Court Opinion

ID: 1000736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:45:22.256705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:01.447989
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4463

MARGARET M. ADKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.
(CR-98-194)

Submitted: January 6, 2000

Decided: February 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts,
United States Attorney, Karen L. Bleattler, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret M. Adkins appeals her conviction for being a convicted
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(1994). On appeal, Adkins contends that the evidence adduced at trial
was not sufficient to support her conviction and that the district court
violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing certain testimony regarding
her actions and demeanor on the evening of her offense. We have
reviewed the evidence of record and find that it amply supports
Adkins' conviction. See United States v. Hoyte , 51 F.3d 1239, 1245
(4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir.
1993). Adkins' contentions amount to little more than an invitation to
this court to revisit the credibility of the Government's witnesses, a
course of action we routinely decline. See United States v. Murphy,
35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Neither can we discern any error
stemming from the district court's failure to exclude testimony
describing Adkins' actions and appearance on the evening in ques-
tion. United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464-65 (4th Cir. 1995).

Finding no merit to either of Adkins' contentions on appeal, we
affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    2