Court Opinion

ID: 1001378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:54:45.257028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:02.662997
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                     No. 99-4532
JOSEPH B. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Joseph
Williams,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-99-45)

Submitted: March 28, 2000

Decided: April 19, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul A.
Weinman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Joseph B. Williams appeals his conviction by a jury for his role in
a bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) & (d) (1994), and
a related firearms offense. See 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c) (1994). On appeal,
Williams contends that the district court erred in declining to suppress
evidence concerning the results of what Williams contends was an
impermissibly suggestive photographic array. Without finding that the
array was suggestive, we nonetheless uphold the district court's ruling
on the motion to suppress because our review of the record reveals
that the identification was reliable. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188,
199-200 (1972); see also Holdren v. Legursky, 16 F.3d 57, 61 (4th
Cir. 1994) (noting that reviewing court may rule on reliability of iden-
tification without determining whether threshold requirement of sug-
gestiveness has been met). Because the district court did not err in
allowing the eyewitness testimony identifying Williams as the perpe-
trator, we have no difficulty in finding that the district court properly
denied Williams's motion for judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United
States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3376 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1999) (No. 98-852).

Williams also suggests that the district court erred in declining to
issue a supplemental instruction with regard to evidence that Williams
claims was irrelevant and potentially confusing. There is no indication
of an abuse of the district court's discretion in declining to instruct the
jury to disregard the evidence in question. See United States v. Hor-
ton, 921 F.2d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 1990). Neither is there the slightest
suggestion of plain error in the district court's failure to sua sponte
order a mistrial as a result of the jury's verdict in this case. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993).

Finding no merit to any of Williams's contentions on appeal, we
affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument

                     2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3