Court Opinion

ID: 988152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:48:42.987039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:12.098957
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 95-5052

TRACY LEE CHARLTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 95-5053

TRINI LOUIS CHARLTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury.
William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.
(CR-94-188)

Submitted: November 15, 1995

Decided: January 8, 1996

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Nils E. Gerber, WRIGHT, PARRISH, NEWTON & RABIL,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Gerald E. Rush, Salisbury, North
Carolina, for Appellants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attor-
ney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Timika
Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Tracy and Trini Charlton, appeal their convictions
of bank robbery,1 bank robbery with a dangerous weapon,2 and carry-
ing and using a firearm during the bank robbery. 3 The Appellants con-
tend that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions
and that a proper foundation was not laid for a witness's opinion testi-
mony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the convictions and sen-
tences.

We review a denial of a motion for acquittal under a sufficiency
of the evidence standard.4 To sustain a conviction the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the government, must be suffi-
cient for a rational jury to have found the essential elements of the
_________________________________________________________________

1 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1988).
2 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1988).

3 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1988).

4 FED. R. CRIM. P. 29; United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1147
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 60 U.S.L.W. 3879 (U.S. 1992).

                    2
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.5 All reasonable inferences from the
facts proven to those sought to be established may be made.6

The government presented substantial evidence that the Appellants
robbed a bank. Both Trini and Tracy gave similar confessions to
investigators admitting responsibility for the bank robbery. A car
driven by Tracy matched the description of the vehicle observed leav-
ing the scene of the crime, and clothes matching those described by
witnesses, and verified by the bank surveillance photographs as worn
by the robbers, were found in the car. Further, bills matching the
serial numbers of the money taken in the bank robbery were recov-
ered from Trini's automobile.

The Appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that
they used a firearm in the commission of their crime. Several wit-
nesses testified that the bank robbers used a sawed-off shotgun and
pistol in connection with the crime. Bank surveillance photographs
corroborated the witnesses' descriptions of the weapons. Further, the
Appellants, in their confessions, admitted to using a sawed-off shot-
gun and a BB gun that looked like a .45 caliber pistol. From the evi-
dence presented, we find there was sufficient evidence for a rational
trier of fact to convict the Appellants on all charges.

Finally, the Appellants assert that the district court erred by allow-
ing a witness to testify that Tracy called her on the telephone and
asked her not to testify. The contention is without merit. The witness
was familiar with the Appellants and had conversations with both of
them. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that she recognized
Tracy's voice. Moreover, the court's evidentiary rulings are entitled
to substantial deference.7

We therefore affirm the Appellants' convictions and sentences. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
_________________________________________________________________
5 United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993); see
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
6 United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
7 United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1104 (4th Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 61 U.S.L.W. 3479 (U.S. 1993).

                    3
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    4