United States v. Davis ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4330
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH LOUIS DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-02-552)
Submitted: December 10, 2003 Decided: May 7, 2004
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Ivan D. Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Francis H. Pratt, Research and
Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Patrick F. Stokes, Erik Barnett,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Louis Davis appeals from the judgment of the
district court convicting him for his role in a series of armed
robberies and sentencing him to 762 months imprisonment. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Davis first claims that the district court abused its
discretion by limiting his cross-examination of Ella Mallory to
explore her potential bias. We agree with the district court that
the remoteness of an unspecified altercation between Mallory’s son
and another Government witness was lacking in any probative value.
Moreover, despite the court’s admonition, Davis inquired into the
area of Mallory’s potential bias, rendering error, if any,
harmless. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 823 (1990) (applying
harmless error standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18(1967), in context of Confrontation Clause challenge). We deny
relief on this claim.
Davis next asserts that the district court erred in
denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because “no rational
juror could find that Mr. Davis matched the height and build of the
robber.” (Appellant’s Br. at 23). A jury’s verdict “must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it.” United States v.
Glasser, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). This court does not weigh the
evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. United
- 2 -
States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of
the record discloses substantial evidence supporting the
identification of Davis as the robber of the Exxon gas station,
notwithstanding the discrepancies among some witnesses’
descriptions of the robber’s height. We will not substitute our
judgment for that of the jury on this factual matter. Accordingly,
we likewise deny relief on this claim.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 -