UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4732

RAMON A. COATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-73)

Submitted: June 9, 1998

Decided: July 29, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

JeRoyd Wiley Greene, III, JANIPHER W. ROBINSON, LTD., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, James B. Comey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ramon Coates appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 922(g) (West Supp.

1998) for which he was sentenced to ninety months imprisonment.

Coates claims that the district court erred in ruling that, if he were to

testify, the government would be allowed to question him, on crossexamination, regarding his prior felony convictions. Coates claims

also that the evidence of possession was insufficient to support his

conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.

The evidence presented at Coates' trial showed that on December

12, 1996, while patrolling a known drug-trafficking area of Richmond, police officers observed Coates with another individual, Mr.

Woodson. As the officers approached the two men, they separated

and began to quickly walk away from the officers. Coates got into the

back seat of a vehicle that was parked nearby. Officer Dunn testified

that he could see Coates through the back window of the car "doing

some kind of stuffing motion." The only other occupant in the back

seat was a young child.

The officers conducted a consensual search of the car and found a

fully-loaded .22 caliber handgun wedged between the back seats.

Coates was arrested and admitted that he was a felon, that he had purchased the gun for $20 on the street, and that, prior to the officers'

arrival, he had been carrying it in his pocket. At Coates' trial, the district court informed defense counsel that, if Coates testified, the government would be permitted to ask Coates about the nature of his

prior felony convictions. Coates did not testify.

Coates first claims that the district court abused its discretion by

ruling that the government would be allowed to question him regarding his prior felony convictions because he had already stipulated to

 2
the fact that he was a convicted felon. By choosing not to testify,

Coates has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. In Luce

v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984), the Supreme Court held that a

defendant who does not ultimately testify cannot challenge on appeal

an in limine ruling that would have permitted the Government to

impeach his testimony with a prior conviction, under Fed. R. Evid.

609(a), if he had chosen to testify. The court reasoned in part that any

possible harm from the trial court ruling was "wholly speculative,"

even assuming that the eventual ruling during trial would have been

the same. Id. at 41-42.

Next, Coates contends that the evidence of his possession of the

weapon was insufficient to support his conviction. A conviction must

be affirmed if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, to support a finding of guilt. See Glasser

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Circumstantial and direct

evidence are both considered, and the government is given the benefit

of all reasonable inferences. See United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d

1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Possession of a firearm for the purposes

of 18 U.S.C. § 922 may be constructive. See United States v. Blue,

957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Poore, 594 F.2d

39, 43 (4th Cir. 1979).

We find that the evidence presented at Coates' trial clearly supported his conviction, especially in light of the fact that he admitted

to the officers that he had purchased the weapon and that, immediately prior to the officers' arrival, he had been carrying it in his

pocket. Accordingly, we affirm Coates' 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

 3