United States v. Bruce Shelton ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4824
BRUCE SHELTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-303-A)
Submitted: May 25, 1999
Decided: June 14, 1999
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Pamela O. Bar-
ron, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Shelton appeals from his conviction, following a bench trial,
for operating a motor vehicle while a habitual offender by driving in
such a way as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (1994) assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-
357(B)(2) (Michie 1998), and four misdemeanor traffic offenses.
Shelton challenges only the conviction on the felony count. Shelton
assigns error to the district court's admission of his Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) record and alleges that the felony conviction
is not supported by sufficient evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admit-
ting Shelton's DMV record. The record was properly admitted under
Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), and properly authenticated under Fed. R. Evid.
901(b)(7) and Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-215 (Michie 1998). We conclude
that the felony conviction for operating a motor vehicle in such a way
as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another was supported by
sufficient evidence. The district court relied upon not only the evi-
dence of intoxication, but testimony regarding the dangers of Shel-
ton's driving in making its finding of guilt on the charge. See Glasser
v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); Bishop v. Commonwealth,
455 S.E.2d 765, 766 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
We therefore affirm the judgment. 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
2