United States v. Wright

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARTY LORENZO WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-4555

ALLEYNE REED WRIGHT,

No. 97-4556

Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

JAMES EDWARD GREENHOW, a/k/a James Neal, a/k/a Candyman,

No. 97-4557

LEVI HAWKINS,

No. 97-4561

2 No. 97-4562

No. 97-4563

No. 97-4564

3 versus

ORRIE GAINES HOLMES, a/k/a Chopper,

No. 97-4565

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-44, CR-95-39)

Submitted: June 2, 1998 Decided: July 24, 1998

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Noland Grinnalds, Hampton, Virginia; Richard Chisolm Kerns, Newport News, Virginia; Wesley Lee Pendergrass, Hampton, Virginia; Richard S. Yarrow, Hampton, Virginia; Robert Bruce Jones, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellants. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were convicted of various charges stemming from

their respective roles in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine

and marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. § 2 (1994); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

846 (1994). In addition, several Appellants were convicted of

firearms charges related to the drug conspiracy. See 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1998); 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp.

1998). For his role as the leader of the conspiracy, Marty Lorenzo

Wright also was convicted of conducting a continuing criminal

enterprise (CCE). See 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) & (c) (1994). Finding no

merit to any of Appellants’ assignments of error, we affirm their

convictions. 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