United States v. Thompson ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                    No. 96-4047
    OLIN D. THOMPSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-92-296)
    Submitted: September 28, 1999
    Decided: October 12, 1999
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Kenneth P. Andresen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
    T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Olin Thompson appeals his conviction and sentence for
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of
    
    21 U.S.C.A. § 846
     (West Supp. 1999). On appeal, he argues that the
    trial court made numerous erroneous rulings resulting in reversible
    cumulative error, that sufficient evidence did not exist to support his
    conviction, and that the court erred in failing to depart downward
    based upon an overstated criminal history. Finding no error, we
    affirm.
    We find that the court did not err in admitting the contested testi-
    mony. See United States v. D'Anjou, 
    16 F.3d 604
    , 610 (4th Cir.
    1994). We find that the testimony was relevant and not unduly preju-
    dicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. In addition, Internal Revenue Ser-
    vice Agent Smith's testimony was relevant to unexplained wealth and
    therefore admissible. See United States v. Grandison, 
    783 F.2d 1152
    ,
    1156 (4th Cir. 1986). Clinton Bates' testimony was proper under Fed.
    R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). We also find that the evidence was sufficient
    to support the conviction. See United States v. Glasser, 
    315 U.S. 60
    ,
    80 (1942). Finally, we find that the district court knew that it had the
    authority to depart and chose not to do so; therefore the decision is
    not subject to review. See United States v. Bayerle, 
    898 F.2d 28
    , 30-
    31 (4th Cir. 1990).
    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