Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. REDMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-12
Citations: 36 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 02-4082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. REDMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. REDMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 21, 2002.
Decided June 12, 2002.
Kirk H. Bottner, Law Office of John W. Askintowicz, III, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Muck-low, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Appellant Charles E. Redman of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). On appeal, Redman argues that the district court plainly erred by: (1) giving the jury a written, as opposed to an oral, Allen charge; (2) providing the jury with the Allen charge before the jury had adequate time to deliberate; and (3) providing the jury with the Allen charge before determining whether the jury was deadlocked. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Because Redman did not object to the district court's decision to give the jury a written, modified Allen charge in response to a jury question stating it was having a "problem" with the verdict, our review is for plain error. Under the plain error standard, Redman must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). If these three elements are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice the error only if the error "seriously affeet[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Redman bears the burden with respect to demonstrating that his substantial rights have been prejudiced as a result of the alleged errors. United States v. Bollin, 264 F.3d 391, 420 n. 20 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 122 S.Ct. 303, 151 L.Ed.2d 225 (2001), and — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 1544, — L.Ed.2d —(2002).
We find no plain error with any of the issues raised by Redman with regard to the written, modified Allen charge. Accordingly, we affirm Redman'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.
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).