under Fed. R. Evid.
404(b).    Finding no error, we affirm.
Galloway first contends the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction for Count One, which alleged he distributed
crack on or about March 6, 2006.    The jury’s verdict must be upheld
on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support
it.   See Glasser v. United States,
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).      Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and
assuming the jury resolved all contradictions in the Government’s
favor, see United States v. Romer,
    148 F.3d 359
    , 364 (4th Cir.
1998), we conclude a reasonable finder of fact could accept the
evidence presented at trial as adequate and sufficient to establish
Galloway guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the first count.        See
United States v. Burgos,
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
Second, Galloway contends the testimony of a witness who
claimed he observed Galloway distribute marijuana on a date not
alleged in the indictment was admitted by the district court in
- 2 -
violation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).        Rule 404(b) only applies to
acts extrinsic to the crime charged; when evidence is admitted “as
to acts intrinsic to the crime charged, and is not admitted solely
to demonstrate bad character, it is admissible.”       United States v.
Chin,
    83 F.3d 83
    , 88 (4th Cir. 1996).      In light of this principle,
we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting this testimony.     See United States v. Williams,
    445 F.3d 724
    , 732 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
    127 S. Ct. 314
     (2006) (holding
abuse of discretion only occurs when trial court acted arbitrarily
or irrationally in admitting evidence).
Accordingly,   we    affirm    Galloway’s   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 -