United States v. Joseph Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2000
• Docket: 99-4532
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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