UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RANDOLPH HARRIS AUSTIN, a/k/a Randolph Harris, a/k/a 

Matarbus Raynard Fewell, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00213-RJC-DCK-1) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher R. Clifton, GRACE, TISDALE & CLIFTON, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Randolph Harris Austin was convicted by a jury of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver cocaine and crack 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(B)(1)(A), 846 (2006) 

(Count One), and attempt to possess with intent to deliver 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006) 

(Count Two). The district court sentenced Austin as a career 

offender to life imprisonment on Count One, and 360 months’ 

imprisonment on Count Two, to run concurrently with Count One. 

Austin’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming the district court 

erred in allowing Agent Terry Tadeo to testify as both a fact 

witness and as an expert witness, but concluding that there are 

no meritorious issues for appeal. Austin has raised a number of 

additional issues in his supplemental pro se brief, including 

the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, 

judicial error in the admission of evidence of flight and in the 

denial of Austin’s motion for a new trial, and ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

 By counsel and pro se, Austin claims error in the 

district court’s allowing Agent Tadeo to testify both as a fact 

witness and as an expert witness. Specifically, Agent Tadeo 

testified at the beginning of the trial with regard to his 

personal observations and the electronic monitoring of a 

2 
transaction whereby an undercover police officer undertook to 

“sell” nine ounces of “sham” cocaine to Austin. Agent Tadeo 

also was qualified and testified at the conclusion of the 

Government’s case as an expert witness as to drug amounts, which 

Austin objected to pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403, and which he 

asserts on appeal confused the jury and bolstered the testimony 

of Austin’s co-conspirator, Jerry Starr. 

 We review the district court’s decision to admit 

expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 273 (4th 

Cir. 2007). Austin has not demonstrated how Agent Tadeo’s dual 

role confused the jury, and his conclusory claims in support of 

his position are insufficient. Nor did he request a cautionary 

jury instruction, and we find no plain error in the failure of 

the district court to give one. See United States v. Olano, 507 

U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). 

 We have reviewed the additional issues raised by 

Austin pro se and find them to be without merit.* In accordance 

with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have 

 *

 Austin’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

is not cognizable on direct appeal unless such ineffectiveness 

appears conclusively on the face of the record, which it does 

not. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th 

Cir. 2006). 

3 
4 

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm 

Austin’s conviction and sentence. 

 This court requires that counsel inform Austin, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Austin requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Austin. 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