UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4444

CASSANDRA DEE FLOWERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-361)

Submitted: November 19, 2002

Decided: December 16, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Frank W. Dunham, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Cassandra Dee Flowers appeals her convictions and sentence for

possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2000), and possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of controlled substances in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (2000). She raises five issues on

appeal, contending that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict

her of the firearm charge; (2) the district court erred in failing to submit a requested instruction to the jury; (3) the district court erred in

denying her motion to suppress; (4) the district court clearly erred in

declining to give her credit for acceptance of responsibility; and (5)

the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a

mistrial. Finding no merit to Flowers’s claims, we affirm. 

First, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that

Flowers was an unlawful user of controlled substances at the time she

possessed the firearm. A reviewing court must uphold a jury’s verdict

if there is substantial evidence to support it. Glasser v. United States,

315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied

that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding. 

We next address whether the district court should have given an

expanded instruction to the jury regarding the definition of an unlawful user. The refusal to give a requested instruction is reversible error

only if "the instruction (1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point

in the trial so important, that failure to give the requested instruction

seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense."

United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 564 (4th Cir. 2000). We

need not decide whether the first two requirements are met here

because the third plainly is not. The evidence concerning Flowers’s

heroin use was compelling, and Flowers did not attempt to controvert

it. Thus, the denial of her request for an instruction did not impair her

ability to conduct her defense. 

Next, we find that the district court did not err in denying Flowers’s motion to suppress. Although Flowers contends that the officers

did not have authority to enter her residence without a warrant, we

2 UNITED STATES v. FLOWERS
find that the district court correctly concluded that she consented to

the officers’ entry. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219

(1973) (noting that consent is a well-recognized exception to the

Fourth Amendment warrant requirement). 

We also find that the district court did not clearly err in denying

Flowers an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2001). Flowers not only put

the Government to its burden of proof at trial, but also consistently

maintained that she is not an unlawful user of drugs and thus has

never accepted responsibility for the firearms charge. 

Finally, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Flowers’s motion for a mistrial. Flowers objects to two

statements made by Officer Howell during direct examination. Our

review of the record reveals that Flowers cannot demonstrate that she

was prejudiced by these statements. Where the jury acquits the defendant of at least some of the charges, we have found "strong evidence

that the district court’s denial of [her] motion for mistrial did not

result in the type of prejudice that warrants reversal." United States

v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 817 (4th Cir. 1995); see also United States

v. West, 877 F.2d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 1989) (same). Here, the jury

acquitted Flowers of the most serious charge—maintaining a place for

the distribution and storage of controlled substances. 

Accordingly, we affirm Flowers’s convictions and sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. FLOWERS 3