Court Opinion

ID: 1002463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:11:25.531368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:37.649364
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 99-4810

CARL DOUGLAS CONSOLVO,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-4)

Submitted: July 20, 2000

Decided: September 14, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gor-
don, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael G. James, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carl Douglas Consolvo appeals from his conviction by jury and
sentence on charges of car jacking, possession of a firearm by a fugi-
tive, and use and carry of a firearm during a crime of violence, in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(c) (West 2000); 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2119 (West Supp. 2000). On appeal, Consolvo claims that the dis-
trict court abused its discretion in denying his request to proceed pro
se at trial, and failed to state adequately the reasons for its decision
ordering Consolvo to be fully shackled during trial.

We have reviewed the record and Consolvo's claims, and find no
reversible error. Specifically, we find that the district court considered
appropriately relevant factors in its determination that Consolvo
would not be allowed to proceed pro se, given the circumstances in
this case. See United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1099 (4th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Dunlap, 577 F.2d 867, 868 (4th Cir.
1978). In addition, we find that the district court's findings with
regard to its order that Consolvo be fully restrained during the trial
were adequate to support its determination. See United States v. Sam-
uel, 431 F.2d 610, 615 (4th Cir. 1970). We therefore affirm Con-
solvo's 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