UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4393

MONTIQUA JARVELL BRYANT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

David A. Faber, Chief District Judge, sitting by designation.

(CR-02-215)

Submitted: February 27, 2004

Decided: April 6, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

J. Michael Mills, MILLS & WILLEY, New Bern, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Montiqua Jarvell Bryant was convicted of witness tampering, in

violation 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) (2000), and making a false statement

to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2000). On appeal,

he alleges the district court erred in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29

motion for acquittal. He also claims the district court improperly

applied the cross-reference provision in the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, § 2B1.1(c)(3) (2002). 

Where, as here, a motion for acquittal 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). 

Bryant argues that when he told Ricky Carraway that if anyone

asked about the gun purchases to say that he did not know anything,

he was merely instructing Carraway to tell the truth. Bryant further

argues that he did not make a false statement to a federal agent

because he did not know William Boyd by his proper name or by the

name "Cheeseburger." We must assume that the jury resolved these

issues in the Government’s favor. See United States v. Wilson, 115

F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). We find that there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support

the jury’s verdict. United States v. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80. 

Bryant next argues that the application of the USSG § 2B1.1(c)(3)

cross-reference was in error. We review de novo a district court’s

legal interpretation of a guideline. United States v. Souther, 221 F.3d

626, 628 (4th Cir. 2000). 

Bryant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making a

false statement to a federal agent "in connection with the investigation

of various firearms offenses, including straw purchases and interstate

transportation of firearms." (J.A., Vol. I at 18). For such a violation,

USSG § 2B1.1 provides the applicable guideline offense level. See

USSG App. A; USSG § 2B1.1. 

2 UNITED STATES v. BRYANT
In pertinent part, USSG § 2B1.1(c)(3) provides that if "the defendant was convicted under a statute proscribing false, fictitious, or

fraudulent statements or representations generally (e.g., 18 U.S.C.

§ 1001 . . .); and [ ] the conduct set forth in the count of conviction

establishes an offense specifically covered by another guideline in

Chapter Two (Offense Conduct), apply that other guideline." USSG

§ 2B1.1(c)(3). The introduction of the indictment, Count One, and

Count Two all reference Bryant’s involvement with firearm offenses.

Therefore, the probation officer applied the guidelines for firearm violations under USSG § 2K2.1. Since Bryant’s conduct, as set forth in

the count of conviction, established a firearm offense specifically covered in USSG § 2K2.1, the district court correctly adopted the probation officer’s application of the cross-reference. See USSG

§ 2B1.1(c)(3). 

Finding no error, we affirm. 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. BRYANT 3