United States v. Alvin Dale Lewis

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN DALE LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-4369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN DALE LEWIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-61-V, CR-98-123-V) Submitted: March 31, 2000 Decided: April 18, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph L. Ledford, LEDFORD & MURRAY, P.C., Charlotte, North Caro- lina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Dale Lewis appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and a related conspiracy offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). On appeal, Lewis contends that his prose- cution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because it followed the forfeiture of a significant amount of currency and personal property seized at the time of his arrest. See United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 280 (1996). Because Lewis failed to advance this argument in the district court, our review of the issue is constrained to a search for plain error. See United States v. Jarvis, 7 F.3d 404, 409 (4th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993) (defining plain error). How- ever, our review of the record reveals no error of that magnitude. See Ursery, 518 U.S. at 280; see also Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582, 593 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dis- pense 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