UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4725
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONNIE J. AUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-02-124)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Peter S. Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donnie J. Austin was convicted of possession with intent
to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000),
possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2000),
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000), and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1,3) (2000). On appeal, he alleges the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
We find that there is substantial evidence, taking the
view most favorable to the Government, to support the jury’s
verdict. United States v. Glasser, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Austin’s counsel asserts that the firearm found near crack cocaine
in Austin’s apartment should not be considered actively employed in
furtherance of his drug trafficking. However, we must assume that
the jury resolved this issue in the Government’s favor. See United
States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus, we
deny Austin’s motion to substitute attorney, deny his motion to
extend time to file pro se formal brief, and affirm his 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -