United States v. Carter

28 F. App'x 293
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 2002
Docket01-4447
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 F. App'x 293 (United States v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Carter, 28 F. App'x 293 (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Anthony Carter was found guilty by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Carter was sentenced, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.2001), to 360 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Carter appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. Five co-conspirators testified to Carter’s drugs transactions over the course of the charged conspiracy, and two law enforcement officers gave testimony relating the content of two confessions Carter made to them about his drug transactions as described in the indictment. Because the jury’s determination regarding the witnesses’ testimony is not reviewable, Carter’s appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is meritless. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Carter also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to continue his sentencing hearing when a transcript of the trial was not prepared prior to the hearing. We find no abuse of the court’s discretion. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983); United States v. Speed, 53 F.3d 643, 644 (4th Cir.1995).

To the extent that Carter raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record does not demonstrate conclusively that counsel failed to provide effective representation. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).

We affirm Carter’s conviction and sentence. We deny Carter’s motion to appoint new counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carter v. United States
536 U.S. 931 (Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 F. App'x 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carter-ca4-2002.