Case ID: f-appx_73/html/0598-01.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. Pernell Jeffrey SELLERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 7, 2003.
    Decided Aug. 25, 2003.
    Harry A. Smith, III, Jory & Smith, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Pernell Jeffrey Sellers was convicted of: Count 2, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); Count 3, killing or causing a killing in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, 21 U.S.C. § 848(e) (2000); Count 4, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, 2 (2000); and Count 5, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2000). This court affirmed the convictions on appeal. See United States v. Sellers, No. CR-97-20 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 17, 2000) (unpublished).

Thereafter, Sellers filed a motion for new trial based upon Denise Grantham’s recantation of her trial testimony. Sellers alleged that this “newly discovered” evidence provided him a basis for a new trial regarding his convictions for Counts 3, 4 and 5. After holding a hearing, the district court denied the motion relying on United States v. Wallace, 528 F.2d 863 (4th Cir.1976). We have reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, and do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Roberts, 262 F.3d 286, 293 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 991, 122 S.Ct. 1548, 152 L.Ed.2d 473 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.