Case ID: f-appx_67/html/0830-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Lee ROGERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan N. Smith, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerjuan Devula Joyner, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-4971, 02-4972, 03-4219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2003.
    Decided July 8, 2003.
    
      C. Carlyle Steele, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas G. Nessler, Jr., Green-ville, South Carolina; W. Douglas Richardson, Jr., Easley, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy C. Wicker, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Ernest Lee Rogers, Jonathan Smith, and Jerjuan Joyner appeal their convictions in a jury trial of the following offenses: carjacking a vehicle transported in interstate commerce, and aiding and abetting each other in the carjacking, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2119 (2000); using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) (2000); and conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.

The only issue in these consolidated appeals is whether the district court erred in admitting into evidence a handgun that witnesses described as consistent with the gun used in the crime. Our review is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir.1997). We find that the court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm the convictions and sentences of each of the appellants. 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.