United States v. Rogers ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERNEST LEE ROGERS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-4972
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN N. SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERJUAN DEVULA JOYNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-325)
Submitted: June 10, 2003 Decided: July 8, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Carlyle Steele, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas G.
Nessler, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina; W. Douglas Richardson,
Jr., Easley, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond,
Jr., United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Nancy C. Wicker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Lee Rogers, Jonathan Smith, and Jerjuan Joyner appeal
their convictions in a jury trial of the following offenses:
carjacking a vehicle transported in interstate commerce, and aiding
and abetting each other in the carjacking, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 2119 (2000); using and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2000);
and conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during a crime of
violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (2000). Finding no
error, we affirm.
The only issue in these consolidated appeals is whether the
district court erred in admitting into evidence a handgun that
witnesses described as consistent with the gun used in the crime.
Our review is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Queen, 132
F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997). We find that the court did not abuse
its discretion and therefore affirm the convictions and sentences
of each of the appellants. 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
3