United States v. Boone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 01-4801 SHIRLEY J. BOONE, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-00-356) Submitted: March 26, 2002 Decided: April 8, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Adam C. Rhea, JENKINS & RHEA, P.L.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 UNITED STATES v. BOONE OPINION PER CURIAM: Shirley J. Boone appeals her conviction and sentence imposed after a jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, and two counts of possessing with intent to distrib- ute cocaine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(B)(ii), 846 (West 1999); 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Boone contends on appeal that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to dis- tribute cocaine under count two of her indictment. Viewing the evi- dence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find a reasonable trier of fact could have found Boone guilty beyond a rea- sonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Boone next contends her indictment lacked specificity and was thus fatally deficient. Boone’s objection to the specificity of the indictment is waived by her failure to properly raise it in the trial court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2), (f). Accordingly, we affirm Boone’s 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