United States v. Terence L. Jones ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                      No. 99-4413
    TERENCE LORENZO JONES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-98-355)
    Submitted: January 31, 2000
    Decided: February 22, 2000
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges,
    and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    John B. Mann, LEVIT, MANN & HALLIGAN, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John S. Davis,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Terence Lorenzo Jones appeals his jury convictions and resulting
    120-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (1994) and possession with intent to distribute in viola-
    tion of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a) (1994) and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (1994). We
    affirm.
    Jones first contends that the district court improperly admitted
    expert testimony on the mode and operation of drug dealing. Expert
    testimony based upon specialized knowledge is admissible if it will
    assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid.
    702. A trial judge has wide discretion in balancing the probative value
    of such evidence against any danger of unfair prejudice under Fed. R.
    Evid. 403. See United States v. King, 
    768 F.2d 586
    , 588 (4th Cir.
    1985). We have reviewed the record and find that the district court
    did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. Jones next
    argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's ver-
    dict. We find that the evidence presented at trial, taking the view most
    favorable to the Government, was sufficient to support the conviction.
    See Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942). We therefore
    affirm Jones' convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
    sional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4413

Filed Date: 2/22/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014