UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4453

THEODORE LAMONT FRAZIER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.

Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-931)

Submitted: November 26, 2003

Decided: December 22, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Amanda Bethea Keaveny, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Following a jury trial, Theodore Lamont Frazier was convicted on

one count of knowingly making a false and fictitious written statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer in connection with the

attempted purchase of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 922(a)(6) & 924(a)(1)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2003). The district

court sentenced Frazier to forty-two months in prison. Frazier timely

appealed. Frazier’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her opinion, there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting that the district court

erred by denying Frazier’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment

of acquittal. The court advised Frazier of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm Frazier’s conviction and sentence. 

Frazier contends that the district court erred by denying his motion

for judgment of acquittal. Where, as here, the motion was based on

insufficient evidence, "[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if

there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the

Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80

(1942). This court "ha[s] defined ‘substantial evidence,’ in the context

of a criminal action, as that evidence which ‘a reasonable finder of

fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion

of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’" United States v.

Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States

v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). 

To sustain Frazier’s conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(a)(6) for

making false statements in an effort to acquire firearms, the government had to show that: (1) Frazier attempted to acquire the firearm

from a federally-licensed firearms dealer; (2) in doing so, he knowingly made a false or fictitious statement; and (3) the subject of his

false statement was material to the lawfulness of the sale. United

States v. Rahman, 83 F.3d 89, 92 (4th Cir. 1996). 

Frazier asserts that the government failed to produce substantial

evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find the second element of

2 UNITED STATES v. FRAZIER
a § 922(a)(6) violation, namely that he knowingly made a false written statement in his attempt to buy a firearm. However, Frazier admitted through stipulations that he answered "no" to a question on the

federal firearms purchase form, which asked, "Have you been convicted in any court for a crime for which the Judge could imprison

you for more than one year, even if the Judge actually gave you a

shorter sentence?" He also stipulated that he had been convicted of a

crime punishable by a term of prison exceeding one year. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find that

a reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Frazier knowingly made the false and fictitious written statement in his

attempt to buy a firearm. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Frazier’s conviction and sentence. The court requires that counsel inform

her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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. FRAZIER 3