Filed: Oct. 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS GUEVARA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CR-01-270) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: October 30, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig W. Sampson, SAMPSON LAW FIRM
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4373 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESUS GUEVARA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CR-01-270) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: October 30, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig W. Sampson, SAMPSON LAW FIRM,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS GUEVARA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge.
(CR-01-270)
Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: October 30, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Sampson, SAMPSON LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, John S. Davis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Guevara appeals his conviction and sentence for
membership in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). On appeal, Guevara asserts the district
court erred in permitting the Government to admit inadmissible
hearsay into evidence. We review this claim for plain error. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 731-32
(1993). This claim is meritless. Guevara fails to establish the
admission of the challenged testimony affected the outcome of his
proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 733-37.
Accordingly, we affirm Guevara’s conviction and sentence. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2