Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0663-01.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. Thomas Andrew MILLS, a/k/a Thomas Andrew Mills, Jr., a/k/a Andrew Mills, a/k/a Thomas Mills, Jr., a/k/a Thomas Anderson Mills, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04—4386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 25, 2005.
    Decided May 4, 2005.
    J. Clark Fischer, Randolph & Fischer, Winston-Salem, 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.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Thomas Andrew Mills was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Mills appeals his conviction, asserting the district court erred by admitting evidence that the guns at issue were stolen. We affirm.

Because Mills’ counsel failed to make a specific, timely objection, our review is for plain error. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). Mills must show: (1) there was error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affected his substantial rights; and (4) that “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” to such a degree that this court is persuaded to exercise its discretion to correct the error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62-63, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (internal quotations omitted). Even if Mills has identified error that is plain, Mills fails to demonstrate the error affected his substantial rights in light of the overwhelming evidence that he constructively possessed the weapons.

Accordingly, we affirm Mills’ conviction. 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