United States v. Harris

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 02-4263 JERMAINE MAURICE HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-00-331-L) Submitted: August 16, 2002 Decided: September 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. HARRIS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Jermaine Maurice Harris appeals his conviction following a jury trial of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in viola- tion of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Harris was sentenced to sixty- three months in prison and three years of supervised release. We affirm. Harris argues the district court erred when it gave a jury instruction regarding flight. The district court’s decision to give the jury instruc- tion and the content of the instruction are reviewed for abuse of dis- cretion. United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1992). Generally, a consciousness of guilt may be deduced from evidence of flight, and a jury’s guilty finding may be supported by consciousness of guilt. United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 665 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 86 (2001). In order for a flight instruction to be appropriate, the evidence must establish all the supporting inferences that link the flight to consciousness of guilt for the crime charged. Id. Thus, the evidence must establish that the defendant fled or attempted to flee, and the evidence must support "inferences that (1) the defen- dant’s flight was the product of consciousness of guilt, and (2) his consciousness of guilt was in relation to the crime with which he was ultimately charged and on which the evidence is offered." Id. We have reviewed the evidence in light of these considerations and find no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm Harris’ conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED