Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levern Junior JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-09
Citations: 221 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 06-4518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levern Junior JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levern Junior JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-4518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2007.
Decided: March 9, 2007.
Randolph Marshall Lee, Law Offices of Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Levern Junior Jacobs was convicted of being a felon in possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by denying his proposed jury instruction regarding confession evidence.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to issue Jacobs' proffered instruction. United States v. Helem, 186 F.8d 449, 454 (4th Cir.1999) (stating standard). In particular, we find that there was sufficient evidence of Jacobs' guilt unrelated to his confession of possessing the firearm at issue. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488-89, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (noting that a conviction must rest on more than uncorroborated admission or confession); United States v. Hall, 396 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir.1968) (same). Accordingly, we affirm.
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.