United States v. Gordon

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4039 JASON FLORENCIA GORDON, a/k/a Jason Florencio Gordon, a/k/a Richard Williams, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-99-71)

Submitted: July 10, 2000

Decided: July 28, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Matthew D. Pethybridge, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Kevin M. Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jason Gordon appeals his jury convictions and resulting 120 month sentence for possession of counterfeit money; interstate use of a falsely procured driver's license; interstate use of an unauthorized access device with an intent to defraud; possession with intent to dis- tribute more than five grams of crack cocaine; possession of mari- juana; and use of a false social security number. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm.

Gordon contends there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could determine he possessed counterfeit currency or from which the jury could infer intent to distribute cocaine base as opposed to only simple possession. We find there was substantial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the jury's verdicts. See Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We find no merit to Gordon's arguments that the court abused its dis- cretion in admitting evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), see United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997), or that the court erred in finding Gordon lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle he rented under a false name. United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117, 119 (4th Cir. 1994). Thus, we affirm Gordon's jury convic- tions and resulting sentence.

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