UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MAURICE COLBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:12-cr-00268-CCB-1)

Submitted: May 29, 2015 Decided: June 8, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Murtha, MURTHA, PSORAS & LANASA LLC, Lutherville, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

A jury convicted Maurice Colbert of armed bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), (f), 2 (2012), forced 

accompaniment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(e), 2 (2012), 

and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), 2 (2012). On appeal, 

Colbert challenges his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that the 

district court erred when it instructed the jury, both initially 

and in response to a jury question, that eyewitness testimony 

and photographic evidence “is sufficient” to sustain a 

conviction under § 924(c) if the jury finds the evidence 

“credible and reliable.” We affirm.

“We review the district court’s jury instructions in their 

entirety and as part of the whole trial, and focus on whether 

the district court adequately instructed the jury regarding the 

elements of the offense and the defendant’s defenses.” United 

States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 469 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation 

omitted). Colbert acknowledges that his failure to object to 

any part of the instructions on the § 924(c) charge subjects 

this issue to plain error review. United States v. Robinson, 

627 F.3d 941, 953 (4th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, 

Colbert must show: (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, 

and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. 

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 735-36 (1993). Further, we will 

2
exercise our discretion and reverse a conviction based on a 

plain error only where the error “seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. at 732, 736 (brackets and internal quotation 

marks omitted).

“The purpose of jury instructions is to instruct the jury 

clearly regarding the law to be applied in the case.” United 

States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 34 (4th Cir. 1995). We have 

reviewed these instructions in the context of the overall 

charge, and conclude that they fairly and accurately set forth 

the controlling law. United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 207 

(4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th 

Cir. 1998) (“Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove that a 

person used a firearm.”). Colbert has not demonstrated that the 

challenged instruction usurped the jury’s role in weighing the 

evidence against the burden of proof. 

Accordingly, we affirm Colbert’s conviction. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the material before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

3