Filed: Jun. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: Filed: June 15, 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Nos. 98-4232(L) (CR-97-160) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Christopher Lamont Lewis, etc., et al, Defendants - Appellants. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed May 4, 1999, as follows: On page 3, first full paragraph, line 8 - the phrase is cor- rected to begin “that the trial court did not abuse its discre- tion . . . .” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISH
Summary: Filed: June 15, 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Nos. 98-4232(L) (CR-97-160) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Christopher Lamont Lewis, etc., et al, Defendants - Appellants. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed May 4, 1999, as follows: On page 3, first full paragraph, line 8 - the phrase is cor- rected to begin “that the trial court did not abuse its discre- tion . . . .” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHE..
More
Filed: June 15, 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 98-4232(L)
(CR-97-160)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Christopher Lamont Lewis, etc., et al,
Defendants - Appellants.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed May 4, 1999, as follows:
On page 3, first full paragraph, line 8 -- the phrase is cor-
rected to begin “that the trial court did not abuse its discre-
tion . . . .”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER LAMONT LEWIS, a/k/a Fuzz,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 98-4235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY LOPEZ GRIFFITH, a/k/a Rodney Bess,
a/k/a Rodney Lopez, a/k/a Rod Dog, a/k/a
Rodney Lopez Griffin,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 98-4237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY TERRONE PURVIS, a/k/a Rod Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-97-160)
Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Thomas
N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Thomas K. Maher, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Charles J.
Alexander, II, Benjamin D. Porter, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney,
Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
In these three consolidated appeals, Christopher Lamont Lewis,
Rodney Lopez Griffith, and Rodney Terrone Purvis, appeal their jury
convictions and resulting sentences for their participation in
conspiracies to distribute drugs in Kimberly Park, a housing
project in Winston Salem, North Carolina. Because we find the
evidence sufficient to support the jury convictions of Lewis and
Purvis, see United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc); that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting certain evidence of Lewis’s drug sales and an agreement
by Griffith to sell marijuana, see United States v. Rawle,
845 F.2d
1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988); that the court did not clearly err in
determining drug quantity at Lewis’ sentencing, see United States
v. Vinson,
886 F.2d 740, 742 (4th Cir. 1989); and that the Gov-
ernment did not violate federal law in offering testimony from
convicted drug dealers, see United States v. Singleton,
165 F.3d
1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc), we affirm all of the Appellants’
convictions and sentences.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions of the parties are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4