Court Opinion

ID: 1002538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:12:26.407573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:43.835123
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 99-4366

ARNOLD LORENZO PAIGE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-98-324-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: September 20, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN,* NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

G. Bruce Park, LANGE & PARK, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior
to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Arnold Lorenzo Paige appeals his jury conviction and resulting one
hundred month sentence for assault on jail personnel in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West 2000). We affirm.

Paige's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Cali-
fornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court
erred in allowing testimony that no disciplinary action was taken
against the jail officers involved in the case and whether the court
erred in concluding as a matter of law that the officers were assisting
the United States Marshal's Office at the time of the assault.

We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting evidence that no disciplinary action was taken
against the officers. See United States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d 382, 387
(4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1086 (1999). We also find the
court properly concluded the officers were assisting the Marshal's
Office at the time of the assault. See United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d
143, 145-47 (4th Cir. 1994).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm Paige's
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his
client in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from represen-
tation. See 4th Cir. R. 46(d). Counsel's motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on the client. See id.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2