Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coleman Leake JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-12
Citations: 40 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 01-4793
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coleman Leake JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 40
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coleman Leake JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4793.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2002.
Decided July 12, 2002.
Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Charlottes-ville, Virginia; Scott L. Reichle, Reichle & Reichle, P.C., Yorktown, Virginia, for Ap pellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Ap-pellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Coleman Leake Johnson appeals his conviction and life sentence for arson resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (1994). Finding no error, we affirm.
Johnson contends the district court erred in its jury instruction regarding the interstate commerce element of the offense. We review the failure to properly instruct the jury on an element of the offense for harmless error. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-15, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). The test for harmless error is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Id. at 15. The error is harmless if it is uncontested and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 700-01 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 240 (4th Cir.1998). We find the district court properly instructed the jury.
Johnson also contends the Government violated the anti-gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). We find no such violation. See United States v. Levenite, 277 F.3d 454 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 2312, 152 L.Ed.2d 1066, (2002); United States v. Anty, 203 F.3d 305 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 853, 121 S.Ct. 131, 148 L.Ed.2d 84 (2000).
Johnson contends the district court erred in admitting evidence that Johnson offered to pay a friend to set a trip wire to cause a former wife to fall and miscarry; that Johnson reacted angrily when a girlfriend informed him she believed she was pregnant; and that he and a friend stole cars together. Johnson also contends the district court erred in reversing its pretrial ruling excluding the car theft evidence. We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1996), and find none.
Accordingly, we affirm Johnson's conviction and sentence. 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.