Court Opinion

ID: 999276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:23:15.482929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:12.346425
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 98-4701

EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-97-98)

Submitted: July 6, 1999

Decided: July 19, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for Appel-
lant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael G. James, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., appeals his conviction for conspir-
ing to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (1994), possessing with intent to distribute marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1999). Finding no error, we
affirm.

Graham assigns error to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury
on the definition of reasonable doubt. However, this panel is bound
by our circuit precedent that a trial judge need not define reasonable
doubt unless requested by the jury or there is evidence that the jury
applied the reasonable doubt standard in an unconstitutional manner.
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994); United States v.
Patterson, 150 F.3d 382, 388 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
___U.S.___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3436 (U.S. Jan. 11, 1999) (No. 98-6967).

The Defendant alleges that the Government's case was"unconstitu-
tionally tainted" with induced testimony from cooperating witnesses
in violation of his due process rights and 18 U.S.C.§ 201(c)(2)
(1994). The Government's principal witnesses against the Defendant
agreed to truthfully testify in exchange for a recommendation for sen-
tencing leniency. The Defendant did not object to this alleged error
at trial; therefore, it is evaluated under the plain error standard. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The plain error standard requires proof that
there is an error that is clear and obvious under existing law. See
United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1995). The
Defendant principally relies upon a panel decision of the Tenth Cir-
cuit, which was recently rejected and vacated en banc in United States
v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 1999 WL
185874 (U.S. Jun. 21, 1999) (No. 98-8758), to support his claim of

                     2
error. There is no valid precedent in this or any circuit court to uphold
this argument, and a number of circuits have rejected it. See, e.g.,
United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999) (No. 98-9005); United States v. Ware, 161
F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1348 (1999) (No.
98-8312). If there was an error, it is not plain and obvious under exist-
ing law because no Supreme Court or circuit court opinion stands to
support that position. Therefore, the Defendant is not entitled to relief
on this claim.

The Defendant alleges that the evidence at trial was not sufficient
to support his conviction on the 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) violation. We
find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. See
United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 976-77 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, ___U.S.___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3816 (U.S. Jun. 26, 1998) (No. 97-
9221); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997).
The Defendant further alleges that the evidence at trial was not suffi-
cient to convict him on the counts of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute mari-
juana. We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the convic-
tions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

The Defendant assigns error to the trial court's ruling allowing
Crystal Lazarus to testify regarding her medical condition during and
after the robbery and admitting her hospital medical records, with tes-
timony from the records keeper and a registered nurse. We conclude
that the court's evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion,
see United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 610 (4th Cir. 1994),
because the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudi-
cial effect that it may have had. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

We decline to review the cumulative effect of the alleged trial court
errors because we find the claims to be without merit. The Defendant
requested that we review the entire record for any further errors in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Specifi-
cally, he points to an error in his offense level determination. We have
reviewed the entire record and found no other meritorious issues.

We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                    3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    4