United States v. Eaton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4382
GENE R. EATON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-95-178)
Submitted: February 13, 1997
Decided: February 28, 1997
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
James O. Broccoletti, J. F. Hoen, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, P.C.,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attor-
ney, Robert E. Bradenham II, Assistant United States Attorney, Nor-
folk, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Gene R. Eaton, Jr. appeals his jury convictions for armed bank rob-
bery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) (1994), and using and carrying a
firearm during the robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). Finding no
error, we affirm.
First, Eaton claims the Government failed to present sufficient evi-
dence that his gun was actually a firearm, rather than a toy gun. We
review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the
evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution, includ-
ing all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 82 (1942); United States v.
Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992). A verdict must be sus-
tained if supported by substantial evidence. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80.
Four eyewitnesses testified that Eaton brandished a firearm during
the robbery. Additionally, another witness testified that Eaton told
him he used a Tec-9 firearm during the robbery, and another witness
testified that Eaton inquired about obtaining a firearm to use in the
robbery. While the Government did not present expert testimony that
the gun was an actual firearm, eyewitness testimony is sufficient to
sustain a conviction. United States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th
Cir. 1990). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government,
there was substantial evidence to uphold Eaton's convictions. See
Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80.
Second, Eaton claims the trial court committed plain error by
admitting testimony about his drug use. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725 (1993). If error, it must have been"clear" and seriously
affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceed-
ings. Id. at 732.
2
One witness testified that Eaton asked him to participate in the rob-
bery while they were smoking marijuana. Two other witnesses testi-
fied that Eaton told them about the robbery to prove he had money
to purchase drugs. These statements did not constitute plain error
because, even if error, they did not seriously affect the fairness, integ-
rity or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. See id. Further, the
Government presented substantial evidence that Eaton committed the
crimes, including eyewitness testimony and surveillance photographs.
Accordingly, we affirm Eaton's convictions. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3