Court Opinion

ID: 992942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:00:11.500571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:27.914834
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN C. POTEAT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY; ARCHIE L.
O'NEIL,                                                             No. 96-7310
Defendants-Appellees,

and

BROWNING-FERRIS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William G. Connelly, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-2238-JFM)

Submitted: August 19, 1997

Decided: September 3, 1997

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John C. Poteat, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Daniel Wallace, Laura Jean
Gwinn, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro, Mary-
land, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Poteat appeals a jury verdict rendered against him in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action alleging, among state claims, deprivation
of civil rights arising out of a traffic stop. The record does not contain
a transcript of the jury trial. Poteat has been granted in forma pauperis
status; thus, the Government may provide a free transcript if it is
determined that the appeal presents a "substantial question." See 28
U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating
non-frivolousness and substantiality. See Maloney v. E. I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967). A substantial
question has been held to be one that is "reasonably debatable," Ortiz
v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F. Supp. 903, 905 (D. Md. 1959), or one
"where the law appears to be settled, but where the Appellant is able
to show that his chances of changing the law on appeal are strong."
Lee v. Habib, 424 F.2d 891, 905 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Conclusory allega-
tions do not establish a substantial question. King v. Carmichael, 268
F.2d 305, 306 (6th Cir. 1959).

An appellate court must accept a jury's verdict if it is supported by
substantial evidence. See Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28, 30 n.4 (4th
Cir. 1988). "Substantial evidence" is such relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the conclusion
even if different conclusions might also be supported by the evidence.
Gibraltar Sav. v. LDBrinkman Corp., 860 F.2d 1275, 1297 (5th Cir.
1988). A jury verdict cannot be set aside unless the evidence, viewed
in the light most favorable to the Appellee, is so clear that reasonable
people could reach no other conclusion than that asserted on appeal.
Coates v. Daugherty, 973 F.2d 290, 293 (4th Cir. 1992).

Under this standard and upon consideration of the arguments raised
by Poteat on appeal and the record presently before the Court, we
conclude that Poteat does not present a substantial question warrant-

                     2
ing the preparation of a transcript at government expense. Accord-
ingly, we deny Poteat's motion for a transcript at government expense
and affirm the jury's verdict. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    3