Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arander Matthew HUGHES, Jr., a/k/a Randy Hughes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-08
Citations: 1 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 99-4425
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arander Matthew HUGHES, Jr., a/k/a Randy Hughes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arander Matthew HUGHES, Jr., a/k/a Randy Hughes, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-4425.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2000.
Decided Jan. 8, 2001.
Sean P. Devereux, Sean P. Devereux, P.A., Asheville, NC, for appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., was convicted of three counts of robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(1994), two counts of bank robbery, five counts of use and carry of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1994), and two counts of carrying an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1994). He was sentenced to a total of 1120 months imprisonment. We affirm.
On appeal, Hughes argues that: (l)the district court plainly erred in admitting prior consistent statements of government witnesses; there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun; and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the Hobbs Act convictions in the absence of the jurisdictional element of an interstate commerce nexus. We have reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, and the material presented in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm Hughes' convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.