UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4046

DARRELL LAMONT ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CR-00-139)

Submitted: June 29, 2001

Decided: July 12, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Bruce C. Sams, SAMS & SCOTT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Darrell Lamont Robinson appeals his conviction and 120-month

custodial sentence subsequent to his jury trial on charges of violating

18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (conspiracy to receive, possess and conceal stolen

firearms and ammunition), 922(j) (possession of stolen firearms and

ammunition), and 922(g)(9) (possession of a firearm and ammunition

by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence).

For reasons stated herein and upon our careful review of the briefs

and joint appendix, we affirm. 

On appeal, Robinson claims the district court abused its discretion

in admitting several rounds of ammunition seized upon his arrest as

evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). However, Robinson’s not guilty

plea placed his intent to conspire to steal and possess firearms and

ammunition at issue, and the contested evidence was offered for that

purpose, rather than to demonstrate criminal character. Additionally,

the type of rounds seized matched the caliber of several weapons

stolen as a result of the conspiracy charged, indicating the evidence

was both probative as to a necessary element of the crimes charged

and reliable. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir.

1997). In light of the proximity of the rounds to Robinson at the time

of his arrest, and evidence indicating Robinson possessed similarly

calibered rounds on at least one other occasion, there is little risk of

unfair prejudice to Robinson. See id. Accordingly, we find there was

a sufficient basis for admitting the rounds as evidence under Rule

404(b). 

Robinson also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain

his conviction on one count of conspiring to possess firearms and

ammunition, and four counts of disqualified possession of firearms

and ammunition. However, as to the conspiracy charge, at least two

co-conspirators testified at trial as to both Robinson’s instigation and

2 UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON
furtherance of the conspiracy. Specifically, these individuals testified

that Robinson invited them to a residence he knew to contain firearms, and told them specifically where they were located and how

they could be taken. These witnesses also testified as to Robinson’s

involvement in removing the firearms from the premises, and subsequent distribution of those weapons among the conspirators. Because

a conspiracy may be "proved wholly by circumstantial evidence," and

a common purpose and plan "may be inferred from a development

and collocation of circumstances," we find there is sufficient evidence

to sustain Robinson’s conviction as to the conspiracy count. See

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

(internal quotation omitted). 

Robinson further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction on four counts of possessing firearms and ammunition. However, there is sufficient evidence to indicate Robinson’s

actual or constructive possession of firearms and ammunition on the

dates alleged in the conspiracy, as witnesses testified Robinson drove

the getaway car and kept one gun stolen as part of the conspiracy, and

a police officer offered unchallenged testimony that she later witnessed Robinson dispose of a magazine of ammunition. See United

States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 137 (4th Cir. 2001); United States

v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992) (allowing Government to

demonstrate constructive possession by showing "ownership, dominion or control" over the vehicle in which the contraband was concealed). Accordingly, we find these arguments meritless. 

Finally, Robinson asserts the computation of his offense level overstates his criminal conduct, as the two instances in which he was

alleged to have possessed firearms and ammunition each yielded a

pair of possession charges, and that his indictment therefore violates

this court’s holding in United States v. Dunford, 148 F.3d 385, 388

(4th Cir. 1998). However, because only one count in each pair is

predicated on 18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West 2000), rather than both, Dunford is inapplicable. See 145 F.3d at 388. Accordingly, because Robinson’s sentence otherwise comports with the requirements of the

Sentencing Guidelines, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 1B1.3, 2K2.1 (2000), we find this argument to be meritless as

well. 

UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON 3
In light of the foregoing, we affirm Robinson’s conviction and sentence, and 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

4 UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON