United States v. Johnson , 200 F. App'x 177 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MELVIN WARREN JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-05-156)
Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Warren Johnson was convicted of possessing with
intent to distribute cocaine (Count 1), maintaining a place for the
purpose of manufacturing, distributing and using cocaine (Count 2),
possessing firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon (Count 3),
and possessing firearms in furtherance of the drug trafficking
crimes alleged in Counts 1 and 2, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c) (West Supp. 2006) (Count 4). He timely appeals, arguing
that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
Count 4.
Viewing the evidence as required, United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996), we find there was
substantial evidence to support Johnson’s § 924(c) conviction for
Count 4. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We
reject Johnson’s argument that there was insufficient evidence that
the guns at issue were in furtherance of his drug trafficking.
United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). To the
extent that Johnson alleges erroneous jury instructions regarding
Count 4, this court only reviews for plain error, because he failed
to object to the instructions below. Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 30(d).
We find no plain error in the district court’s instructions for
Count 4. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993)
(giving review standard for plain error).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’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 -