UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4974

CURTIS L. WARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-109)

Submitted: June 23, 1998

Decided: August 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph W. Kaestner, KAESTNER & PITNEY, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Cameron Heaps Macaulay, Special 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

A jury convicted Curtis Lee Ward of possession of marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (1994), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1998), and possession of a firearm

and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1998). He was sentenced to 101 months'

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Ward

contends that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him under § 924(c). Finding no error, we affirm.

On February 25, 1997, three Richmond police officers were on

patrol and discussing doing a "knock and talk" at Ward's home.1

Three nights earlier, two of the officers, John O'Connor and Michael

Musselwhite, had been called to the scene of an abduction and

attempted robbery involving Ward. Ward and his girlfriend had been

sitting in Ward's vehicle when several masked perpetrators attempted

to rob Ward and abducted his girlfriend at gun point. On the night of

the abduction, Ward stated that he believed "Kim Wills and his gang"

had been the perpetrators. Ward also told Officer O'Connor that he

believed that Wills thought that Ward had some money. The officers

knew Wills as a mid-level drug dealer in Richmond; this knowledge,

in conjunction with the facts surrounding the abduction and attempted

robbery, gave rise to a suspicion in Officer O'Connor's mind that

Ward may have had ties to a drug dealer.

_________________________________________________________________

1 A "knock and talk" is an investigative police procedure in which officers knock on a door, introduce themselves as police officers, and based

on the observable reaction of the subject, the offices may seek permission to search the residence.

 2
On February 25, the three officers were passing by Ward's home

and noticed that he was coming out of his front door. Officer

O'Connor walked through Ward's front yard and up onto the porch.

As he approached, Officer O'Connor began casually speaking to

Ward, who froze in place as soon as he noticed the officers. Officer

O'Connor asked Ward whether his girlfriend had ever been found.

Ward stated that she had been dropped off in another part of the city

by the gunmen, and that she made it back to his house sometime later

during the evening of the abduction. While observing Ward's behavior, Officer O'Connor also noticed that Ward was trembling and he

began nervously looking back and forth. The officer also noticed several bulges in Ward's clothing, so he asked Ward if he had a gun.

Ward said "yes," and then reached down towards the gun. At that

point, Officer O'Connor handcuffed Ward and patted down Ward's

clothing. The officer retrieved a loaded nine millimeter pistol with a

round in the chamber, an extra loaded magazine, a cellular telephone,

a pager, $2500 cash,2 and two marijuana cigarettes from Ward's

clothing.

Next, in response to Officer O'Connor's questions, Ward admitted

that he had no concealed weapon permit and that he had been previously arrested. Officer O'Connor placed Ward under arrest and

advised him of his Miranda rights. Ward then consented to a search

of his house, in which the officers found another marijuana cigarette,

razor blades, and baggies containing marijuana residue. The officers

also found a Norinco assault rifle with a round in the chamber, two

loaded magazines, plus a large amount of ammunition.

Ward was charged with possession of a controlled substance, using

and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense, and

being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He filed a

motion to suppress all evidence seized from his person and his home,

alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the

police trespassed upon his property without a warrant. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress. Ward was then

tried by a jury and found guilty on all charges. He timely noted an

appeal from the order of conviction.

_________________________________________________________________

2 Ward initially stated that the $2500 came from the sale of his vehicle,

but later admitted that the money was proceeds from the sale of drugs.

 3
When reviewing the district court's denial of a motion to suppress,

this court reviews the district court's ultimate conclusion de novo, but

its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.

Han, 74 F.3d 537, 540 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1239 (1996);

United States v. Williams, 10 F.3d 1070, 1077 (4th Cir. 1993). Ward

argues that the officers had no legal basis for entering his property,

and that the officers approached him on his porch in order to coerce

his consent to a search of his home. However, this court has held that:

[a]bsent express orders from the person in possession

against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or

public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned violation of the person's right of privacy, for any

one openly and peaceably . . . to walk up the steps and

knock on the front door of any man's "castle" . . . whether

the questioner be a pollster, a salesman, or an officer of the

law.

United States v. Taylor, 90 F.3d 903, 909 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting

United States v. Hersch, 464 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1972)). Although

there was a fence around Ward's property, there were no signs posted

to prohibit trespassing.3 Further, when he saw the officers approaching, Ward could have, but chose not to, go back inside his home;

rather, he participated in casual conversation with Officer O'Connor

by answering his questions about the incident with Ward's girlfriend.

Thus, because Ward gave no express orders to the officers refusing

admittance to his property, we find that the officers were lawfully on

Ward's front porch. See id. Accordingly, the district court did not err

when the court denied the motion to suppress.4

Next, Ward argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction under § 924(c) because the Government failed to

_________________________________________________________________

3 It is not clear from the record whether there was a gate. However,

there was no testimony that the gate, if any, was locked or latched.

4 To the extent that Ward challenges the officers' questions regarding

whether he was carrying a gun, and their decision to handcuff him for

their own safety when they learned he had a gun, their actions were not

improper. See United States v. Atlas, 94 F.3d 447, 450-51 and n.4 (8th

Cir. 1996); United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir. 1993).

 4
establish that he carried the firearm "during and in relation to" the

drug offense. This court reviews sufficiency of the evidence deferentially, sustaining the verdict if the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, is such that a rational trier of fact could

find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States,

315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see also United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,

862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (in banc), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 65

U.S.L.W. 3586 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1997) (No. 98-6868). To prove a violation of § 924(c), the Government must show that: "(1) [Ward] used

or carried5 a firearm, and (2) . . . did so during and in relation to a

drug trafficking offense or crime of violence." United States v.

Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997).

To establish that a firearm was carried "in relation to" the drug trafficking offense, the government must prove that the firearm had

"`some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime'

and [that] its presence was not `the result of accident or coincidence."

Id. at 654 (quoting Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993)).

"The firearm must facilitate, or potentially facilitate, the drug trafficking offense." Id. The Government established at trial that Ward was

carrying a loaded 9 millimeter pistol, an extra loaded magazine, a cellular telephone, a pager, $2500 cash, which Ward admitted was the

proceeds from drug sales, and two marijuana cigarettes. In addition,

the officers found more marijuana, guns, razor blades, baggies containing marijuana residue, an assault rifle and a large amount of

ammunition inside Ward's home. In light of this evidence, a rational

trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ward was a

drug dealer and that he was carrying the weapon to facilitate his trade.

See Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80. Accordingly, we affirm Ward's § 924(c)

conviction.

_________________________________________________________________

5 The indictment and the judgment order state that Ward used and carried a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. When

a jury returns a verdict on an indictment that charges several acts in the

conjunctive, the verdict will stand if the evidence is sufficient to establish

any of the acts charged. See Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 420

(1970). Thus, the Government only had to establish that Ward either

used or carried the firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

offense. See id.

 5
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

 6